View Full Version : friday the world ends
dvtimes
08-30-06, 08:15 PM
Looking forward to Friday.
I think I will pop down to Drax and watch them shut the place down.
Then thats it. No more power.
http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/articlenews.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2006-08-30T164812Z_01_L30224964_RTRUKOC_0_UK-BRITAIN-POWER-DRAX.xml
"Drax's carbon dioxide emissions in 2005, at 20.8 million tonnes, were higher than Sweden's 19.3 million tonnes."
Hmmmmmmmmmmmm
These so called "greens" also oppose nuclear energy which in green house gas terms is one of the greenest forms of energy.
Extraordinarily the greens also seem to be against alternative energy like wind and tidal. Everytime a new wind farm is proposed, someone from Friends of the Earth is wheeled out to oppose it.
I can't help but admire the french on this issue who now have 56 nuclear power stations generating 76% of their energy. They're independent of middle east oil for their energy. If only we could be that way.
These so called "greens" also oppose nuclear energy which in green house gas terms is one of the greenest forms of energy.
Extraordinarily the greens also seem to be against alternative energy like wind and tidal. Everytime a new wind farm is proposed, someone from Friends of the Earth is wheeled out to oppose it.
I can't help but admire the french on this issue who now have 56 nuclear power stations generating 76% of their energy. They're independent of middle east oil for their energy. If only we could be that way.
A lot of the south of England uses French energy and has done for years. :)
A lot of the south of England uses French energy and has done for years. :)
We drink lots of French wine too :cheers2:
We drink lots of French wine too :cheers2:
:cheers2:
dvtimes
08-30-06, 11:24 PM
Nuclear energy is very very very expensive.
Plus you have to dump the rods.
I have listened to a lot about this and most of the profesers say nuclear energy is a last resort.
In fact one on tv said that no one has ever stoped a private firm investing, its just no one has ever thought such power stations would ever make money, so as he said, what has changed?
We have around 400 years of coal. All its takes is to make the power stations green.
In fact I think thats all the protesters are after is to make the station green.
That said, some in the green party do want nuclear energy. So its not all greens that do not want it.
Persanaly I do not want nuclear energy. Its very costly and you have magor problems getting rid of the rods.
A lot of the south of England uses French energy and has done for years. :)
LOL. Yes, I know. Explains the funny garlic smell when you switch the light on sometimes.
Maybe too it means they take the risk and we just have to pay for it.
I don't like being dependent on someone else for energy but maybe that's just me being old fashioned.
Its very costly and you have magor problems getting rid of the rods.
Just dump em in Iran
dvtimes
08-30-06, 11:27 PM
That said I will be down there, so you may see me on the news.
I shall park the car in a good spot too. As I want it on tv.
We drink lots of French wine too :cheers2:
I don't but then I'm a bit anti-gallic.
A few years ago a vinyard in Kent or Sussex somewhere took one of the top wine prizes in France. The French were furious. :lmao2:
I don't but then I'm a bit anti-gallic.
A few years ago a vinyard in Kent or Sussex somewhere took one of the top wine prizes in France. The French were furious. :lmao2:
Not bad wine comming from down here now, with global warming and hotter summers, grapes do grow.......We make OK wine, its just very expensive even for the rough stuff
Nuclear energy is very very very expensive.
Plus you have to dump the rods.
Persanaly I do not want nuclear energy. Its very costly and you have magor problems getting rid of the rods.
Yeah. I'm not saying it's necessarily the right solution for us. I'm just saying that the French have made a success of it. It is expensive but they've used a single American design and they have an economy of scale because they have built so many of them. They don't have the problem with opposition from their people either. The French embrace technology.
I'm very keen on wind and tidal power actually. We have a lot of it.
The hot air alone from :bandb: would supply enough energy to power a small town, for example.
Just get the French to build 10 more nuclear power stations and buy more from them. Its either that or build them ourselves or at some point we will be needing to cut back usage by a huge ammount.
Just get the French to build 10 more nuclear power stations and buy more from them. Its either that or build them ourselves or at some point we will be needing to cut back usage by a huge ammount.
I agree - but get the French to build 'em in the UK. Then we have ultimate control if things go pear shaped.
If the stations were in France, I wouldn't trust the Frenchies not to switch off the juice when they wanted to put pressure on us for some reason. Any more than I'd trust the Russians not to squeeze our gas supply if we have to import it all from them.
I agree - but get the French to build 'em in the UK. Then we have ultimate control if things go pear shaped.
You don't think that would defeat the object?
The solution is simple.......rely on oil and keep invading more countries to steel it.....Ah yes, thats what we are doing allready
The solution is simple.......really on oil and keep invading more countries to steel it.....Ah yes, thats what we are doing allready
I still prefer nuclear as there are no downsides.
I still prefer nuclear as there are no downsides.
me to, but not as much fun to watch on TV :joystick:
me to, but not as much fun to watch on TV :joystick:
I think nuclear could be much better telly. Just imagine those rods going out to the country that was the lowest bidder. That would be REAL capitalism. :)
dvtimes
08-31-06, 12:11 AM
I think nuclear could be much better telly. Just imagine those rods going out to the country that was the lowest bidder. That would be REAL capitalism. :)
Thinking about it, we should dump the rods at scotland and wales.
Solves many problems.
You don't think that would defeat the object?
I'm not sure I get your meaning but what I'm saying, I guess, is that most of the costs are in development so, rather than us developing and building them, get the French to build them but in the UK. In a crisis we can then operate them if needs be.
By things going pear shaped I meant political instability or .... I don't know .... the French disagreeing with our foriegn policy or something and switching off the supply of electricity from France to the UK.
In a crisis situation a country should never lose control of its energy supply, food supply or water supply.
dvtimes
08-31-06, 12:12 AM
I still prefer nuclear as there are no downsides.
Aport from the vast cost and the rods and also you have to get hold of the stuff to make the rods in the first place, which is only a limited supply.
Aport from the vast cost and the rods and also you have to get hold of the stuff to make the rods in the first place, which is only a limited supply.
What cost? There are African countries that will take them for next to nothing?
That limited supply would last for a thousand years.
I'm not sure I get your meaning but what I'm saying
The problem is the tree huggers here.
In a crisis situation a country should never lose control of its energy supply, food supply or water supply.
Thats already happened with electric, gas and water.
Aport from the vast cost and the rods and also you have to get hold of the stuff to make the rods in the first place, which is only a limited supply.
Vast costs today maybe, but wait till the oil reserves hit 50% usage. Costs will be unreal and supplies will dwindle very quickly.
Oil usage is rising rappidly, balance that with supply going down rapidly (when it hits the 50% mark).
We wont have an option. Nuclear is the only way.
What about the Eurovision Song Contest? Make the country in last place take all of the rods?
What about the Eurovision Song Contest? Make the country in last place take all of the rods?
Better still, the country that comes first
dvtimes
08-31-06, 12:21 AM
What cost? There are African countries that will take them for next to nothing?
That limited supply would last for a thousand years.Cost to build.
Cost to maintain.
Cost to dismantel (the stations only have a life expectansy).
There are far cheaper options and more cost effective.
As I have said we have 400 years of coal. All we need to do is bild them green.
Most proffesers do say nuke stations are not cost effective.
And as I have said no one has stoped anyone biuilding any. Its just that no one wants to invest as no one belives they could make a profit.
They are thought of by most as the last resort.
Its a bit like most things.
You should know by now I am always correct.
Better still, the country that comes first
Either way it would be great television. :)
Cost to build.
Cost to maintain.
Cost to dismantel (the stations only have a life expectansy).
There are far cheaper options and more cost effective.
As I have said we have 400 years of coal. All we need to do is bild them green.
Most proffesers do say nuke stations are not cost effective.
And as I have said no one has stoped anyone biuilding any. Its just that no one wants to invest as no one belives they could make a profit.
They are thought of by most as the last resort.
Its a bit like most things.
You should know by now I am always correct.
Where are you getting your figures from? lol
Where are you getting your figures from? lol
I was wondering that and also wondering how you burn this "400 years" off coal we have safely
I was wondering that and also wondering how you burn this "400 years" off coal we have safely
The problem with coal is that you need a supply of 400 years of twats to go down and dig it?
dvtimes
08-31-06, 12:25 AM
Where are you getting your figures from? lol
About 3 weeks ago on radio 4 there was a big dibate on this, I listened as I was rowing.
Plus there have been some interesting interviews on tv.
The best was a few weeks back, on working lunch. He was the one that said there was 400 years of coal. He also joked that no one has stoped any private firm building a nuclear station. Just no one wanted to as the cost was so huge.
The problem with coal is that you need a supply of 400 years of twats to go down and dig it?
We havn't run out of northerners yet have we?
dvtimes
08-31-06, 12:25 AM
The problem with coal is that you need a supply of 400 years of twats to go down and dig it?
Its no problem. We have the welsh to do that.
About 3 weeks ago on radio 4 there was a big dibate on this, I listened as I was rowing.
Plus there have been some interesting interviews on tv.
The best was a few weeks back, on working lunch. He was the one that said there was 400 years of coal. He also joked that no one has stoped any private firm building a nuclear station. Just no one wanted to as the cost was so huge.
Again, if you allow competitive tendering for disposal that cost would fall through the floor.
dvtimes
08-31-06, 12:29 AM
Again, if you allow competitive tendering for disposal that cost would fall through the floor.
Thats what you want a nuclear power station built on the cheap.
Thats what you want a nuclear power station built on the cheap.
Or a coal power station belching out acid rain on the cheap?
Or a gas power station under the control of the Russians?
vBulletin v3.5.4, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.