Topic: Nuclear Energy

[filopastry]

Answered yes, although a more nuanced answer would probably be that while reasonably safe it obviously isn't 100% so, but then again neither are any of the alternatives currently capable of large scale power generation.

[Godmadebloodred]

The officials in Japan running the nuclear facilities have a huge credibility gap.
Some years ago there was a leak at their plants and they were caught lying that the danger was non-existant/negligible.

Now, these guys are saying there might be a leak but the nuclear experts on BBC/CNN are saying that this is worse than the Three Mile Island incident.

[Godmadebloodred]

We live in the perfect country to build nuclear plants.  No earthquakes, no tsunami's, no hurricanes, stable weather patterns (relatively).....shame that nobody is actually willing to build any of the new buggers.

The real danger will be the clowns running the place then.
This country has an impressive record on outsourcing work to the lowest bidder.
The government's position on nuclear energy will depend on the public's mood as opposed to the scientific evidence.

[Sudden Death Draft Loser]

As things stand, wind power and wave power is not at all suited to the United Kingdom.

In what way are they "not at all suited to the United Kingdom" ? The only problem i am aware of is the need to upgrade the national grid in some of the more remote areas (generally the areas with the best wind and wave resources). The UK has some of the best wind and wave resources in the world, add to that the tidal resources in e.g. the Bristol channel. Some talk about Nuclear energy providing energy security for the UK, i.e. not relying on importing fuels from foreign countries, this is nonsense, to the best of my knowledge we have no uranium resources in the UK. Another issue is "peak uranium", the purity of available uranium ore is falling, i.e. the amount of uranium that can be extracted per tonne of ore is falling. This means more land being mined, with associated environmental destruction. At what point does it become uneconomical in energy terms to keep mining uranium.

There is a potential issue with renewable generation as rare earth metals are currently used in the magnets employed in wind generators. China has around 90% of the worlds rare earth metals and want to keep most of them. The solution, in my opinion, is to become much more energy efficient.

[Art Vandelay]

Was it Oppenheimer that developed this? I mean who the fuck sits there over a coffee and peanut butter on toast and thinks of splitting the atom? How the hell do you even think about something like that? Hi have an after 8 mint and while we are at it, lets think of a way to destroy huge swathes of humanity while we are at it.

"Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds."

[SMD]

In what way are they "not at all suited to the United Kingdom" ? The only problem i am aware of is the need to upgrade the national grid in some of the more remote areas (generally the areas with the best wind and wave resources). The UK has some of the best wind and wave resources in the world, add to that the tidal resources in e.g. the Bristol channel. Some talk about Nuclear energy providing energy security for the UK, i.e. not relying on importing fuels from foreign countries, this is nonsense, to the best of my knowledge we have no uranium resources in the UK. Another issue is "peak uranium", the purity of available uranium ore is falling, i.e. the amount of uranium that can be extracted per tonne of ore is falling. This means more land being mined, with associated environmental destruction. At what point does it become uneconomical in energy terms to keep mining uranium.

There is a potential issue with renewable generation as rare earth metals are currently used in the magnets employed in wind generators. China has around 90% of the worlds rare earth metals and want to keep most of them. The solution, in my opinion, is to become much more energy efficient.

Because the technology as it is now wouldn't be worth it, with the efficiency as well as the way the wind and waves are in the UK. There is a great need for renewable and sustainable energy but it'd be even worse if we ploughed money into tech that's unsuitable for the UK. We're so fucking behind because the Government keeps pandering to big companies who aren't interested in 50 years down the line.

[Sudden Death Draft Loser]

What are the alternatives?

Coal, Oil, Gas and wood are all finite resources and running out.

Windpower is a bit of a joke. Costs 3 times as much and at any one time half the turbines are not working.

Solar panels last about 10yrs but takes about 20yrs to pay for the cost of installing.

Wavepower hasn't taken off in the 50yrs I know they've been talking about it.

Htdro-electric schemes are limited


There will be a massive power crisis in the near future; nuclear is currently the only real option

Currently most solar panels have a manufacturers stated life of 20 years, more likely to actually last around 25. With the introduction of the "Feed in Tariffs" in the UK the "payback" time for solar panels in less than 10 years (dependent on location, aspect, roof pitch, energy consumption etc). The "Feed in Tariff" for solar panels is over 40 pence per kilowatt hour produced, plus 3 pence per unit surplus (i.e. power not consumed in the property), for wind power (only small scale - up to 50 kW i think) it is over 20 pence per kilowatt hour.

The wide geographical spread of large wind turbines in the UK, currently most are over 2 Mega Watt installed capacity, with larger ones (up to 5 MW on the way), means that more will be turning at any one time. Modern wind turbines are very efficient and getting more so, although Betz law states a maximum (for all generators).

Although the UK has massive wave energy potential, there is a problem with wave generators, i.e. engineering a device robust enough to withstand the force of waves in the Atlantic, and the corrosion from salt water. Until recently there was only one "wave farm" in the world, the Polamis, installed off the coast of Portugal, built and developed by a Scottish company. It was disabled by the force of the waves.

Hydro electric power is probably the best, but we've quite simply run out of site for larger scale hydro in the UK. In my opinion not enough use of small scale Hydro in this country. Ironically one of our best large Hydro schemes (actually a pumped storage system) is used to provide for peak demand during ad breaks, e.g. when millions put the kettle on while waiting for the second half of Coronation Street.

The answer is in behavior change and increased efficiency.   

[Sudden Death Draft Loser]

Because the technology as it is now wouldn't be worth it, with the efficiency as well as the way the wind and waves are in the UK. There is a great need for renewable and sustainable energy but it'd be even worse if we ploughed money into tech that's unsuitable for the UK. We're so fucking behind because the Government keeps pandering to big companies who aren't interested in 50 years down the line.

Again i have to say that the only issue i can see with wind power in the UK is the need to upgrade the national grid in some remote areas. We have phenomenal wind and wave resources in the UK.

Wave has other issues, i.e. engineering robust enough devices.

[redbyrdz]

Fuck me, "wind power and wave power not suitable to the UK?" But nuclear power is? There's plenty of wind and sea here, but the only bit of uranium is in the Orkneys - Thatcher tried to open a mine there but failed.

The only reason there's not more windpower already is because the big power companies try to block every move towards renewable energy. There's plenty of money in the energy market, and they don't want to give up their prime position to get it. Instead they keep promoting their outdated nuclear power plants, thus preventing thousands of jobs being created, in building them, maintaining of the turbines, the grid, in research.

The UK already have the largest off-shore windpark in the world. Wonder why that was build if its so unsuitable?


I'm gonna stay out of this thread.

[Sudden Death Draft Loser]

Fuck me, "wind power and wave power not suitable to the UK?" But nuclear power is? There's plenty of wind and sea here, but the only bit of uranium is in the Orkneys - Thatcher tried to open a mine there but failed.

The only reason there's not more windpower already is because the big power companies try to block every move towards renewable energy. There's plenty of money in the energy market, and they don't want to give up their prime position to get it. Instead they keep promoting their outdated nuclear power plants, thus preventing thousands of jobs being created, in building them, maintaining of the turbines, the grid, in research.

The UK already have the largest off-shore windpark in the world. Wonder why that was build if its so unsuitable?



I'm gonna stay out of this thread.

There is loads of development of off shore wind happening in the UK at the moment, have faith. Falmouth docks in Cornwall have just gained a large contract to build blade racks for offshore wind.

[Sudden Death Draft Loser]

UK wind resources 'best in Europe'
Trade body slams claims as 'nonsense' and 'bizarre pseudo science'

Thursday 30 August 2007

Leading UK renewable energy trade body, BWEA today criticised 'ill informed and disingenuous' claims on the viability of the UK wind energy industry.

Responding to reports on the BBC that UK wind farms are underperforming the BWEA Chief Executive Maria McCaffery said:

    "The UK has the best wind resource in Europe. These claims are absolute nonsense, the wind energy industry is investing billions of pounds to produce clean power in the UK to tackle climate change."

The BWEA Chief Executive rebutted claims about wind energy as 'bizarre pseudo-science', specifically she pointed out that:

    * There is no Government subsidy for building wind farms. As much as £2 billion of private investment has been made in the UK wind industry.
    * The support mechanism – Renewable Obligations Certificates (ROC) - is only available for electricity that wind farms have already produced and supplied to utilities
    * In 30 years of monitoring there have been no days when the wind has not blown throughout the UK.
    * Wind farms generate power for approximately 85% of the time.
    * The wind supplies over 2 GW of electricity in the UK, which is 1.5% of UK electricity needs.

McCaffery added "Wind speeds vary across the country, which is why most wind farms are concentrated in key areas. No-one in their right mind would build turbines where they wouldn't produce a viable amount of electricity"

"These claims are ill informed and disingenuous. There is no robust scientific base for these assertions."

Ali Sayigh Director-General of the respected World Renewables Energy Network supported the BWEA stance. "I am outraged that this statement has been made. I apologise on behalf of WREN and wish to make clear that we are wholeheartedly in support of wind energy in our own efforts to promote renewable energy projects in the third world."

http://www.bwea.com/media/news/070830.html



Note this is for wind resources at 25 metres above ground level, wind speeds are much greater at higher altitudes. Currently large wind turbines are on towers of 100m and above.

[♠Dirty Harry♠]

UK wind resources 'best in Europe'
Trade body slams claims as 'nonsense' and 'bizarre pseudo science'

Thursday 30 August 2007

Leading UK renewable energy trade body, BWEA today criticised 'ill informed and disingenuous' claims on the viability of the UK wind energy industry.

Responding to reports on the BBC that UK wind farms are underperforming the BWEA Chief Executive Maria McCaffery said:

    "The UK has the best wind resource in Europe. These claims are absolute nonsense, the wind energy industry is investing billions of pounds to produce clean power in the UK to tackle climate change."

The BWEA Chief Executive rebutted claims about wind energy as 'bizarre pseudo-science', specifically she pointed out that:

    * There is no Government subsidy for building wind farms. As much as £2 billion of private investment has been made in the UK wind industry.
    * The support mechanism – Renewable Obligations Certificates (ROC) - is only available for electricity that wind farms have already produced and supplied to utilities
    * In 30 years of monitoring there have been no days when the wind has not blown throughout the UK.
    * Wind farms generate power for approximately 85% of the time.
    * The wind supplies over 2 GW of electricity in the UK, which is 1.5% of UK electricity needs.

McCaffery added "Wind speeds vary across the country, which is why most wind farms are concentrated in key areas. No-one in their right mind would build turbines where they wouldn't produce a viable amount of electricity"

"These claims are ill informed and disingenuous. There is no robust scientific base for these assertions."

Ali Sayigh Director-General of the respected World Renewables Energy Network supported the BWEA stance. "I am outraged that this statement has been made. I apologise on behalf of WREN and wish to make clear that we are wholeheartedly in support of wind energy in our own efforts to promote renewable energy projects in the third world."

http://www.bwea.com/media/news/070830.html

Note this is for wind resources at 25 metres above ground level, wind speeds are much greater at higher altitudes. Currently large wind turbines are on towers of 100m and above.

It's actually something I'm considering for my own house, depending on costs and average wind in my area. Plus If I can put energy back into the national grid then I'd be getting some cash back

[Sudden Death Draft Loser]

It's actually something I'm considering for my own house, depending on costs and average wind in my area. Plus If I can put energy back into the national grid then I'd be getting some cash back

Currently the "Feed in Tariffs" will pay you around 24 to 34 pence per kWh generated dependent on the size of turbine, this payment is guaranteed for 20 years. Installing solar panels will pay around 36 to 41 pence per kWh, dependent on size of installation, guaranteed for 25 years.

http://www.fitariffs.co.uk/eligible/levels/

It would be worth investigating whether you have a suitable site, for wind or solar.

http://www.carbontrust.co.uk/news/news/press-centre/2009/Pages/050309_SmallWindTool.aspx

[SMD]

Again i have to say that the only issue i can see with wind power in the UK is the need to upgrade the national grid in some remote areas. We have phenomenal wind and wave resources in the UK.

Wave has other issues, i.e. engineering robust enough devices.

Fuck me, "wind power and wave power not suitable to the UK?" But nuclear power is? There's plenty of wind and sea here, but the only bit of uranium is in the Orkneys - Thatcher tried to open a mine there but failed.

The only reason there's not more windpower already is because the big power companies try to block every move towards renewable energy. There's plenty of money in the energy market, and they don't want to give up their prime position to get it. Instead they keep promoting their outdated nuclear power plants, thus preventing thousands of jobs being created, in building them, maintaining of the turbines, the grid, in research.

The UK already have the largest off-shore windpark in the world. Wonder why that was build if its so unsuitable?


I'm gonna stay out of this thread.

Guys, have not been advocating nuclear energy at all. In fact, if you knew me in person you'd know I've been banging the sustainability drum both here and in the UAE. My final year project in university was linked to this (though because it wasn't oil related, I got fuck all help from the department )

I'm just saying that currently the UK can't adopt tech from other countries unless we invest a lot of money catching up what we should've started in the 80s. We can't just expect to shift the source of energy either because we're a wasteful country in terms of home and industrial use. If we're going to rely on renewable energy, we need to develop the technology ourselves that'll harness wind and wave power. It's all very well and good saying we've got wind but I remember there being an example of one set of turbines that were put up that had to be taken down because the rotors were aligned wrong. This was a while ago so I don't remember where it was but honestly the attitude in this country towards non-traditional energy sources is shocking.

[SP]

Wind has an important, growing part to play, but it is too unreliable for be the main power source. You can use systems such as pump storage to ameliorate the effects, but there needs to be other more steady sources as well.

Personally I would like to see the motorways lined with wind turbines. If there is already a motorway there, the incremental blight is minor.  Wind Turbines suffer huge NIMBY resistance.


Uranium is a more secure fuel source than oil. Canada and Australia are stable countries on whom we are on good terms...

[SP]

Currently the "Feed in Tariffs" will pay you around 24 to 34 pence per kWh generated dependent on the size of turbine, this payment is guaranteed for 20 years. Installing solar panels will pay around 36 to 41 pence per kWh, dependent on size of installation, guaranteed for 25 years.

http://www.fitariffs.co.uk/eligible/levels/

It would be worth investigating whether you have a suitable site, for wind or solar.

http://www.carbontrust.co.uk/news/news/press-centre/2009/Pages/050309_SmallWindTool.aspx

The scheme may not have long to live:
http://www.fitariffs.co.uk/FITs/regulation/first_review/

[rotistgeil]

I voted no, as the dangers when something goes wrong are just too big and long lasting. And all the shit that is stored underground somewhere. How is that not going to cause issues when a quake damages where it is stored?

[Sudden Death Draft Loser]

The scheme may not have long to live:
http://www.fitariffs.co.uk/FITs/regulation/first_review/

As far as i understand the review will concentrate on large solar plants, the feed in tariffs are currently available for solar projects up to 5 MW, hence companies are getting involved, especially in Cornwall. Enabling companies to make large profits was not the initial point of the scheme. 

http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/news/pn11_010/pn11_010.aspx

[Andy @ Allerton!]

Seriously though, if you were to start chopping down trees and using them as your main fuel source you'd find we'd run out rather quickly, even with replanting schemes.

Doubt that. Every tree you use - you plant 5 or 50 or 500. Initially it would be difficult - but initially you wouldn't have to use the supplies up straight away. You could set a plan to start moving over to a properly maintained wood source over a series of decades.

[Andy @ Allerton!]

It's actually something I'm considering for my own house, depending on costs and average wind in my area. Plus If I can put energy back into the national grid then I'd be getting some cash back

[♠Dirty Harry♠]

Currently the "Feed in Tariffs" will pay you around 24 to 34 pence per kWh generated dependent on the size of turbine, this payment is guaranteed for 20 years. Installing solar panels will pay around 36 to 41 pence per kWh, dependent on size of installation, guaranteed for 25 years.

http://www.fitariffs.co.uk/eligible/levels/

It would be worth investigating whether you have a suitable site, for wind or solar.

http://www.carbontrust.co.uk/news/news/press-centre/2009/Pages/050309_SmallWindTool.aspx

That site didn't work, but I found on another one that it's 7.5mph average, is this enough for say a 5kw turbine?

[Sudden Death Draft Loser]

That site didn't work, but I found on another one that it's 7.5mph average, is this enough for say a 5kw turbine?

7.5 mph converts to 3.35 m/s - not that good a resource to be honest. At what height above ground level was that average speed ? Which wind speed data base did you use ? Have you considered solar panels ?

[♠Dirty Harry♠]

7.5 mph converts to 3.35 m/s - not that good a resource to be honest. At what height above ground level was that average speed ? Which wind speed data base did you use ? Have you considered solar panels ?

No Idea, I went for 45m

[Sudden Death Draft Loser]

No Idea, I went for 45m

For example, using a Proven 6kW turbine at an average wind speed of 3.5m/second, with a tower height of 15 m, your Annual energy production would be around 4800 kWh, enough for the average domestic consumption. However this depends on the surrounding terrain, i have used agricultural land with some houses and 8m hedges within 500m of the turbine. You need to find the average wind speed in m/s at 15m above ground level at your location.

Try this
http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/what_we_do/uk_supply/energy_mix/renewable/explained/wind/windsp_databas/windsp_databas.aspx

[SP]

Doubt that. Every tree you use - you plant 5 or 50 or 500. Initially it would be difficult - but initially you wouldn't have to use the supplies up straight away. You could set a plan to start moving over to a properly maintained wood source over a series of decades.

Wood is not the best biofuel to use. Plus there is just not enough land in the UK to grow enough trees to meet power demand. The nicest solution to biomass as a power source would be floating photosynthesis farms out in the ocean.

http://www.biomara.org/logos-sponsor-and-partner/other-content-pages/BioMara%20Sustainable%20Fuels%20from%20Marine%20Biomass

But the level of funding (€6m) tells you that this is not close to production use.

[♠Dirty Harry♠]

For example, using a Proven 6kW turbine at an average wind speed of 3.5m/second, with a tower height of 15 m, your Annual energy production would be around 4800 kWh, enough for the average domestic consumption. However this depends on the surrounding terrain, i have used agricultural land with some houses and 8m hedges within 500m of the turbine. You need to find the average wind speed in m/s at 15m above ground level at your location.

Try this
http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/what_we_do/uk_supply/energy_mix/renewable/explained/wind/windsp_databas/windsp_databas.aspx

See graphic below

I am building on land with mature trees to the east and North and open land to the South and West.

[SP]

The mean wind speed is not the most useful measure. The mode would be far more useful, or even data for the number of days where wind speeds are insufficient for generation. I live in the Chilterns and we seem to have either no wind, or blowing a gale, but precious little in between. I know it is anecdotal, but I suspect a wind turbine would be boom or bust round here. (It's immaterial, I am in a village and I would never get planning permission. My house is a new build, which the builders built 6 inches higher than the plans. The neighbours noticed and all sorts of who ha occurred in the planning committee. There is no way a wind turbine would get sneaked in).

[Sudden Death Draft Loser]

See graphic below

I am building on land with mature trees to the east and North and open land to the South and West.

In that case hopefully your prevailing wind direction is from the South or West. With this new data, again using a Proven (manufacturers name) 6kW machine on a 10 m tower, your Annual energy production should be around 1451 kWh, on a 15m tower around 1708 kWh. This are approximate figures, but much closer than my first calculation, i.e. the 4000 kWh A.E.P. is wrong.

[Sudden Death Draft Loser]

The mean wind speed is not the most useful measure. The mode would be far more useful, or even data for the number of days where wind speeds are insufficient for generation. I live in the Chilterns and we seem to have either no wind, or blowing a gale, but precious little in between. I know it is anecdotal, but I suspect a wind turbine would be boom or bust round here. (It's immaterial, I am in a village and I would never get planning permission. My house is a new build, which the builders built 6 inches higher than the plans. The neighbours noticed and all sorts of who ha occurred in the planning committee. There is no way a wind turbine would get sneaked in).

Dependent on your situation, re roof pitch, size, type, and aspect (which direction does it face ?) you may consider solar panels. In this case shading has to be considered as even 10% shading greatly reduces the efficiency of a panel.

[SP]

Dependent on your situation, re roof pitch, size, type, and aspect (which direction does it face ?) you may consider solar panels. In this case shading has to be considered as even 10% shading greatly reduces the efficiency of a panel.

Not really a goer - I have south facing eaves, a complicated shaped roof,  a massive tree and a skylight slap bang in the middle of the bit of roof that just may have been feasible.  The north facing roof would have been perfect, but for facing north that is...

[♠Dirty Harry♠]

In that case hopefully your prevailing wind direction is from the South or West. With this new data, again using a Proven (manufacturers name) 6kW machine on a 10 m tower, your Annual energy production should be around 1451 kWh, on a 15m tower around 1708 kWh. This are approximate figures, but much closer than my first calculation, i.e. the 4000 kWh A.E.P. is wrong.

Our wind is mostly from the west and the site is on a rural hill as well, would this make a positive difference?

What is the average power consumption for a house in the UK, there's conflicting figures on Google.

[scatman]

it is safe, you cant stop natural disasters from happening unfortunately

[Sudden Death Draft Loser]

Our wind is mostly from the west and the site is on a rural hill as well, would this make a positive difference?

What is the average power consumption for a house in the UK, there's conflicting figures on Google.

Slight improvement in production as a rough estimate. Very difficult to find average power consumption figures, probably between 4 and 5000 kWh.

[♠Dirty Harry♠]

Slight improvement in production as a rough estimate. Very difficult to find average power consumption figures, probably between 4 and 5000 kWh.

Cheers, so Unless you were getting the full whack of the energy it wouldn't be worth the £20,000 or so you would pay to install it.

If you don't mind me asking, how do you know so much about this?

[Sudden Death Draft Loser]

it is safe, you cant stop natural disasters from happening unfortunately

true, under "normal" conditions Nuclear power is very safe, but that is not (for me) the point. Contrary to popular opinion it does not address the issue of energy security in the long term. The carbon dioxide emissions is interesting, currently taking a world average, the life cycle emissions from nuclear power are around 66 g equivalent/kWh, which is very favourable compared to fossil fuel emissions: coal being around 1000, oil - 770, gas - 440. However in comparison to renewables, not so good: onshore wind (1.5 MW) - 10, offshore wind (2.5 MW) - 9, large scale hydro (reservoir 3.1 MW) - 10, hydro (run of river 300 kW) - 13. The emissions from nuclear will rise as uranium ore purity decreases. 

[Sudden Death Draft Loser]

Cheers, so Unless you were getting the full whack of the energy it wouldn't be worth the £20,000 or so you would pay to install it.

If you don't mind me asking, how do you know so much about this?

Finished studying a Foundation degree in Renewable Energy in June 2009, then did a "top up" year to obtain a BSc in Environmental Resource Management, completed in June 2010. My final year dissertation was looking at the Carbon Footprint for Helston and devising solutions.

Presuming my calculations are correct, and your consumption is average i get a "pay back" time of around 7 years, assuming 100% load matching, i.e. best possible match between generation and usage. Giving around another 13 years of "profit"

[♠Dirty Harry♠]

Finished studying a Foundation degree in Renewable Energy in June 2009, then did a "top up" year to obtain a BSc in Environmental Resource Management, completed in June 2010. My final year dissertation was looking at the Carbon Footprint for Helston and devising solutions.

Presuming my calculations are correct, and your consumption is average i get a "pay back" time of around 7 years, assuming 100% load matching, i.e. best possible match between generation and usage. Giving around another 13 years of "profit"

Sweet, it's given me a lot of food for thought cheers. Might get in touch with a few companies about this now and forget about the Fission reactor I was looking about

[srs507]

I trust it, and hope the US federal government invests in it to help us reduce our dependence on foreign sources of energy. Wouldn't mind them looking to place the new plants in less geologically active regions if possible though, and all the new places ought to be fitted to survive events that are worse than the worst case scenarios of the region.

srs507, where are you from exactly?

North-central NJ, though I found out Oyster Creek is older and closer. Yikes.

[kesey]

Heh. I can't vote in that poll - what does 'safe' mean?

If nothing goes wrong, operation is quite safe. But we are accepting a risk of things going seriously wrong - like now in Japan. Is that risk worth taking? IMO that's a political discussion, and nothing anyone can just answer. It should be discussed much more openly, and away from the interests of big power companies wanting to make money.

There are a lot of problems with nuclear power apart from the 'safety' issue. It starts with mining of uranium which isn't without problems - it is also not really available in Britain, essentially making the UK totally dependent on other countries. Then there's the waste problem - no country has a good concept for a long-term ('final') storage repository, and nobody knows how to keep the stuff safe long-term. You can also question if it's wise to have our entire energy produced by just a few massive power plants, or if it wouldn't be better to have more smaller plants, because failure of one wouldn't have such a large impact. There's a risk of terrorist attacks. And there's the debate over nuclear weapons, which are linked to the nuclear industry. You could also be concerned over all our energy being produced by a few large, private companies.

For what it's worth, I think it's time to move to newer technology, renewable energy. We could sustain all our energy needs with just wind power produced in Britain. It would create far more jobs, jobs in rural areas and could be produced locally. It doesn't have to be instantly, and of course not only wind power, but a 'mixed energy concept', with a mid-term phase out of nuclear power. And no new nuclear power plants.

Iam glad Iam not the only one thinking like that.

Was it Oppenheimer that developed this? I mean who the fuck sits there over a coffee and peanut butter on toas
t and thinks of splitting the atom? How the hell do you even think about something like that? Hi have an after 8 mint and while we are at it, lets think of a way to destroy huge swathes of humanity while we are at it.

He quoted the Bhagavad Gita, Chapter 10, only a bit of it though, this is what he said.

"Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds."

Let's hope we/they  don't do a classic mistake tha man seems to be pretty good at - wait until it's to late to find out the truth.

We've all see what nature can do. I was misunderstood in the Tsumani thread a few days ago. She's running the show, end off. We need to utilise her energies and power, perhaps give the old lady the respect and love she deserves.

She may start to be nice to us, you never know.

[farawayred]

Uranium is a more secure fuel source than oil. Canada and Australia are stable countries on whom we are on good terms...

Just imagine those rich Aussie and Canuck bastards ruling their countries and rolling in gold like the Arabs now...



(no disrespect to any of the nations above, just can't get this image out of my head...)