E
EddieM
No it not, they're responsible for terrible wildlife impact, plus you really can't compare something that's in, and has been in operation for decades, with something that's never been built.
This enviroment saving the
- Thread starter transam
- Start date
No it not, they're responsible for terrible wildlife impact, plus you really can't compare something that's in, and has been in operation for decades, with something that's never been built.
Sponsored Links
- Joined
- 17 May 2012
- Messages
- 10,784
- Reaction score
- 849
- Country
Nuclear still requires fuel that is finite.
Switzerland has it pretty good - about 2.3% of energy is from non-renewable carbon fuels, the bulk is from hydroelectric and nuclear. But they have nice big mountains. Scotland and Wales could probably do better with hydroelectric - UK only has about 1.8%. Maybe no room left for big dams though.
Switzerland has it pretty good - about 2.3% of energy is from non-renewable carbon fuels, the bulk is from hydroelectric and nuclear. But they have nice big mountains. Scotland and Wales could probably do better with hydroelectric - UK only has about 1.8%. Maybe no room left for big dams though.
E
EddieM
Everything's finite. Dams cause their own ecological problems.
- Joined
- 17 May 2012
- Messages
- 10,784
- Reaction score
- 849
- Country
What, even the wind, rain, geothermals and tides? Maybe they are, but if they stop, we all die anyway!
Sponsored Links
E
EddieM
Of course well all die as a species, inevitable.
What wildlife impact have they caused? They do kill some birds, a tiny fraction of the impact of house cats, but that's the worst I'm aware of.
And why do you keep saying wind power doesn't exist? It did provide a third of the electricity used in the EU last year. That's just reality.
Whoops, I'm wrong. That's all renewables. Only 10% over the whole EU. More in the UK but since I picked the EU...
https://renews.biz/57378/renewables-dominate-european-energy-mix-in-2019/
E
EddieM
I never said wind power doesn't exist! Modern based reactors don't exist.
Aha!
Well they kind of do, China is at the cutting edge of reactor design iirc. If your yardstick is a reactor type that doesn't exist and is unlikely to ever exist due to the huge cost to develop, it's a pretty high bar to cross.
E
EddieM
That's a complete cop out, there are no commercially operating thorium reactors, just luddites. China expects to develop one by 2030.
By then wind power should be down to about £30 per MWH (about 60% of the current market rate), they'll have to be a third the cost of Hinckley to be cost effective. Not impossible but it doesn't seem likely.
E
EddieM
The costs compared to like likes on an ancient design like Hinckley are theoretically and I stress theoretically a couple of orders of magnitude less, not 66% less.
- Joined
- 17 May 2012
- Messages
- 10,784
- Reaction score
- 849
- Country
True, but rather than just accept the fate of humankind maybe we should try to make the world a good place to live while we're here?
A minority of scientists thought this. Even in the 70s, the majority of climate specialists understood the impact, although of course it wasn't well publicised, and a single article about a new ice age got a lot of attention.
Armed guards are a tiny cost.
Nuclear power is the safest energy source we have. And the best way to supply a baseload supply.
To be fair not all Geography teachers are qualified scientists.
Safer than most, but safest is a pretty high bar. There's working at heights issues with wind farms and domestic solar panels but they're pretty damned safe.
Armed guards is an example. There is a lot of maintenance cost for a nuclear plant. I don't think anyone can disagree that in the UK it's a really expensive way to get base load power. That's just the reality we live in.
It's also a type of power that doesn't play well with other power types, it can't scale up or down fast so it is only able to do base load.
Sponsored Links
