Jump to content
  • Welcome to Whats Up Austraila!

    Intuitive, Social, Engaging...Registration is FREE.
    Register Log in
willedoo

Scotty from Marketing

Recommended Posts

So I question the assertion that dam failures can generally be blamed for a significant risk to life and limb compared to solar panels (or other 'alternative ' energy sources). It was been suggested that hydro electric systems are more hazardous to Human lives than nuclear.

And it seems that some 'experts' are ignoring the fact that nuclear waste can pose a significant risk to life for thousands of years. Something that is impossible to quantify, but is unquestionably significant.

Edited by nomadpete
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, old man emu said:

And opening the debunking for the Nuclear Industry we have: https://www.anl.gov/article/10-myths-about-nuclear-energy

OME i am not anti nuclear however I think the old model of nuclear power is not viable, look up Hinkley Point C. I do however believe that new nuclear will be an inevitable part of our energy mix.  The most persuasive argument for nuclear is CO2 mitigation but the most enthusiastic supporters of nuclear power are those who deny the most powerful reason to adopt it.

I have often posted links to Bill Gates who accepts climate change and renewables but also beleives we need new nuclear. Gates funds renewables and nuclear. Not in a position to post links but look up travelling wave reactor.

The reasons Australia has not adopted nuclear power are not as simple as hysteria. My understanding is that the economics are questionable at this point in time.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...