@MillyVanillification you should educate yourself on nuclear energy alittle more. did you know that after the earthquakes in japan at its highest point being in the irradiated areas for a day was the equivalent of eating 30 bananas? and the thing is that was very short lived it quickly dropped to 1 to 2 bananas. do you know why chernobyl happened it was a test where the scientists shut off all the fail safes and ignored all safety procedures and caused a steam explosion.
@MillyVanillification did you know also that the dalai lama is very pro nuclear energy and if someone like that is pro nuclear energy then you need to learn more about it. also nuclear waste goes away unlike chemical wastes and what not produced by many other plants and forms of energy
plus, they need to redesign the AGR reactors like our because they are safer than the American PWR's in the fact they cant suffer from fire or a steam explosion.
you tell em masterseph, i work in a nuclear power station in england. great fun, very safe. they wanted to build a huge wind farm with a 200MW output on our 'C' station site but it blew away because what is the point in this crappy useless form of power trying to supply power in place of a nuclear station with a 1200MW output? its simple maths. nuclear all the way.
It is not the sort of radiation releases, that we are talking about. Chernobyl has caused in creae cancer in Sweden, and made areas of the UK unable to farmed. it will kill atleeast 200,000 people, and made 3km of land uninhabitable. Humans release radiation. Your calcaulton might say humans have releasd more radiation than nuclear, that would misleasdin'
Your apology accpeted. But there is no point in contacting the NCR. Nuclear is dangerous I am dogmatically opposed to it. Nuclear will never be safe for energy stations. For all I know you could have been a floor sweeper. A containment building is not indestructbale plane would easiy rip through a containment structure. Todays are more dangerous if they destroyed. The debate is not over an accident it is over a terrorist attack.
Hiring more security people, what on earth. So no president will ever be assassinated again, no bomb will ever be planted again no aircraft will ever be bombed. Because we changed. A sucessful nuclear attack could kill millions. It is not worth the risk.
I have said it was fighter jet a tenth of the weight of a typical civilian jet. It is a total con. The wall as i have said, was not anchored, and the plane was on a track. What was the Pentagon made of, when a real civilian aircraft smashed it apart.
As long as someone offers cheap subsidized nuclear power, someone else will buy it. (Nuclear still receives far more public R&D funding then Renewables.)
If that was the case that people quit their high paid work out of fear, no one would join the army. You cannot say that because people work somewhere it must be safe. That is a spurious argument. a
Electricity consumption during day time is more than doubled. Power which follows the load can more efficiently be provided with combined heat power plants. Also, more efficient housing is essentially still the least expensive energy source.
If France wouldn't have all the electric heaters running at night and couldn't depend on foreign storage lakes, it wouldn't know what to do with all its inflexible nuclear energy. Also, during maintenance, a nuclear power plant leaves a huge gap and doesn't generate any power at all for several weeks and not just at night when the wind doesn't blow. (Actually a Swiss nuclear power plant was just off then net for over 5 month.)
Furthermore, I also didn't factor in the costs for the ultimate disposal place, the costs for the castor transportation, the costs for power plant maintenance and refueling and the costs for mining Uranium.
Again a solar cell has no moving parts, are not exposed to high temperatures, high pressures or high radiation. At least from a technical standpoint there's no reason why a photovoltaic cell couldn't last 60 years.
Thin film solar cells are basically based on window glass with a thin layer of silicon (cheap). The main costs are in the manufacturing equipment. A solar cell has no moving parts and a soil resisting coating (no maintenance needed).
No serious scinetist would pretend a 300 tonne aeroplane would just bounce of a containment building. They would destroy them. Do no believe the prop.
Greenpeace have evidence that the nuclear industry know a plane crashing into a containment structure would rip through a contaiment building. Have you seen the Pentagon? And what weapons will terrorists have in the future. The truth and what they tell tou are not the same. Truck bombs, more than one plane, guns, laser guns who knows.
Because we don't want people to die. Chernobyl has kill 200,000 people atleast, and some say more. How can you be pro green issues and support the most lethal of all energy.
"The USA must build more nuclear energy stations. It is the only way we can achieve our dream" Quote - BinLaden. "We will raidate your land for 500 years. and kill you all". Evil cackle.
With the money needed for one new nuclear power plant one can purchase 15 turnkey high tech and highly automated thinfilm solar module factories with a yearly output of 160 MW per factory from Oerlikon.
So, with these 15 Oerlikon solar module factories one can produce solar modules with a total peak power of 36'000 MW in 15 years, which is actually 22.5 times more peak power than what a new french EPR nuclear reactor delivers.
Nuclear power is criminal. The people do not know, that this stuff polutes live for a very long time 4.5 million years. It is wrong. We have to change our energy demand. How was live before we entered the electric dream. Think about it, while you are using the internet and electricity.
@MillyVanillification you should educate yourself on nuclear energy alittle more. did you know that after the earthquakes in japan at its highest point being in the irradiated areas for a day was the equivalent of eating 30 bananas? and the thing is that was very short lived it quickly dropped to 1 to 2 bananas. do you know why chernobyl happened it was a test where the scientists shut off all the fail safes and ignored all safety procedures and caused a steam explosion.
starsalzman 3 months ago
@MillyVanillification did you know also that the dalai lama is very pro nuclear energy and if someone like that is pro nuclear energy then you need to learn more about it. also nuclear waste goes away unlike chemical wastes and what not produced by many other plants and forms of energy
starsalzman 3 months ago
plus, they need to redesign the AGR reactors like our because they are safer than the American PWR's in the fact they cant suffer from fire or a steam explosion.
RADS190 4 years ago
you tell em masterseph, i work in a nuclear power station in england. great fun, very safe. they wanted to build a huge wind farm with a 200MW output on our 'C' station site but it blew away because what is the point in this crappy useless form of power trying to supply power in place of a nuclear station with a 1200MW output? its simple maths. nuclear all the way.
RADS190 4 years ago 2
It is not the sort of radiation releases, that we are talking about. Chernobyl has caused in creae cancer in Sweden, and made areas of the UK unable to farmed. it will kill atleeast 200,000 people, and made 3km of land uninhabitable. Humans release radiation. Your calcaulton might say humans have releasd more radiation than nuclear, that would misleasdin'
lonympics 4 years ago
Your apology accpeted. But there is no point in contacting the NCR. Nuclear is dangerous I am dogmatically opposed to it. Nuclear will never be safe for energy stations. For all I know you could have been a floor sweeper. A containment building is not indestructbale plane would easiy rip through a containment structure. Todays are more dangerous if they destroyed. The debate is not over an accident it is over a terrorist attack.
lonympics 4 years ago
Hiring more security people, what on earth. So no president will ever be assassinated again, no bomb will ever be planted again no aircraft will ever be bombed. Because we changed. A sucessful nuclear attack could kill millions. It is not worth the risk.
lonympics 4 years ago
I have said it was fighter jet a tenth of the weight of a typical civilian jet. It is a total con. The wall as i have said, was not anchored, and the plane was on a track. What was the Pentagon made of, when a real civilian aircraft smashed it apart.
lonympics 4 years ago
Rubbish Loads of tests have been done and the nuclear industry has failed mock terrorist attack by the us army.
lonympics 4 years ago
As long as someone offers cheap subsidized nuclear power, someone else will buy it. (Nuclear still receives far more public R&D funding then Renewables.)
microfactory 4 years ago
If that was the case that people quit their high paid work out of fear, no one would join the army. You cannot say that because people work somewhere it must be safe. That is a spurious argument. a
lonympics 4 years ago
Electricity consumption during day time is more than doubled. Power which follows the load can more efficiently be provided with combined heat power plants. Also, more efficient housing is essentially still the least expensive energy source.
microfactory 4 years ago
If France wouldn't have all the electric heaters running at night and couldn't depend on foreign storage lakes, it wouldn't know what to do with all its inflexible nuclear energy. Also, during maintenance, a nuclear power plant leaves a huge gap and doesn't generate any power at all for several weeks and not just at night when the wind doesn't blow. (Actually a Swiss nuclear power plant was just off then net for over 5 month.)
microfactory 4 years ago
It is true. And the fact you made that remark shows you doubt your own views.
lonympics 4 years ago
Furthermore, I also didn't factor in the costs for the ultimate disposal place, the costs for the castor transportation, the costs for power plant maintenance and refueling and the costs for mining Uranium.
microfactory 4 years ago
Again a solar cell has no moving parts, are not exposed to high temperatures, high pressures or high radiation. At least from a technical standpoint there's no reason why a photovoltaic cell couldn't last 60 years.
microfactory 4 years ago
Thin film solar cells are basically based on window glass with a thin layer of silicon (cheap). The main costs are in the manufacturing equipment. A solar cell has no moving parts and a soil resisting coating (no maintenance needed).
microfactory 4 years ago
No serious scinetist would pretend a 300 tonne aeroplane would just bounce of a containment building. They would destroy them. Do no believe the prop.
lonympics 4 years ago
Greenpeace have evidence that the nuclear industry know a plane crashing into a containment structure would rip through a contaiment building. Have you seen the Pentagon? And what weapons will terrorists have in the future. The truth and what they tell tou are not the same. Truck bombs, more than one plane, guns, laser guns who knows.
lonympics 4 years ago
That is not true. They are even more dangerous now. They are based on the same technology. If a plane hit it it would kill millions.
lonympics 4 years ago
Because we don't want people to die. Chernobyl has kill 200,000 people atleast, and some say more. How can you be pro green issues and support the most lethal of all energy.
lonympics 4 years ago
"The USA must build more nuclear energy stations. It is the only way we can achieve our dream" Quote - BinLaden. "We will raidate your land for 500 years. and kill you all". Evil cackle.
lonympics 4 years ago
With the money needed for one new nuclear power plant one can purchase 15 turnkey high tech and highly automated thinfilm solar module factories with a yearly output of 160 MW per factory from Oerlikon.
So, with these 15 Oerlikon solar module factories one can produce solar modules with a total peak power of 36'000 MW in 15 years, which is actually 22.5 times more peak power than what a new french EPR nuclear reactor delivers.
microfactory 4 years ago
Nuclear power is criminal. The people do not know, that this stuff polutes live for a very long time 4.5 million years. It is wrong. We have to change our energy demand. How was live before we entered the electric dream. Think about it, while you are using the internet and electricity.
videosphere 5 years ago
Great video. About time this country goes back to nuclear power.
sixpackgenius 5 years ago