b3ta.com qotw
You are not logged in. Login or Signup
Home » Question of the Week » Off Topic » Post 581674 | Search
This is a question Off Topic

Are you a QOTWer? Do you want to start a thread that isn't a direct answer to the current QOTW? Then this place, gentle poster, is your friend.

(, Sun 1 Apr 2001, 1:00)
Pages: Latest, 837, 836, 835, 834, 833, ... 1

« Go Back | See The Full Thread

Both.
Nuclear is a reasonable stopgap, but renewables strike me as being a better idea on the whole. It's not like there's a shortage of wind and sun.
(, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 12:03, 2 replies, latest was 16 years ago)
isn't the problem with wind and sun the efficiencies?
I'm in favour of hydro and tidal energy personally.
(, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 12:09, Reply)
They should dam the Severn
and fuck the archeologists. I'd rather have power than boring old shit. If it was worth having it wouldn't have been thrown in a fucking river would it!
(, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 12:14, Reply)
Speaking as an archaeoogist, I welcome this fucking.
I do, however, object to it destroying my fishing for cod on those cold winter nights by Oldbury nuclear power station.
(, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 12:16, Reply)
Glow-in-the-dark fish a bit easier to catch?

(, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 12:26, Reply)
Self-cooking, too

(, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 12:27, Reply)
I'm going to a presentation about the latest severn barrage stuff on friday
I'll let you know what the current thinking is
(, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 12:21, Reply)
Perhaps, but that strikes me as a soluble problem.
There's a proposal for a Supergrid, for example, that'd link Saharan Africa, Norway, the North Sea, the North Atlantic, and possibly Iceland with DC cables. This would provide all of the regions power needs in principle. Sure, there's an engineering problem, but there's also good reason to think that it's eminently doable.
(, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 12:16, Reply)
any engineering problem can be solved with enough money

(, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 12:21, Reply)
Yup.
And the Supergrid idea, from what I've seen, would be expensive. But possibly still a good investment.
(, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 12:22, Reply)
it could indeed be a good investment
unfortunately there would be a lot of politics involved, and hence a lot of politicians....
(, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 12:24, Reply)
Renewables have a pretty big impact on the ecosystems that people like to bleat about.

(, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 12:13, Reply)
You know me well enough by now to know that I don't care about public opinion.
Nuclear is better than fossil, but you still need to build the things, and concrete is a massive carbon emitter - and reactors use a lot of concrete.

You're going to get an impact on the system whatever you do (or, rather, the impact is part of the system). And not all impacts are bad: the Norfolk broads and Cambridge Fells are lauded today as environmentally precious, but they're just the result of mediaeval geoengineering (aren't they? The general point'd stand that changing an area doesn't mean damaging it.).

I'm not denying the place of nuclear - fission or potentially fusion; but I don't think that it is, or has to be, the whole story.
(, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 12:20, Reply)
Aren't the new proposed sites for nuclear power
based on building at existing nuclear plants, e.g. Oldbury, Hinkley?

And your point about changing the landscape can also apply on a global scale with regards to climate change.
(, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 12:38, Reply)
they are
but at hinkley for example, they are wanting to level a big area of farm land and pave it to make new accommodation and a park and ride for the people working on the construction. among other things.
(, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 12:42, Reply)
Yes - you're right...
... but see my reply to your reply to Legless. CC isn't just about alteration - that's not a problem - but about the fact that it'll predictably diminish the quality of life of millions. There's a good welfare-based reason to worry about it.
(, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 12:48, Reply)
I don't much care.

(, Wed 2 Dec 2009, 13:24, Reply)

« Go Back | See The Full Thread

Pages: Latest, 837, 836, 835, 834, 833, ... 1