Nuclear and any dangerous things will fail because of the "companies with Illimited Irresponsibility". You make the security of a nuclear plant to another company. If anything happens.... who cares, the tierce company will go bankrupt and voilà, nobody is responsible for such dangerous things.
@Gummage06 And? All the modern reactors survived both the earthquake and the tsunami, a testament to their good design. Fukushima is a very old second generation design which is never going to be built again. Given that neither hazard is particularly applicable to the UK, the events in Japan have little to no relevence.
@Gummage06 Because it has not been proven to exist,or, rather, Fleischmann and Pons were never able to demonstrate or replicate their observed results, and neither has anyone else (inspite of one study spending atleast £12 million on it alone). If you are pinning your hopes on cold fusion you will be waiting a long time. Quite what relevence it has to the subject at hand...?
@dennisrules94 Coal contains radioactive particles in minute amounts, these are released by combustion due to the lack of filtering at levels which exceed the background around most reactors. Radioactive minerals are present to some degree in virtually all rocks.
Couldn’t we just put all the asylum seekers and captured illegal’s to work on exercise bikes and treadmills linked to small generators.
Not popular I know but could solve two problems at once. Future generations would be saved from the burden of our nuclear folly and we could take even more of the homeless asylum seekers and put them to good use. Clever eh?
its not possible to produce 4 nuclear power plants every month? that may be true, but to decrease the worlds temperature b 7 degrees FARENHEIGHT, then the ENTIRE WORLD will have to go with electricity for 14 years, including hospitals, firestation, police stations etc..... i would really go for the 4 power plants every month.
@hairypeebee It is higher, but not much higher, than the rate at which France built it's nuclear power plants. It just sounds like a massive rate of contruction beacuse it is taking about the entire world.
provided also that they receive no public subsidy. Is what is said by the policy to carry out the building of these power stations well we need to protest to get these stopped.
@misszweetti Quite simply, it would. Nuclear is considered to be the second cheapest source of electricty, only hydroelectric is cheaper and that is very dependant on geography.
If the goverment gave a shit they would use a combanation of Geo-termal, wind, wave and solar power but this would stop the rich being rich so they don't.
The french have managed fine havent they? they have loads of nuclear reactors. How come they arent all dying of radiation poisening if they are so deadly? selafield is ancient. probably still learning when they made it.
Mark that word. I don't wanna say it's SOCIALIST propaganda, but people do have other motives when they push that whole idea. Real sustainability has to be achieved on a COMMUNITY level. NOT government.
The cheif 'spin doctor' for EDF is Gordon Brown's BROTHER Andrew!
Now let's try & guess why they had such a sympathetic ear from government?
It IS and ALWAYS has been about Nuclear Weapons! The old cold-war nuclear weapons are coming to the end of their shelf-life & so they need a nuke industry to be able to replace them & keep it all going!
The same money spent on a MIX of renewables would produce MUCH more power & energy efficiency could save 30% NOW!
cant solve the energy crisis with current renewable energy tech. If we have a breakthrough in semi-conductor phys, then we'll be in a position to solve the problem.
as for nucs: in this world, we need them! We need it to be very clear to any hostile country in the world, that if you hit the UK with WMD, then you will be devestated. At the moment we can do that. In a nuclear blackmale situation everyone will look after themselves! If UK was hit, america wouldnt respond unless it was hit.
1) what products do you intend to make low energy and how? tech is always driving to make lower energy products. Its not always poss.
2) you could have solar water heater, but the problem: most energy for heating water is not related to water usage, rather it is heating related. the saving is minimal (I have done the calculations)
3) heat pump is new tech and highly expensive.
4) PV is very inefficent, adv eff = 12-18%. also energy required to manufacter is massive, also sun rare in uk!
1 MOST products that work on 220 volts can work at lower voltages (like in the USA & in Europe at 110volt)..& if we produced power 'locally' it would save 10% TODAY!! (thats MORE than ALL the new nukes planned for the UK!!)
2 actually water heating is a very LARGE slice of our total energy use in this country! Obviously you haven't looked at the data!
3. ground heat systems are CHEAP when built in & when the cost is spread over the life of the mortgage. I have the figures in front of me!
less volt is less efficent than a higher one: you see power is volts*amps, so all we did was raise the volts and reduce the amp, so volts*amps is the same (i.e. the power is the same), now because power dissipated is proportional to amps squared, we can reduce energy wasted in transmission by increasing the voltage and reducing the current, whilst keeping the power the same. Our way is better thn US, but US was too big to change. Lower voltage is not lower power. they are too different things.
lol.. yes I know they are different things.. we can do BOTH!
Lower amps & lower volts!
Most products could be made to be more efficient! Like lighbulbs, TV's PC's fridges etc etc
& if we produce most of our hot water for free then thats a HUGE slice gone from our 'needs'.
/watch?v=xfzVQwW_8Jk
at the risk of repeating myself... CHP produced locally would save 10% on 'transportation' losses NOW! That MORE than ALL the new nuke power stations planned for this country!
they are working flat out to achive this. LED light bulbs are not powerful enough. They are too expensive. they have created compact flurocents and even changed the law on buying incandesents.
At present semi-conductor devices are only so efficent, and they will naturally dissipate an amount of power in use. this means our computers and televisions will use x-amount of power. We are seeing things like organic LED/LCD screens that dont use a back light and save there.
Too expensive? Not bright enough? You obviously have no idea what is out there for LED technology. I suggest you do some googling on superBright LEDs out there and price them out and compare what it is to get them to push out the same lumen as a a regular bulb and then see if your statement sticks.
I had to give a talk on LED tech. Was a big part of my physics degree june06.
Try to buy a replacement bulb for your house (today) with the same light intensity as an incandescent light bulb. Currently, its about 1w LED power = 10w of incandescent equivalent, at around £8 per watt. That equates to a pretty bad deal. I have bought such a bulb and it was pretty poor.
Also remember, human eye is most sensitive to mid-spectrum light, and LED tends to be colder, reducing eff for light
Maybe there is a better lighting solution, but I would be extremely surprised if LED tech could match flor, HID, HPS or incandescent watt/price, yet?
The added complication is that it must be yellow light for max lighting efficiency, which is why HPS is so great for streets.
I know technically although band gap is such that wavelength is normally blue, they use chemicals that absorb that and emit a more appropriate wavelength, but it is still cold light, in most cases.
looked at site: LED with 470lum, but a standard incandescent 60w will emit, lets say 800lum approx (min what people need).
Now, a cool white florescent will emit 3000lum@40w.
So, at a price of $50 = £41.47, you are getting only just over half the light output required to light a room, which would amount to less, if the light spectrum isn't mid spectrum for white light .
Lets say house need 20 bulbs, because I love the tech behind LEDs (which I do). I spend £820 = $1300. expensive.
Well where ever you are looking your pricing is way out of wack. When I can find them LED light bulbs here range from 8-12 bucks. None of this 41 BPS nonsense. Of course I used to live in the UK and I would expect much of that to be some kind of tax? Hidden or part of the vat it doesn't matter that pricing is way over the top.
8-10 bucks, in the UK, would get you a 2w unit, that would kick out approx 1/5th the lighting potential of a 100w incandescent light bulb, but in the colder end of the lighting spectrum. The 41 pound units are high end units.
Its a very expensive process making the semiconductor that has a band gap that can create a visible light source.
I did go to superBright LEDs. Maybe I missed the ones you were talking about? if you name the unit, I'll have another look?
PV is nowhere near as inefficient as you seem to think.. even in the UK if you buy a system it pays for itself within 7 years! That means you get every penny BACK! How can nukes compete with THAT?!
Furthermore.. once its paid for itself it continues to produce energy for FREE!
So if you save 1/10th of what you USED to spend on electricity to eventually replace the system then you will have energy at 10% or less of todays cost!
Also there are innovations all the time like foil printed solar cells
You have to remember, we are very northern hemisphere too, which means, that during the winter, even when the sun does shine through the usual shoud of clouds, it will do so at less intensity.
But, having said that, there are some amazing solar panels coming soon >40%eff. But they are not ready for mass production yet. Maybe when the gov have seen them in use, they might invest.
as with most things.. when they go into mass production then they get much cheaper! So too with renewable energy! It 'COULD' be really cheap.. yes even PV!! But of course the reason its being suppressed is for the old reasons of conflicts of interests (fosil fuel corporations), vested interests (old money invested in fosil fuel) & old fashioned GREED!
Oh and of course 'Governments' don't want you to be self-sufficient in energy because they get massive amounts of money from TAXING energy!
some things will neevr be cheaper in mass production,Take night vision for example: there will never be a cheap starlite technology, because the process is labour intensive, contain the same number of steps, which is why want away from that tech to IR units. PV are hugely expensive to make and cost a lot in terms of energy to make them, and also in the toxic chems used in their production. The only thing that can sort that out is a technological breakthrough. One will happen soon enough.
I have a friend doing a development in Spain & with todays technology it is EASY to make housing totally self-reliant for energy (in fact they will be exporting much of the energy they produce because the houses are designed to be so energy efficient!)
As for NUKES.. your argument is a load of BS..."if the UK was hit"??? WTF do you think would make anyone nuke a non-nuke armed country?? The ONLY reason we might get nuked is on a first strike basis because WE have nukes!
furthermore the money spent on nuclear weapons systems (which includes the submarines) would EASILY finance giving everyone renewable energy like solar & wind for their homes!
And the money spent on nuke reactors would EASILY pay for tidal lagoons all round this island AND offshore arrays of wind turbines! Then there's geo-thermal (which was developed 20 years ago) & we have some of the best wind speeds in Europe & yet the fewest wind farms!
Our efforts at doing renewables so far are PATHETIC!
6) Insulating can save, but some buildings are more suitible thn others. there is a drive to do this, but it takes a long time. You cant have a massive drive, its has to be done over a decade or more, and that is what is already being done. all these things have been factored in.
Plus) Titdal is a good viable option, when we overcome huge engineering problems. It takes time and money. wind ran into probs with metal prices.
Tesnic.. but yes its based on the TEsla turbine effect.
6... NO they have NOT been 'factored in'.. where do you get your info??? We are doing PATHETICALLY compared to most European countries! It CAN be done MUCH quicker & it can be done in EVERY SINGLE new build property.. but where are the building regs?? Nowhere!!
There are NO engineering problems with tidal power it has been proved several times already! It is viable NOW! Especially if we go for the 'lagoon' system instead of 'barrages'!
@SniperViper1000 Agreed. There is also the potential for catastrophic environmental damage that makes every other form of energy production look safe by comparison. We first adopted nuclear power so that we could make weapons of mass destruction. Nothing has changed.
them selling off british energy is part of a grand plan to save money. Its probably because the french have been building nuclear power stations for ages, and it would be cheaper to sell british energy and get them to do it, rather than bring in french profesionals, and have them do it that way.
Then again, brown is the man who sold off all our gold reserves at rock bottom prices; the excuse he gave was that it had cracks in it, and it wasnt worth anything (if my mem serves me correctly).
but what it might boil down to is politicans living for today. brown and manelson might be just trying to get their mitts on some cash by selling off the future and british independent abilities like its own energy production and the royal mail, just so they might stay in power. And if that is the case, then that should be a crime against the british public.
I'm all for Nuclear Energy if they can find safe, environmentaly-friendly ways to dispose of the radioactive waste. Maybe they can reuse for something? Hell if I know.
I am sorry if you live near one of these but there are many things that are radio active! Cornwall for one gives off a lot of natural radi activity. Also bread! something we eat everyday! Dont beleive me? google it or test it for yourself! :D
we need to stop reproducing,i want to fuk u just because of your young voice,reduction comes from reducing fuking people,and that will never happen ,so ,we need to be liquidated,simple,done,fuk this human dilema.
5. Electromagnetism and impulse technologies. read Schauberger and Kepler(plagerised by Newton the occultist!)
There are many more examples of technologies that have been pushed or coralled out of existence by the same proponents of fossil fuels and the nuclear industry.
It is important to remember that the last thing that the rulers of a nation want is an informed and autonomous population that they are less able to enslave with debt and dependency.
Your severe paranoi is truly evidenct hear, not only are you convinced that 'they' are sitting on a magical free energy device but you spout nonsense about 'them' being in total control of the information flow!
If you doubt me, then perhaps you should (rather than simply insult) do a little research. An exceptional starting point would be to research the work and demise of Victor Schauberger.
This is not paranoia, our problem here is that your mind is limited to what seems to be a very narrow range of possibilities.
I know not what you do for your income, but I ask you, are you fully informed as to what your boss knows and why he or she makes the decisions that they do?
This same management structure (compartmentalised pyramid) is the basis of corporate & governmental structure. By necessity, it requires that those lower down the pecking order r kept in ignorance whilst those in senior management know infinately more. Now lets take this a step further. Imagine you r the CEO of a multinational corporation. U want 2 capture or monopolise a market, how do you achieve this? By any means fair or foul. R you really suggesting that Industrial espionage doesn't exist!
when did we stop talking about a mass conspiracy about a secret group directing WW2 and stopping free energy and start talking about industrial espionage?
can you provide working models of these free energy sources? if you can you can become the richest man in the world... oh wait, they wouldnt happen to not actually work would they?
I am not interested in becoming rich. Perhaps this is why I do not hold the same outlook as you. As for working models, I have acquantances in various countries who, quite independantly are working on efficiency levels. Their time is approaching rapidly as you will see.
In the meantime, I have suggested some areas for you to read. But in the meantime, I can only ask that you recognise that nuclear proliferation for power is the same as for weapons and this place needs neither.
1. You seriously expect microhydrodams to produce meaningful power? How many people live near water flows on a gradient by you? and how much money do you think it would cost to produce enough to replace a smallish power plant
2. You reveal your trur scientific ignorance if you think hydrogen is an energy source
3. Yes, a good idea except for you questioning the existance of the periodic table
4. Again correct, but only minor demand cuts will ever be achieved
SURFACE WATER DRAINAGE SYSTEMS! Farm reservoirs, park lakes and ponds. These are alaso the most productive landscape elements for biomass.
Be careful with your insults here, this is something that I am extremely well qualified in. Your understanding of hydrology is less than my understanding of your toxic technology.
2. This is ancient history. Splitting water is simple, recombing through combustion simple to. After all, the most efficient production of heat is through direct combustion and the least is the use of electricity given the pathetically innefficient transmission and ofcourse the electromagnetic pollution. And you have the audacity to infer ignorance on my part. You have a long way to go, that is if you can take off those blinkered goggles you seem to be wearing.
3. Biodigestion systems are a far more efficient way of processing human, garden and household waste. All that is required is to maintain the digestion process within the thermophilic range. Next time you fart, understand that this has occurred because your digestive system has encountered something it cannot break down and the anaerobic bacteria that coexist within your gut have completed the job but wasted energy. Again, this is a subject that I have worked with for over a decade.
4. Search Hockerton Housing Project. I've just completed the first phase of retrofitting an end of terrace & despite fuel price increases, energy bills have fallen by 15% & we still have more we can do. Target 4 this project is OFF GRID & it is possible.
There r many examples of new build that achieve this & retrofitting existing properties, provided planning constraints r relaxed to enable this, can make a huge difference. Small is beautiful, more robust, diverse & will employ far more people.
and how many of them are actually usable as energy sources? how much would it cost to fit turbines and a transformers on the run off from a field and how much energy would it generate for that money... not much
In terms of capital outlay for a such a diverse system, well given that most of the works involved are required for flood defense, it is expected that costs will be far less than those required for the end to end costs involved in nuclear technology. Ofcourse the other main advatnage, is that such a system, would be localised and diverse, and this would substantially reduce the dependence on the national grid (which is very wasteful).
This documentary seeks to persuade you that the nuclear industry and its technology is benign and this view is supported by the entity DarthTanner (dark lord of sith and sixpenny bit!)along with SatanicCod (evil bottom dwelling fish probably from the irish sea!)
Those who oppose the expansion of this technology are called technophobes. Thats odd, we are after all using computers!
No evidence? read through the blog, make your ownmind up.
The truth is worse. Most money is debt, new debt under fiat money generates more debt out of debt. All is a conjuring trick. It is physically impossible by this process for debt to ever be repaid, why? because there is not enough money once interest is added.
The American and global economies are tumbling, who will pa, all of us, why? because we will remain in debt, our debt just moves from one place to another. So there is no such thing as free money to any other than the banksters.
The city of London is one of three epicentres of power. Its currency is highly valued because of the power that resides within the capital that is owned throughout the world.
Do the Australian people own the banks, or are they as everywhere else, owned by other banks and shareholders?
I suggest you read what is granted and defined as sovereign rights in regard to the continent of Australia. These rights are VESTED in the Crown under Commonwealth.
You think so. Then perhaps you should be aware of just who owns the shares in the corporations you cite.
Might even be a good idea to understand how maritime law, banking law and maritime law are one and the same. Why do you think the epicentre of the worlds finances are in the City of London.
Lastly, try to think in terms of 150 years, what will Australia look like after these mining operations, what will the world look like with more nuclear wars. Because this is what they appear to want.
nuclear energie is green power.. are you creazy?! i sorry butt it still got waste.
whe in holland are for real green energie, wind and sun. it takes al long time bild, butt in the future whe have the energie for our country and the nabers. no waste, thats the future! and its stupid to dump it in a black hole, its not only not possible, its stupid to. meaby you need it in the future....
And how is that achieved. Taking care of it properly will mean setting plans in motion for the remainder of eternity and all the time hoping that something does no go wrong.
The thousands of tonnes is already piled high and has been used as weapons. Yep, thats one of the new catchy slogans, "from waste into weapons".
This stuff is just one more nail into the coffin that is the demise of life as we kow it.
your evidence on nuclear waste being used as a weapon? your evidence nuclear waste would have to be stored for 'eternity' (which is pretty stupid even by your standards)
And as you keep avoiding the question, where do you expect us to get our power from?
Evidence for nuclear waste being used in weapons... You are in denial... search Dr Doug Rokke. This man tells us all about DU weapons.
Environmental costs - just one of many
"As such, uranium-mining waste rock piles and tailings are a major environmental concern for the next 20,000-100,000 years due to leaching through infiltrating rainwater, degassing of gaseous radon, blow-out of radioactive dust and plant uptake" Uranium mining poses environmental risk
You should also know that wars are not fought for the common good, but rather are arranged by those who gain regardless of which party wins. As for giving things away, this can only be true if you can demonstrate ownership.
This is interesting because if you are born in the west, when your parents signed the birth register, your become title of the empire. So you own nothing and are infact owned by the state.
no, we can only talk about them because we dont actually have any qualified people to build them anymore and people get all uppidy about letting the French own our electricity generation capability
Yeah, you might be right. The only problem is that the fog it will bring will be one that is far more profound.
Want to sleep well, you know comatose, then sleep with your mobile under your pillow and take a weekly X-ray, eat irradiated dead foods and make sure you help the nuclear industry by consuming as much fluoride as you can get down your neck.
No thanks, I would rather just turn off the mains electric. Probably gonna have to start doing that anyway. LOL
You rely solely upon scientists at your peril. Theirs is not an ideology of wholeness, but a narrow view of this place. A view that requires the use of a microscope will miss out on understanding the macro. This is evidenced by what is now corporate sponsored science. Short term and orientated solely towards fiscal gain.
**The legacy id there, all is just a matter of time. Ofcourse you wont get to hear obout it until its too late.**
Yup, it is called global warming and it will kill 1000X more people than Chernobyl just because we are using coal to produce electricity instead of uranium.
Oh dear! another duped individual who understands less about climate change than he should. May I respectfully suggest that you do a little research into Solar activity and its impact on the world's climate.
As for the number of people under threat of death. I would put the figure much, much higher. That is i=once you take into account, famines, wars, diseases, tsunamis, hurricanes and earthquakes plus ofcourse, the destruction of the economy.
You don't need to take the whole condescending road with me. You don't need to use the whole solar flare thing neither. If you can't bend your mind around the "Greenhouse Gaz" concept, I guess I can't help you. This being said, people die in smog generated by coal and gaz emissions.This is a fact. Don't try to drown it under other causes. Nuclear energy and new battery technology could solve our dependency over fosil fuel in a matter of 20 years. This is a option we got and it is a valid choice.
When I talk to those guys, I always remember that, a century ago, we dint had to fear nuclear energy or other "Hard Technophobia Choices" (I.E. Inteli-crops, chemical additives, vaccines, antibiotics-resistant diseases). On the other side, one children over three died before reaching adulthood and the average lifespan was around 60.
You wonder why people become condescending with you when you write such utter nonsense.
Those mortality statistics that people like you love to quote are very misleading. They are collected from places and times where the same imperialistic/industrial mindset prevailed and did not respect human dignity or conditions.
This same situation can be seen streetching back into history, the poor enslaved peoples dying whilst the rich gorged themselves.
**They are collected from places and times where the same imperialistic/industrial mindset prevailed and did not respect human dignity or conditions.**
So, we need to disregard one of the crowning achievement of human technology (Nuclear Power) and adopt unreliable answers like solar, wind and energy starvation? This is your answer?
Who is the one who disrespect human dignity here? The one who live life as is fullest or the one starving it with the dogma of fear?
Self sufficiency it is true does require understanding, effort and resources. But when you look at the abhorent waste that the consumer ideology presents, it will over time become much more of a necessity.
Soon, all those who know these things will enjoy support from their communities, if that is, big brother and his jackboots can be thwarted.
Of course, atom-splitting for energy creation is known since the middle-ages, right? ;)
**This is not a dogma of fear, but it is a message of the consequences of the continued promulgation of this technology.**
What about a better living? Are you that afraid of the bliss it can bring us? Before Christopher Columbus, Sailors were afraid to go west on the Atlantic. They were afraid of sea-monsters or to fall off the globe. Stop being afraid.
Are you talking about the sun-god the Aztecs praised by offering human sacrifices? Many non-Aztec tribes were quite thankful for Cortez to help them getting rid of those psychos.
This little post tell me a lot about you. You take the defense of a stone-age, human sacrifice-making culture while attacking nuclear energy. Is there a fear of progress, an embrace of the past or pure, simple love for the savage lifestyle.
You have jumped a little too quickly. But I am pleased that you do indeed know something of the Aztecs. My point is this, the very same ideology as existed then, (pyramid structure and human sacrifice) continues today. Why even our government and military leaders talk about deceased soldiers as having made the ultimate sacrifice.
So what you deem to be a savage lifestyle, is skewed by your view of ancient How many millions of indigenous peoples were massacred by the christians in the Americas.
Remember me where's the link between that mess and nuclear energy? I also missed the point where the "Evil" government gutted servicemen with sharp stones to extract their still-beating hearts. Do you have pictures of this?
The millions who died in colonial America was due to the diseases imported by the settlers. Blaming them is like blaming the whole Sub-Saharan Africa for Aids.
Besides, you are free to live the stone-age lifestyle of the Aztecs if you want too. I just want electricity.
As I have previously stated, the evidence is all around you.
"Between 1974 and 1989, relative risk of leukemia in children aged 0-4 in coastal areas of Wales adjacent to the Irish Sea was over four times that expected on the basis of national figures for England and Wales"
Proximity to the Irish Sea and Leukemia Incidence in Children
at ages 0-4 in Wales from 1974-1989
First Report of the Green Audit Irish Sea Research Group August 1st 1998
Is there a cause-effect link between those cases of leukemia and nuclear power plants? I am not talking about a "It looks like it..." but a valid, scientific link between the two.
Without it, it is useless.
Another fun fact: the paper from the "Green Audit Irish Sea Research Group" was not submitted to peer review but was fed straight to journalists. Why are they afraid of peer review? Would it be because the methodology was chancy or that the numbers were messed with?
Well thats an interesting attempt at a cop out. As 4 peer review, you know the process, 1st it has 2 be published. MMM... Now I think I can find many examples of papers & information rejected for publication by the academic institutions, esp. when they contradict the prescribed agenda.
Its an interesting coincidence because we currently have a so called public consultation, thats rejecting public opinion & seeking 2 selectively use so called science publications 2 push an agenda that is evil.
You know, Healing with crystals and drinking human urine as a dietetic supplement dint published for peer-review neither.
If you refuse peer-review, you are turning that cute little study into something fit to cover the bottom of kitty's litter.
Also, taking the road of the evil Governmental-Industrial Cabal is a crappy excuse for third-grade research. In fact, that defense is used by any snake-oil peddler for the last 50 years.
Solar and Wind power is to weak. You can't generate enough electricity for large towns. Whats wrong with environmentalists these days. Nuclear power is really clean if its transported correctly.
My university has a small nuclear reactor which generates a major portion of my universities power.
NO NUKES!!!! I live right down the street from one, it is on the beach in Oceanside,CA, it is scary shit man, we have siren tests all the time, they are on every lightpost & they send out flyers about taking iodine if you are exposed to the nuke accident, etc. , Why is it there? It is across the street from the Marine base, hmmm, no one knows exactly what goes on in there.
we can get about 50,000,000 years worth of uranium from sea water, it just costs 50% more than mining it, which isnt a problem as a nuclear plant uses so little
Centralized energy generation is the model of the 17th/18th century. It also creates a string of economic side effects such as centralized power for select individuals. We should pursue a distributed model of energy generation - it's the only way to the future.
yeah, suffering, you don't now what is 'suffering' a terrible war, you were all the time sitting on your fucking island, but I think muslims will show you what means 'suffering' :)
You are misinformed. The British Empire is still there. Only now it is known as the Anglo-American Empire. Same figureheads at the top, same structure, same lust for slavery and the drugs trade.
The reactions of the sizewell residents say it all. "We want it but not on our doorstep". Why not? It never ceases to amaze me that the people who are ardent fans of nuclear power always seem to get a bit less so when it is suggested that the power station or waste is sited in the centre of their own neighbourhood. Suddenly their confidence seems a little less solid. The nuclear industry will have a job convincing me if even it`s supporters acknowledge it`s dangerous.
The same is true of everything, from schools, hospitals and police stations to wind turbines and coal power stations. No one wants to live next to anything but pleasent farmland.
if they were serious they would use the money for the new reactor and spend it on solar panels on all the roofs of every home business in the area but then the power company gets less money its a stupid circle that isnt going to change till something REAL REAL BAD that can only be blamed on human co2 emissions then hopefully everyone will c the truth and make the changes.
Except that the money from a new reactor if spent on solar power cells would only generate a tenth of the power and only during bright sulight. Not a big thing in the UK.
Nuclear and any dangerous things will fail because of the "companies with Illimited Irresponsibility". You make the security of a nuclear plant to another company. If anything happens.... who cares, the tierce company will go bankrupt and voilà, nobody is responsible for such dangerous things.
Rhinoch8 5 months ago
JAPANJapanJAPANJapanJAPANJapanJAPANJapanJAPANJapanJAPANJapanJAPANJapanJAPANJapanJAPANJapanJAPANJapanJAPANJapanJAPANJapanJAPANJapanJAPANJapanJAPANJapanJAPANJapanJAPANJapanJAPANJapanJAPANJapanJAPANJapanJAPANJapanJAPANJapanJAPANJapanJAPANJapanJAPANJapanJAPANJapanJAPANJapanJAPANJapanJAPANJapanJAPANJapanJAPANJapanJAPANJapanJAPANJapanJAPANJapanJAPANJapanJAPANJapanJAPANJapanJAPANJapanJAPANJapanJAPANJapanJAPANJapanJAPANJapanJAPANJapanJAPANJapanJAPANJapanJAPANJapanJAPANJapanJAPANJapanJAPANJapanJAPANJapan
Gummage06 10 months ago
@Gummage06 And? All the modern reactors survived both the earthquake and the tsunami, a testament to their good design. Fukushima is a very old second generation design which is never going to be built again. Given that neither hazard is particularly applicable to the UK, the events in Japan have little to no relevence.
XtalQRP 8 months ago
@XtalQRP - What about Cold Fusion? Why are scientists still trying to hide the now proven Cold Fusion?
Gummage06 8 months ago 2
@Gummage06 Because it has not been proven to exist,or, rather, Fleischmann and Pons were never able to demonstrate or replicate their observed results, and neither has anyone else (inspite of one study spending atleast £12 million on it alone). If you are pinning your hopes on cold fusion you will be waiting a long time. Quite what relevence it has to the subject at hand...?
XtalQRP 8 months ago
the nuclear industry is telling us that nuclear power is green power, well I'm sure they wouldn't have anyform of vested interest at all.
Guyb1231 10 months ago
@m3141592 is that a joke? how would fossil fuel produce radioactive pollution.
dennisrules94 1 year ago
@dennisrules94 flysh
captinseperoth 1 year ago
@dennisrules94 Coal contains radioactive particles in minute amounts, these are released by combustion due to the lack of filtering at levels which exceed the background around most reactors. Radioactive minerals are present to some degree in virtually all rocks.
XtalQRP 8 months ago
she's 13 you pedofile
lulusername 1 year ago
thumbs up i you think the girl talking sounded hot.
masoudnima 1 year ago
@masoudnima seems like your comment has been out for over a month so i guess no one thinks she has a hot voice ahha
communismkills1 1 year ago
Couldn’t we just put all the asylum seekers and captured illegal’s to work on exercise bikes and treadmills linked to small generators.
Not popular I know but could solve two problems at once. Future generations would be saved from the burden of our nuclear folly and we could take even more of the homeless asylum seekers and put them to good use. Clever eh?
FLUSEM666 1 year ago
Flagged for missleading thumbnail
cunts i wanted somthing to go boom
Xyinc 1 year ago
its not possible to produce 4 nuclear power plants every month? that may be true, but to decrease the worlds temperature b 7 degrees FARENHEIGHT, then the ENTIRE WORLD will have to go with electricity for 14 years, including hospitals, firestation, police stations etc..... i would really go for the 4 power plants every month.
hairypeebee 1 year ago
@hairypeebee It is higher, but not much higher, than the rate at which France built it's nuclear power plants. It just sounds like a massive rate of contruction beacuse it is taking about the entire world.
EquusFerrarius 4 months ago
Just nuke the U.K. and be done with it.
insanelylogical 1 year ago
Fuck you and Nuke u back cunt.
charlieiscool1000 9 months ago
*cough*cough* chernobyl *cough*cough*
Zingzing426 1 year ago
@Zingzing426
What about Chernobyl?
MokomaSusi 1 year ago
@MokomaSusi Bullshit to Soviet Standads dude. A Chernobyl like accident today is as rare as shooting down a jet with a small BB gun.
SniperViper1000 1 year ago
provided also that they receive no public subsidy. Is what is said by the policy to carry out the building of these power stations well we need to protest to get these stopped.
fireicer 1 year ago
finding wind and solar wouldn't cost as much
misszweetti 1 year ago
@misszweetti Quite simply, it would. Nuclear is considered to be the second cheapest source of electricty, only hydroelectric is cheaper and that is very dependant on geography.
EquusFerrarius 4 months ago
Not only does nuclear produce less CO2, it also produces less radioactive pollution than fossil fuels.
m3141592 2 years ago
If the goverment gave a shit they would use a combanation of Geo-termal, wind, wave and solar power but this would stop the rich being rich so they don't.
Baredamage 2 years ago
"this would stop the rich being rich"
How? Renewable energy needs capital just like anything else.
The only way it could fail to make a profit is if it didn't really work, which is not the case.
m3141592 2 years ago
@Baredamage what make you think geo, wind, and wave wont create rich people?
you will still pay that bill. your a extremmly short sighted or stupid or both.
datzfast 1 year ago
What doesn't anyone discuss pebble bed reactors?
battlestarvfx 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"What doesn't anyone discuss pebble bed reactors?"
Ignorance.
m3141592 2 years ago
thanks for a factual, balanced and rational presentation! the hyper-dramatic presentation styles so often miss the point.
mastifiorulamitongla 2 years ago
i just wanted to see a Nuke drop on something
wtf is this shit
petpillow 2 years ago 7
@petpillow Lol me too.
challywang 1 year ago
Even a few nukes makes the future brighter. :)
Fridaey13txhOktober 2 years ago
Comment removed
HR5308 2 years ago
The french have managed fine havent they? they have loads of nuclear reactors. How come they arent all dying of radiation poisening if they are so deadly? selafield is ancient. probably still learning when they made it.
geoffart 2 years ago
You hit the nail on the head there.
Fridaey13txhOktober 2 years ago
Sustainability.
Mark that word. I don't wanna say it's SOCIALIST propaganda, but people do have other motives when they push that whole idea. Real sustainability has to be achieved on a COMMUNITY level. NOT government.
staticbb 3 years ago
The cheif 'spin doctor' for EDF is Gordon Brown's BROTHER Andrew!
Now let's try & guess why they had such a sympathetic ear from government?
It IS and ALWAYS has been about Nuclear Weapons! The old cold-war nuclear weapons are coming to the end of their shelf-life & so they need a nuke industry to be able to replace them & keep it all going!
The same money spent on a MIX of renewables would produce MUCH more power & energy efficiency could save 30% NOW!
Energy could be CHEAP (like free) & clean!
ejbh3160 3 years ago
cant solve the energy crisis with current renewable energy tech. If we have a breakthrough in semi-conductor phys, then we'll be in a position to solve the problem.
as for nucs: in this world, we need them! We need it to be very clear to any hostile country in the world, that if you hit the UK with WMD, then you will be devestated. At the moment we can do that. In a nuclear blackmale situation everyone will look after themselves! If UK was hit, america wouldnt respond unless it was hit.
geoffart 2 years ago
what a load of codswallop
we CAN provide 'domestic' energy with renewables NOW!
1st we insist on low energy products.. it CAN be done now.
2nd have a solar water heater on every roof.
3rd build in ground heat systems to every new build & retrofit as many as poss.
4th solar PV on every roof linked to the grid.
5th a Tesnic or similar on every roof in place of chimney pots.
6th as I said insulating etc can save 30% of energy today!
PLUS large scale renewables like tidal lagoons & wind arrays etc!!
ejbh3160 2 years ago
1) what products do you intend to make low energy and how? tech is always driving to make lower energy products. Its not always poss.
2) you could have solar water heater, but the problem: most energy for heating water is not related to water usage, rather it is heating related. the saving is minimal (I have done the calculations)
3) heat pump is new tech and highly expensive.
4) PV is very inefficent, adv eff = 12-18%. also energy required to manufacter is massive, also sun rare in uk!
geoffart 2 years ago
1 MOST products that work on 220 volts can work at lower voltages (like in the USA & in Europe at 110volt)..& if we produced power 'locally' it would save 10% TODAY!! (thats MORE than ALL the new nukes planned for the UK!!)
2 actually water heating is a very LARGE slice of our total energy use in this country! Obviously you haven't looked at the data!
3. ground heat systems are CHEAP when built in & when the cost is spread over the life of the mortgage. I have the figures in front of me!
ejbh3160 2 years ago
less volt is less efficent than a higher one: you see power is volts*amps, so all we did was raise the volts and reduce the amp, so volts*amps is the same (i.e. the power is the same), now because power dissipated is proportional to amps squared, we can reduce energy wasted in transmission by increasing the voltage and reducing the current, whilst keeping the power the same. Our way is better thn US, but US was too big to change. Lower voltage is not lower power. they are too different things.
geoffart 2 years ago
lol.. yes I know they are different things.. we can do BOTH!
Lower amps & lower volts!
Most products could be made to be more efficient! Like lighbulbs, TV's PC's fridges etc etc
& if we produce most of our hot water for free then thats a HUGE slice gone from our 'needs'.
/watch?v=xfzVQwW_8Jk
at the risk of repeating myself... CHP produced locally would save 10% on 'transportation' losses NOW! That MORE than ALL the new nuke power stations planned for this country!
ejbh3160 2 years ago
they are working flat out to achive this. LED light bulbs are not powerful enough. They are too expensive. they have created compact flurocents and even changed the law on buying incandesents.
At present semi-conductor devices are only so efficent, and they will naturally dissipate an amount of power in use. this means our computers and televisions will use x-amount of power. We are seeing things like organic LED/LCD screens that dont use a back light and save there.
geoffart 2 years ago
huh?
Too expensive? Not bright enough? You obviously have no idea what is out there for LED technology. I suggest you do some googling on superBright LEDs out there and price them out and compare what it is to get them to push out the same lumen as a a regular bulb and then see if your statement sticks.
battlestarvfx 2 years ago
I had to give a talk on LED tech. Was a big part of my physics degree june06.
Try to buy a replacement bulb for your house (today) with the same light intensity as an incandescent light bulb. Currently, its about 1w LED power = 10w of incandescent equivalent, at around £8 per watt. That equates to a pretty bad deal. I have bought such a bulb and it was pretty poor.
Also remember, human eye is most sensitive to mid-spectrum light, and LED tends to be colder, reducing eff for light
geoffart 2 years ago
Maybe there is a better lighting solution, but I would be extremely surprised if LED tech could match flor, HID, HPS or incandescent watt/price, yet?
The added complication is that it must be yellow light for max lighting efficiency, which is why HPS is so great for streets.
I know technically although band gap is such that wavelength is normally blue, they use chemicals that absorb that and emit a more appropriate wavelength, but it is still cold light, in most cases.
geoffart 2 years ago
looked at site: LED with 470lum, but a standard incandescent 60w will emit, lets say 800lum approx (min what people need).
Now, a cool white florescent will emit 3000lum@40w.
So, at a price of $50 = £41.47, you are getting only just over half the light output required to light a room, which would amount to less, if the light spectrum isn't mid spectrum for white light .
Lets say house need 20 bulbs, because I love the tech behind LEDs (which I do). I spend £820 = $1300. expensive.
geoffart 2 years ago
Well where ever you are looking your pricing is way out of wack. When I can find them LED light bulbs here range from 8-12 bucks. None of this 41 BPS nonsense. Of course I used to live in the UK and I would expect much of that to be some kind of tax? Hidden or part of the vat it doesn't matter that pricing is way over the top.
battlestarvfx 2 years ago
Comment removed
geoffart 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
8-10 bucks, in the UK, would get you a 2w unit, that would kick out approx 1/5th the lighting potential of a 100w incandescent light bulb, but in the colder end of the lighting spectrum. The 41 pound units are high end units.
Its a very expensive process making the semiconductor that has a band gap that can create a visible light source.
I did go to superBright LEDs. Maybe I missed the ones you were talking about? if you name the unit, I'll have another look?
geoffart 2 years ago
PV is nowhere near as inefficient as you seem to think.. even in the UK if you buy a system it pays for itself within 7 years! That means you get every penny BACK! How can nukes compete with THAT?!
Furthermore.. once its paid for itself it continues to produce energy for FREE!
So if you save 1/10th of what you USED to spend on electricity to eventually replace the system then you will have energy at 10% or less of todays cost!
Also there are innovations all the time like foil printed solar cells
ejbh3160 2 years ago
You have to remember, we are very northern hemisphere too, which means, that during the winter, even when the sun does shine through the usual shoud of clouds, it will do so at less intensity.
But, having said that, there are some amazing solar panels coming soon >40%eff. But they are not ready for mass production yet. Maybe when the gov have seen them in use, they might invest.
geoffart 2 years ago
as with most things.. when they go into mass production then they get much cheaper! So too with renewable energy! It 'COULD' be really cheap.. yes even PV!! But of course the reason its being suppressed is for the old reasons of conflicts of interests (fosil fuel corporations), vested interests (old money invested in fosil fuel) & old fashioned GREED!
Oh and of course 'Governments' don't want you to be self-sufficient in energy because they get massive amounts of money from TAXING energy!
ejbh3160 2 years ago
some things will neevr be cheaper in mass production,Take night vision for example: there will never be a cheap starlite technology, because the process is labour intensive, contain the same number of steps, which is why want away from that tech to IR units. PV are hugely expensive to make and cost a lot in terms of energy to make them, and also in the toxic chems used in their production. The only thing that can sort that out is a technological breakthrough. One will happen soon enough.
geoffart 2 years ago
I have a friend doing a development in Spain & with todays technology it is EASY to make housing totally self-reliant for energy (in fact they will be exporting much of the energy they produce because the houses are designed to be so energy efficient!)
As for NUKES.. your argument is a load of BS..."if the UK was hit"??? WTF do you think would make anyone nuke a non-nuke armed country?? The ONLY reason we might get nuked is on a first strike basis because WE have nukes!
ejbh3160 2 years ago
furthermore the money spent on nuclear weapons systems (which includes the submarines) would EASILY finance giving everyone renewable energy like solar & wind for their homes!
And the money spent on nuke reactors would EASILY pay for tidal lagoons all round this island AND offshore arrays of wind turbines! Then there's geo-thermal (which was developed 20 years ago) & we have some of the best wind speeds in Europe & yet the fewest wind farms!
Our efforts at doing renewables so far are PATHETIC!
ejbh3160 2 years ago
no knowlege of tesla terbine, but its new.
6) Insulating can save, but some buildings are more suitible thn others. there is a drive to do this, but it takes a long time. You cant have a massive drive, its has to be done over a decade or more, and that is what is already being done. all these things have been factored in.
Plus) Titdal is a good viable option, when we overcome huge engineering problems. It takes time and money. wind ran into probs with metal prices.
geoffart 2 years ago
Tesnic.. but yes its based on the TEsla turbine effect.
6... NO they have NOT been 'factored in'.. where do you get your info??? We are doing PATHETICALLY compared to most European countries! It CAN be done MUCH quicker & it can be done in EVERY SINGLE new build property.. but where are the building regs?? Nowhere!!
There are NO engineering problems with tidal power it has been proved several times already! It is viable NOW! Especially if we go for the 'lagoon' system instead of 'barrages'!
ejbh3160 2 years ago
@ejbh3160 It is and always will be ineffienct.
SniperViper1000 1 year ago
@SniperViper1000 Agreed. There is also the potential for catastrophic environmental damage that makes every other form of energy production look safe by comparison. We first adopted nuclear power so that we could make weapons of mass destruction. Nothing has changed.
FLUSEM666 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ejbh3160 It is and always will be ineffienct.
SniperViper1000 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
check out "max kd drive"
sfcoco1 3 years ago
British energy was bought to the french company EDF. Mmmmh, I always suspected the limeys to be useless, now I got the proof
GoldenLeclercTank 3 years ago
them selling off british energy is part of a grand plan to save money. Its probably because the french have been building nuclear power stations for ages, and it would be cheaper to sell british energy and get them to do it, rather than bring in french profesionals, and have them do it that way.
Then again, brown is the man who sold off all our gold reserves at rock bottom prices; the excuse he gave was that it had cracks in it, and it wasnt worth anything (if my mem serves me correctly).
geoffart 2 years ago
but what it might boil down to is politicans living for today. brown and manelson might be just trying to get their mitts on some cash by selling off the future and british independent abilities like its own energy production and the royal mail, just so they might stay in power. And if that is the case, then that should be a crime against the british public.
geoffart 2 years ago
I'm all for Nuclear Energy if they can find safe, environmentaly-friendly ways to dispose of the radioactive waste. Maybe they can reuse for something? Hell if I know.
MTB710 3 years ago
hey atleast you get a consistant power suply? hmmm maybe they should put the industry around nuclear plants? :-)
draculapw 3 years ago
I am sorry if you live near one of these but there are many things that are radio active! Cornwall for one gives off a lot of natural radi activity. Also bread! something we eat everyday! Dont beleive me? google it or test it for yourself! :D
draculapw 3 years ago
All it releases is steam.
VideoMan342x 3 years ago
we need to stop reproducing,i want to fuk u just because of your young voice,reduction comes from reducing fuking people,and that will never happen ,so ,we need to be liquidated,simple,done,fuk this human dilema.
creten69 3 years ago
I was thinking the same thing.
Terramax 3 years ago
Get real what other options are there too support 60 million with power ?
paulhegsydney 3 years ago
voodoo
DarthTanner 3 years ago
WARNING!!!
THIS IS WHAT NUCLEAR POWER DOES TO HUMANS!!!
CAUTION!!!
CONTAINS EXTREMLY GRAPHIC CONTENT!!!
/watch?v=FhL5VO2NStU
J2897 3 years ago
wtf all i got was a google advert????????????
Eldritchard 3 years ago
u cant use new systems on old property
scotishjohn 3 years ago
5. Electromagnetism and impulse technologies. read Schauberger and Kepler(plagerised by Newton the occultist!)
There are many more examples of technologies that have been pushed or coralled out of existence by the same proponents of fossil fuels and the nuclear industry.
It is important to remember that the last thing that the rulers of a nation want is an informed and autonomous population that they are less able to enslave with debt and dependency.
pondman27 3 years ago
Your severe paranoi is truly evidenct hear, not only are you convinced that 'they' are sitting on a magical free energy device but you spout nonsense about 'them' being in total control of the information flow!
DarthTanner 3 years ago
If you doubt me, then perhaps you should (rather than simply insult) do a little research. An exceptional starting point would be to research the work and demise of Victor Schauberger.
This is not paranoia, our problem here is that your mind is limited to what seems to be a very narrow range of possibilities.
I know not what you do for your income, but I ask you, are you fully informed as to what your boss knows and why he or she makes the decisions that they do?
pondman27 3 years ago
This same management structure (compartmentalised pyramid) is the basis of corporate & governmental structure. By necessity, it requires that those lower down the pecking order r kept in ignorance whilst those in senior management know infinately more. Now lets take this a step further. Imagine you r the CEO of a multinational corporation. U want 2 capture or monopolise a market, how do you achieve this? By any means fair or foul. R you really suggesting that Industrial espionage doesn't exist!
pondman27 3 years ago
when did we stop talking about a mass conspiracy about a secret group directing WW2 and stopping free energy and start talking about industrial espionage?
DarthTanner 3 years ago
We didn't, you need to understand that these are all the same structure.
pondman27 3 years ago
can you provide working models of these free energy sources? if you can you can become the richest man in the world... oh wait, they wouldnt happen to not actually work would they?
DarthTanner 3 years ago
I am not interested in becoming rich. Perhaps this is why I do not hold the same outlook as you. As for working models, I have acquantances in various countries who, quite independantly are working on efficiency levels. Their time is approaching rapidly as you will see.
In the meantime, I have suggested some areas for you to read. But in the meantime, I can only ask that you recognise that nuclear proliferation for power is the same as for weapons and this place needs neither.
pondman27 3 years ago
Well I wish your friends luck with their free energy devices.
DarthTanner 3 years ago
Looking at other renewables.
1. Microhydro. perfectly feasible & dovetails beautifully into sustainable urban drainage schemes.
2. Water & electromagnetism, hydrogen + oxygen a plentiful & potentially free form of energy as used by plants.
3. Biological digestion processes produce CH4, methane, a far more important greenhouse gas (if such things really exist!).
4. Architecture. Most buildings r not designed with low energy requirements. Designed correctly heating systems r NOT needed.
pondman27 3 years ago
I couldnt help but laugh at this.
1. You seriously expect microhydrodams to produce meaningful power? How many people live near water flows on a gradient by you? and how much money do you think it would cost to produce enough to replace a smallish power plant
2. You reveal your trur scientific ignorance if you think hydrogen is an energy source
3. Yes, a good idea except for you questioning the existance of the periodic table
4. Again correct, but only minor demand cuts will ever be achieved
DarthTanner 3 years ago
1. How many people are sitting near water flows.
SURFACE WATER DRAINAGE SYSTEMS! Farm reservoirs, park lakes and ponds. These are alaso the most productive landscape elements for biomass.
Be careful with your insults here, this is something that I am extremely well qualified in. Your understanding of hydrology is less than my understanding of your toxic technology.
pondman27 3 years ago
2. This is ancient history. Splitting water is simple, recombing through combustion simple to. After all, the most efficient production of heat is through direct combustion and the least is the use of electricity given the pathetically innefficient transmission and ofcourse the electromagnetic pollution. And you have the audacity to infer ignorance on my part. You have a long way to go, that is if you can take off those blinkered goggles you seem to be wearing.
pondman27 3 years ago
3. Biodigestion systems are a far more efficient way of processing human, garden and household waste. All that is required is to maintain the digestion process within the thermophilic range. Next time you fart, understand that this has occurred because your digestive system has encountered something it cannot break down and the anaerobic bacteria that coexist within your gut have completed the job but wasted energy. Again, this is a subject that I have worked with for over a decade.
pondman27 3 years ago
4. Search Hockerton Housing Project. I've just completed the first phase of retrofitting an end of terrace & despite fuel price increases, energy bills have fallen by 15% & we still have more we can do. Target 4 this project is OFF GRID & it is possible.
There r many examples of new build that achieve this & retrofitting existing properties, provided planning constraints r relaxed to enable this, can make a huge difference. Small is beautiful, more robust, diverse & will employ far more people.
pondman27 3 years ago
yes splitting water into oxygen and hydrogen is simply, the point is that it takes more electricity to do so than you get back in usable hydrogen
DarthTanner 3 years ago
and how many of them are actually usable as energy sources? how much would it cost to fit turbines and a transformers on the run off from a field and how much energy would it generate for that money... not much
DarthTanner 3 years ago
In terms of capital outlay for a such a diverse system, well given that most of the works involved are required for flood defense, it is expected that costs will be far less than those required for the end to end costs involved in nuclear technology. Ofcourse the other main advatnage, is that such a system, would be localised and diverse, and this would substantially reduce the dependence on the national grid (which is very wasteful).
pondman27 3 years ago
This documentary seeks to persuade you that the nuclear industry and its technology is benign and this view is supported by the entity DarthTanner (dark lord of sith and sixpenny bit!)along with SatanicCod (evil bottom dwelling fish probably from the irish sea!)
Those who oppose the expansion of this technology are called technophobes. Thats odd, we are after all using computers!
No evidence? read through the blog, make your ownmind up.
pondman27 3 years ago
well when you peddle your crazy paranoid delusions about global conspiracies and want to annhilate civilization what exactly do you expect?
DarthTanner 3 years ago
The truth is worse. Most money is debt, new debt under fiat money generates more debt out of debt. All is a conjuring trick. It is physically impossible by this process for debt to ever be repaid, why? because there is not enough money once interest is added.
The American and global economies are tumbling, who will pa, all of us, why? because we will remain in debt, our debt just moves from one place to another. So there is no such thing as free money to any other than the banksters.
pondman27 3 years ago
The city of London is one of three epicentres of power. Its currency is highly valued because of the power that resides within the capital that is owned throughout the world.
Do the Australian people own the banks, or are they as everywhere else, owned by other banks and shareholders?
I suggest you read what is granted and defined as sovereign rights in regard to the continent of Australia. These rights are VESTED in the Crown under Commonwealth.
pondman27 3 years ago
You think so. Then perhaps you should be aware of just who owns the shares in the corporations you cite.
Might even be a good idea to understand how maritime law, banking law and maritime law are one and the same. Why do you think the epicentre of the worlds finances are in the City of London.
Lastly, try to think in terms of 150 years, what will Australia look like after these mining operations, what will the world look like with more nuclear wars. Because this is what they appear to want.
pondman27 3 years ago
nuclear energie is green power.. are you creazy?! i sorry butt it still got waste.
whe in holland are for real green energie, wind and sun. it takes al long time bild, butt in the future whe have the energie for our country and the nabers. no waste, thats the future! and its stupid to dump it in a black hole, its not only not possible, its stupid to. meaby you need it in the future....
edeleachtvoudigepad 3 years ago
er, the netherlands get the majority of their electricty from burning natural gas or buying nuclear energy off of the french
DarthTanner 3 years ago
As long as the waste is properly taken care of, it's a good idea.
doodyl9 3 years ago
And how is that achieved. Taking care of it properly will mean setting plans in motion for the remainder of eternity and all the time hoping that something does no go wrong.
The thousands of tonnes is already piled high and has been used as weapons. Yep, thats one of the new catchy slogans, "from waste into weapons".
This stuff is just one more nail into the coffin that is the demise of life as we kow it.
pondman27 3 years ago
Good point. I say, dump it into the black hole created by the lhc.
doodyl9 3 years ago
Lol, although theres nothing wrong with dumping it in an old mine shaft we'd be better off shooting it into the sun
DarthTanner 3 years ago
your evidence on nuclear waste being used as a weapon? your evidence nuclear waste would have to be stored for 'eternity' (which is pretty stupid even by your standards)
And as you keep avoiding the question, where do you expect us to get our power from?
DarthTanner 3 years ago
Evidence for nuclear waste being used in weapons... You are in denial... search Dr Doug Rokke. This man tells us all about DU weapons.
Environmental costs - just one of many
"As such, uranium-mining waste rock piles and tailings are a major environmental concern for the next 20,000-100,000 years due to leaching through infiltrating rainwater, degassing of gaseous radon, blow-out of radioactive dust and plant uptake" Uranium mining poses environmental risk
OXFORD ANALYTICA
pondman27 3 years ago
You should also know that wars are not fought for the common good, but rather are arranged by those who gain regardless of which party wins. As for giving things away, this can only be true if you can demonstrate ownership.
This is interesting because if you are born in the west, when your parents signed the birth register, your become title of the empire. So you own nothing and are infact owned by the state.
pondman27 3 years ago
You don't, the Crown does!
pondman27 3 years ago
Nuclear energy is the way of the future for the last 30 years!
Can we stop talking and build more of those?
SatanicCod 3 years ago
no, we can only talk about them because we dont actually have any qualified people to build them anymore and people get all uppidy about letting the French own our electricity generation capability
DarthTanner 3 years ago
The last time I saw some numbers, they have reached 85% of their electricity as "Nuclear-Made".
With all the tales of horrors made by environmentalists, I wonder why France as a whole don't look like Chernobyl...
SatanicCod 3 years ago
Perhaps you should ask the fisherman operating around the channel isles about radioactive isotopes in the sea.
pondman27 3 years ago
You know, nuclear energy can help reduce the fog you are lost in.
SatanicCod 3 years ago
Yeah, you might be right. The only problem is that the fog it will bring will be one that is far more profound.
Want to sleep well, you know comatose, then sleep with your mobile under your pillow and take a weekly X-ray, eat irradiated dead foods and make sure you help the nuclear industry by consuming as much fluoride as you can get down your neck.
No thanks, I would rather just turn off the mains electric. Probably gonna have to start doing that anyway. LOL
pondman27 3 years ago
yes, id much rather listen to fishermen than say... scientists who actually provide evidence for their arguments.
DarthTanner 3 years ago
You rely solely upon scientists at your peril. Theirs is not an ideology of wholeness, but a narrow view of this place. A view that requires the use of a microscope will miss out on understanding the macro. This is evidenced by what is now corporate sponsored science. Short term and orientated solely towards fiscal gain.
pondman27 3 years ago
The legacy id there, all is just a matter of time. Ofcourse you wont get to hear obout it until its too late.
pondman27 3 years ago
**The legacy id there, all is just a matter of time. Ofcourse you wont get to hear obout it until its too late.**
Yup, it is called global warming and it will kill 1000X more people than Chernobyl just because we are using coal to produce electricity instead of uranium.
SatanicCod 3 years ago
Oh dear! another duped individual who understands less about climate change than he should. May I respectfully suggest that you do a little research into Solar activity and its impact on the world's climate.
As for the number of people under threat of death. I would put the figure much, much higher. That is i=once you take into account, famines, wars, diseases, tsunamis, hurricanes and earthquakes plus ofcourse, the destruction of the economy.
Coal is not the only option.
pondman27 3 years ago
You don't need to take the whole condescending road with me. You don't need to use the whole solar flare thing neither. If you can't bend your mind around the "Greenhouse Gaz" concept, I guess I can't help you. This being said, people die in smog generated by coal and gaz emissions.This is a fact. Don't try to drown it under other causes. Nuclear energy and new battery technology could solve our dependency over fosil fuel in a matter of 20 years. This is a option we got and it is a valid choice.
SatanicCod 3 years ago
Yes he does, it covers up his complete lack of any evidence and lets his paranoia run free.
DarthTanner 3 years ago
You got it right.
When I talk to those guys, I always remember that, a century ago, we dint had to fear nuclear energy or other "Hard Technophobia Choices" (I.E. Inteli-crops, chemical additives, vaccines, antibiotics-resistant diseases). On the other side, one children over three died before reaching adulthood and the average lifespan was around 60.
Technology, when well-used, save lives.
SatanicCod 3 years ago
You wonder why people become condescending with you when you write such utter nonsense.
Those mortality statistics that people like you love to quote are very misleading. They are collected from places and times where the same imperialistic/industrial mindset prevailed and did not respect human dignity or conditions.
This same situation can be seen streetching back into history, the poor enslaved peoples dying whilst the rich gorged themselves.
pondman27 3 years ago
**They are collected from places and times where the same imperialistic/industrial mindset prevailed and did not respect human dignity or conditions.**
So, we need to disregard one of the crowning achievement of human technology (Nuclear Power) and adopt unreliable answers like solar, wind and energy starvation? This is your answer?
Who is the one who disrespect human dignity here? The one who live life as is fullest or the one starving it with the dogma of fear?
SatanicCod 3 years ago
i try to be as selfe sufficiant as possable
but not ever one can do it
scotishjohn 3 years ago
Self sufficiency it is true does require understanding, effort and resources. But when you look at the abhorent waste that the consumer ideology presents, it will over time become much more of a necessity.
Soon, all those who know these things will enjoy support from their communities, if that is, big brother and his jackboots can be thwarted.
pondman27 3 years ago
You have neighours and live in a community?
pondman27 3 years ago
This is not a crowning or royal achievement.
If you think this is the case then you ignore the evil that has become manifest as a result.
Human dignity and freedoms are under attack even as I write this. And these attacks are from the apex of power down as they always have been.
This is not a dogma of fear, but it is a message of the consequences of the continued promulgation of this technology.
There are better ways and these are emerging despite repressive regimes.
pondman27 3 years ago
Gordon Brown's speech in Manchester. We're getting New Nuclear Power. ;)
J2897 3 years ago
**This is not a crowning or royal achievement.**
Of course, atom-splitting for energy creation is known since the middle-ages, right? ;)
**This is not a dogma of fear, but it is a message of the consequences of the continued promulgation of this technology.**
What about a better living? Are you that afraid of the bliss it can bring us? Before Christopher Columbus, Sailors were afraid to go west on the Atlantic. They were afraid of sea-monsters or to fall off the globe. Stop being afraid.
SatanicCod 3 years ago
He was taking about this...
watch?v=FhL5VO2NStU
J2897 3 years ago
Oh my word, your rhetoric is wonderful.
Bliss does not come in the form of a light bulb, bliss comes from things you cannot buy.
Better living! for who and what?
By your usage it is apparent that u understand little of Columbus. Have you not heard of the VI kings or Quetzelcoatl
So much you do not yet see.
As for fear, this is not what drives me. Instead it is the urge to shed some light into a blinkered perspective
pondman27 3 years ago
Quetzelcoatl?
Are you talking about the sun-god the Aztecs praised by offering human sacrifices? Many non-Aztec tribes were quite thankful for Cortez to help them getting rid of those psychos.
This little post tell me a lot about you. You take the defense of a stone-age, human sacrifice-making culture while attacking nuclear energy. Is there a fear of progress, an embrace of the past or pure, simple love for the savage lifestyle.
SatanicCod 3 years ago
You have jumped a little too quickly. But I am pleased that you do indeed know something of the Aztecs. My point is this, the very same ideology as existed then, (pyramid structure and human sacrifice) continues today. Why even our government and military leaders talk about deceased soldiers as having made the ultimate sacrifice.
So what you deem to be a savage lifestyle, is skewed by your view of ancient How many millions of indigenous peoples were massacred by the christians in the Americas.
pondman27 3 years ago
Remember me where's the link between that mess and nuclear energy? I also missed the point where the "Evil" government gutted servicemen with sharp stones to extract their still-beating hearts. Do you have pictures of this?
The millions who died in colonial America was due to the diseases imported by the settlers. Blaming them is like blaming the whole Sub-Saharan Africa for Aids.
Besides, you are free to live the stone-age lifestyle of the Aztecs if you want too. I just want electricity.
SatanicCod 3 years ago
"Disregard" my ass...
watch?v=FhL5VO2NStU
J2897 3 years ago
As I have previously stated, the evidence is all around you.
"Between 1974 and 1989, relative risk of leukemia in children aged 0-4 in coastal areas of Wales adjacent to the Irish Sea was over four times that expected on the basis of national figures for England and Wales"
Proximity to the Irish Sea and Leukemia Incidence in Children
at ages 0-4 in Wales from 1974-1989
First Report of the Green Audit Irish Sea Research Group August 1st 1998
and this in just a few moments.
pondman27 3 years ago
Is there a cause-effect link between those cases of leukemia and nuclear power plants? I am not talking about a "It looks like it..." but a valid, scientific link between the two.
Without it, it is useless.
Another fun fact: the paper from the "Green Audit Irish Sea Research Group" was not submitted to peer review but was fed straight to journalists. Why are they afraid of peer review? Would it be because the methodology was chancy or that the numbers were messed with?
SatanicCod 3 years ago
Well thats an interesting attempt at a cop out. As 4 peer review, you know the process, 1st it has 2 be published. MMM... Now I think I can find many examples of papers & information rejected for publication by the academic institutions, esp. when they contradict the prescribed agenda.
Its an interesting coincidence because we currently have a so called public consultation, thats rejecting public opinion & seeking 2 selectively use so called science publications 2 push an agenda that is evil.
pondman27 3 years ago
You know, Healing with crystals and drinking human urine as a dietetic supplement dint published for peer-review neither.
If you refuse peer-review, you are turning that cute little study into something fit to cover the bottom of kitty's litter.
Also, taking the road of the evil Governmental-Industrial Cabal is a crappy excuse for third-grade research. In fact, that defense is used by any snake-oil peddler for the last 50 years.
SatanicCod 3 years ago
Solar and Wind power is to weak. You can't generate enough electricity for large towns. Whats wrong with environmentalists these days. Nuclear power is really clean if its transported correctly.
My university has a small nuclear reactor which generates a major portion of my universities power.
yellowman88 3 years ago 3
NO NUKES!!!! I live right down the street from one, it is on the beach in Oceanside,CA, it is scary shit man, we have siren tests all the time, they are on every lightpost & they send out flyers about taking iodine if you are exposed to the nuke accident, etc. , Why is it there? It is across the street from the Marine base, hmmm, no one knows exactly what goes on in there.
HeadNtheClouds 3 years ago 2
Maybe they generate electricity?
DarthTanner 3 years ago
we need plasma power, its unlimited until you burn up every partial in the universe.
ExperimentalArmy 3 years ago
wa are ye gonna do when uranium runs out?
theres only enough uranium for 100 years and if ye build more plants there'll be less!
yascumbag 3 years ago
we can get about 50,000,000 years worth of uranium from sea water, it just costs 50% more than mining it, which isnt a problem as a nuclear plant uses so little
DarthTanner 3 years ago
what's the soundtrack by the way? It's brilliant!
joylucker 3 years ago
Centralized energy generation is the model of the 17th/18th century. It also creates a string of economic side effects such as centralized power for select individuals. We should pursue a distributed model of energy generation - it's the only way to the future.
joylucker 3 years ago
This is it. People might well be against nuclear power, but then aren't keen to reduce the massive amount of electricity they use, and industry uses.
stevebritgimp 3 years ago
What is the long term alternative to nuclear power ?
michael0845 3 years ago
there isnt one.
loki6993 3 years ago
NANO TECHNOLOGY
tabbaci 3 years ago
and that generates electricity how?
DarthTanner 3 years ago
i have no idea what made me watch this all the way through. 10 minutes of my life wasted.
maddocuk 3 years ago
journey mans videos are always very left.
loki6993 3 years ago
what the
why am i waching this?
blahdob 3 years ago 3
haha good point wyhy am i watchin this 2 lol
masivman 3 years ago
british are loosers, they lost 1/4 of the world in 20 years and they are left with one small island
klf2233 3 years ago
compared to who?
DarthTanner 3 years ago
it costs a lot to maitain an empire, especially after suffering a terrible war.
prepschoolkid 3 years ago
yeah, suffering, you don't now what is 'suffering' a terrible war, you were all the time sitting on your fucking island, but I think muslims will show you what means 'suffering' :)
klf2233 3 years ago
Im not british.....
prepschoolkid 3 years ago
You are misinformed. The British Empire is still there. Only now it is known as the Anglo-American Empire. Same figureheads at the top, same structure, same lust for slavery and the drugs trade.
pondman27 3 years ago
Please use ww w. Goodsearch. com it is for charity thanks :):).
teaparty92 3 years ago
The reactions of the sizewell residents say it all. "We want it but not on our doorstep". Why not? It never ceases to amaze me that the people who are ardent fans of nuclear power always seem to get a bit less so when it is suggested that the power station or waste is sited in the centre of their own neighbourhood. Suddenly their confidence seems a little less solid. The nuclear industry will have a job convincing me if even it`s supporters acknowledge it`s dangerous.
sOmeMiCe 3 years ago
The same is true of everything, from schools, hospitals and police stations to wind turbines and coal power stations. No one wants to live next to anything but pleasent farmland.
DarthTanner 3 years ago
if they were serious they would use the money for the new reactor and spend it on solar panels on all the roofs of every home business in the area but then the power company gets less money its a stupid circle that isnt going to change till something REAL REAL BAD that can only be blamed on human co2 emissions then hopefully everyone will c the truth and make the changes.
HELPFULLY IT WONT BE TO LATE.
111hamish111 3 years ago
Except that the money from a new reactor if spent on solar power cells would only generate a tenth of the power and only during bright sulight. Not a big thing in the UK.
DarthTanner 3 years ago
chrnobly???hopely not again
gnarkillemerica 3 years ago
no chernobyl will not happen again.
DarthTanner 3 years ago