Head To Head
Log In
Register
U-Know! Forum »
Nuclear vs wind
Log In to post a reply

64 messages
Topic View: Flat | Threaded
Merrick
Merrick
2148 posts

problems with nukes
Oct 31, 2005, 00:28
With nukes it's not just the waste - radioactive enough to be lethal for 20,000 years and more - but also the expense, several times more than coal or gas (and that's factoring in selling by-products to the weapons industry.

Also, it's uninsurable - the risks are so great that any clean-up cost will be borne by the tax payer.

With each new power station and facility, you increase the chances of an accident.

Also, despite Lord Sainsbury calling it a 'renewable' energy source, its fuel is uranium, a rare mineral of which there is a finite supply.

All of it, incidentally, overseas, giving the lie to the 'nukes mean less reliance on foreign countries for our energy' bullshit.

There simply is no way to sustain the energy thirst of this generation and its predecessor. The longer we deny that, the worse mess we're in when the crunch comes and the worse mess we leave behind us. As if climate change wasn't bad enough, now it seems we're going to leave the maximum amount of radioactive waste.

Meanwhile energy efficency moves are ignored because they don't consume enough - not burning as much means less economic growth, and we can't have that can we?
Topic Outline:

U-Know! Forum Index