Earth Hour 2009

[Phil]

Count me in

[marshlander]

...I think wind turbines n' all that really are the best for the job, only problem is nuclear holds more advantages and costs less in the short term.

How do you do the sums, Card? I don't see how a nuclear reactor (even a small one) costs less than a wind generator (even a large one).

[CardShark]

no thousands of wind turbines, 1 wind turbine cannot compare the the power a nuclear reactor can put out, you need thousands to get close to it!

[marshlander]

no thousands of wind turbines, 1 wind turbine cannot compare the the power a nuclear reactor can put out, you need thousands to get close to it!

I know, I was being a little facaetious (...er ok, maybe a lot), but the hidden costs of nuclear generation are enormous.

I just can't help thinking that a few years ago they built a wind turbine which they said was supplying half the needs of Swaffham, so a couple of years later they built another one. Now ... that's not rocket science ... is it?

[CardShark]

I know, I was being a little facaetious (...er ok, maybe a lot), but the hidden costs of nuclear generation are enormous.

I just can't help thinking that a few years ago they built a wind turbine which they said was supplying half the needs of Swaffham, so a couple of years later they built another one. Now ... that's not rocket science ... is it?

Which is why I said short term cost is cheaper for a nuclear reactor. where as wind turbine can hold a long term advantage which is why I'm all for it.

To stop global warming it is faster to build both at once if not other alternatives at the same time don't you think?


And to the government nuclear reactors provides a few more advantages in research.

[fredv3b]

Fusion reactors are an amazing piece of tech.

They are much more economical than the regular nuclor reactors.

Since the only fusion reactors in the world for a best a couple of seconds, we have no idea how much a reactor capable of a sustained reaction would cost.

[fredv3b]

I know, I was being a little facaetious (...er ok, maybe a lot), but the hidden costs of nuclear generation are enormous.

On the other hand nobody counts (or can count) the hidden cost of the effects of carbon dioxide production from fossil fuel generation

I just can't help thinking that a few years ago they built a wind turbine which they said was supplying half the needs of Swaffham, so a couple of years later they built another one. Now ... that's not rocket science ... is it?

'Wind farm x supplies y% of the needs of town z' is one of the half truths regularly chanted out by the 'environmental industry', those statistics are only true when averaged out over the year. Wind power produces electricity when it is windy regardless of the actual demand for it, alternative power production is required for when it is not windy. There are, as far as I am aware, only two forms of power production that are economical to turn off and on as required, hydroelectric and gas. The building of great dams and lakes for hydroelectric power requires suitable geography, which is in very short supply, gas power will in a few short years mean the UK being dependant on Russia and hoping it doesn't turn off the supply in the middle of winter in a fit of pique.

In any case the original estimates of wind farms production often turn out to be over-optimistic, and the farms themselves reliant of public subsidy to be economical.

[CardShark]

Since the only fusion reactors in the world for a best a couple of seconds, we have no idea how much a reactor capable of a sustained reaction would cost.

Very true, but the possibility is out their, and theory is it will be more economical than current nuclear reactors.

[fjp999]

"The only solution to the climate change problem is the eradication of society as we know it. Complete and utter change in every facet of life as we know it. Anyone who thinks otherwise is an ignorant optimist who refuses to see the truth."

Ain't going to happen

[COLOR="Purple"]
Well, actually it will, eventually. Dont really have a choice unless we start working really quickly on trying to get mother nature back on a healing cycle, that is if she is in a sick cycle...

As third world countries, and communist countries, find the value in consumerism, Dont remember the numbers but They plan to sell a zillion cars in India and then increase that number by the hundreds percentages... Also may remember Chinese car population is growing and growing. Must be other countries that are coming into the car cycles... Are these countries going to be interested in improving the earth?

I just dont see things improving much until a huge percentage of cars are removed and replaced by 100% green cars
[/COLOR]

[princealbertofb]

You are so right, Frankie Pie... I think hybrid cars are still too expensive for the average citizen, so maybe public transport is a better way to cope with the problem, that is, where and when possible.