Please do me a favor........ ( Solar not nuclear )

[ynneb]

Please help give this new site a kick start.
All I require is for you to register in it.
http://solarnotnuclear.com/

Thanks so much.

Benny

[Klox]

Hi Benny!
Interesting site.....
Cheers,
Klox

[skmetal7]

i dont understand why they think nuclear is so bad or "dirty"? yeah there is the waste but that can be taken care of. i can understand their argument to stop using coal. do they realize how many solar panels it would take to power even a small city?

[WayneHill]

I am waiting for the "Mr. Fusion" home energy reactor to start selling.

[GAWnCA]

I sure hope we don't go POLITICAL here in the CNCZone! Just lust suck all the CO2 out of the atmosphere and all the plants can die... Then what will we eat? Maybe we should propose this to Al Gore and see how he feels about it as he charters his next jet to some meeting where he's getting paid a $100,000.00 to express his views on UN-PROVEN science.

[thkoutsidthebox]

I'd like to register, and 6 months ago I would have, but I no longer think that nuclear is the evil that some people make out. Yes, if it goes 'BOOM' there's trouble, but if it doesn't, its fine.

I agree that fossil fuel power plants need to be replaced, but nuclear produces relatively small amounts of waste compared to the power output.

I also think that more renewable sources like solar or wind plants is a good idea, but I don't think these would provide enough energy by themselves, and alongside them I'd prefer to see clean nuclear plants than dirty coal plants.

[ynneb]

Thanks guys for the support and comments.

thkoutsidthebox, I know what you mean. I have also been on both sides of the debate. I guess the thing that sways me is these questions.
How many would die or be injured if a nuclear power station was attacked by a terrorist group, as opposed to if a solar or wind farm was attacked.
After 50 years when uranium runs out then what? Solar wind, wave, geothermal? Why dont we build them now and spare the world from the nuclear waste.
In Australia where I come from, our desert is about the same size as the whole of the USA. Currently we have no nuclear power plants. My question is, why would we bother to spend billions of dollars to usher in nuclear when its only going to last 50 years. Why wouldnt we spend the same money now to capture our suns energy and never have to wonder where our energy will come from again?

[thkoutsidthebox]

That's true and great for australia, but in Ireland and many other countries we don't have thousands of miles of desert to build solar array's, or huge wind farms.
We do have atlantic coastline, but to the best of my knowledge the technology to harvest wave energy has not advanced equally to that for wind and solar, and therefore is not fully viable at the moment.

I suppose we could use a combination of solar, wind, and wave, but it would take up most of our currently un-zoned landmass. Fossil fuels are not going to last much longer, and I wasn't aware that uranium is only expected to last around 50 years....

I do know that the continued commissioning of peat and coal power plants in this country is not a good idea, as probably within my lifetime (God willing) we either won't have the fuel to feed them, or it'll be so rare it would be too expensive. Nuclear is a stop gap measure, but probably the best option for this country at the moment. Unfortunately it won't happen because due to decades of (Fully justified) protest over Sellafield in Britain, there is no public or political will to seriously go down the nuclear road.

We're stuck between the proverbial rock and a hard place. I'm not too worried because I'm being selfish and covering my own backside. Me & SWMBO are moving house this year, and I intend to use a combination of wind and solar to get free of the grid as soon as possible. As for everyone else who's suffering the never ending power charge increases, well, they better start liking nuclear power.....

[Klox]

I have also seen both sides of the debate. The question i have: When a nation have the capability to generate its own nuclear energy it also have the means to arm itself.....is it a good thing or a bad thing? Is nuclear capability going to be the "vehicle" to more wars or not?
The ocean covers about 70% of the globe, there's massive amounts of energy locked up in a wave. It can be harvest. Humankind just have to come up with a cost effective, non polluting way......

[sdantonio]

It's a political action group pushing their personal agenda. Part of the reason they are against nuclear, saying it's "dirty" is because many Americans have an unfounded nucleophobia. Remember whan magnetic resonance imaging was appropriately called Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Imaging. The hospitals had to cut oit the work nuclear in order to get people in for the testing even though there is no radiation involved at all (just magnetic fields used to detect the precession of the spinning of the nuclear magnetic moment in hydrogen)

Wind would be nice too. There is a big wind farm slated for building in the Massachusetts bay about 40 miles off shore. But Teddy "the drunk" Kennedy is opposed to it because he is worried he will be able to see it from his bathroom window (40 miles away).

Solar just doesn't have the efficiency yet to be a good alternative. It needs more research. Make it work better then I'll sign this petition is disguise (unless of course they want to build a Dysan sphere, then I'm all for it).

[ynneb]

Any one else want to help out ?
www.solarnotnuclear.com