At 10:06 1-7-01 +0100, Andy Crystall wrote:
>Solar power, while it has its uses, isn't that viable on a large scale.
>Firstly, making solar pannels uses a lot of highly toxic
>chemicals..it costs a lot to clean them up, and some of the makers
>don't even try. Equally, energy efficientcy is low.
<snip>
>So that's a problem...what IS the power soloution? Well, it's the
>soloution ppl ain't gonna want to hear. Nuclear Power. Simple as
>that...statistically, INCLUDING CHENOBLE, Nuclear Power is the
>saftest form of power production today.
>
>The main "pollutant" from Nuclear Power stations is hot water, hey
>don't pump dioxins and fine particles like coal-fired stations do, for
>example.
Nope, but that hot water happens to be *radioactive* hot water -- which is
being disposed of by dumping it into a river or ocean. Further, there is
this little (ahem) problem of radioactive waste (depleted Uranium?) we need
to get rid of.
>And cleanup..well. Once we get (hopefully soon!)
>reuseable spaceplanes, the worst 0.1% (the fraction which will last
>tens of thousands of years) of the reactor waste can he hauled into
>orbit and fired into the sun.
This seems like a set of double standards. First, you say that solar power
isn't really an option because of the low energy efficiency and the as yet
unsolved problems with the production of solar panels.
You then go on to promote nuclear energy as the solution to our energy
problems -- even though your waste disposal solution (haul into orbit and
fire it into the sun) isn't an option yet.
Basically, when it comes to solar power you say "no, BECAUSE we haven't
solved the problems involved yet", but when it comes to nuclear power, you
say "yes, EVEN THOUGH we haven't solved the problems involved yet".
Jeroen
_________________________________________________________________________
Wonderful World of Brin-L Website: http://go.to/brin-l
