Idea's to create jobs in the economy

[CSgt]

Coal is still far cheaper than nuclear.
Do you not think nuclear power produces radioactive waste?

What are the comparative costs over, say, 20 years?

How much radioactive waste does a nuclear reactor produce over 20 years?

[longjohn]

Nuclear power is an expensive waste of money.

It is in fact very cheap but people make such as fuss over getting rid of the waste. When it first decided to use it, it was considered too cheap to bother to meter. If it was disposed of in Pyramid shaped concrete structures in the deepest part of the Ocean, it would last as long as the rocks on the sea bed. A Pyramid shape means what ever way it settles on the bottom, it offers least resistance to currants. We made Nuclear power so expensive because we listen to too many silly people.

[ron]

Coal is still far cheaper than nuclear.
Do you not think nuclear power produces radioactive waste?

What a silly question...

[Traditionalist]

What are the comparative costs over, say, 20 years?

How much radioactive waste does a nuclear reactor produce over 20 years?

A quick look online will help you there.

[Traditionalist]

It is in fact very cheap but people make such as fuss over getting rid of the waste. When it first decided to use it, it was considered too cheap to bother to meter. If it was disposed of in Pyramid shaped concrete structures in the deepest part of the Ocean, it would last as long as the rocks on the sea bed. A Pyramid shape means what ever way it settles on the bottom, it offers least resistance to currants. We made Nuclear power so expensive because we listen to too many silly people.

Getting rid of the waste is part of the cost.
It is very dangerous material.
Besides we also have the risk of terrorist attack on nuclear power stations now.
Thus Coal is cheaper and safer.

[ChrisV]

It is in fact very cheap but people make such as fuss over getting rid of the waste. When it first decided to use it, it was considered too cheap to bother to meter. If it was disposed of in Pyramid shaped concrete structures in the deepest part of the Ocean, it would last as long as the rocks on the sea bed. A Pyramid shape means what ever way it settles on the bottom, it offers least resistance to currants. We made Nuclear power so expensive because we listen to too many silly people.

Watch this film. It is completely unbiased. The amount of thought that goes into the long term disposal is amazing. The fact the waste will be dangerous for 10x the length of the whole of human civilisation presents us with some interesting, almost unique problems.

http://www.intoeternitythemovie.com/

[CB100]

And your point is?

What a silly question...

[Roland]

Watch this film. It is completely unbiased. The amount of thought that goes into the long term disposal is amazing. The fact the waste will be dangerous for 10x the length of the whole of human civilisation presents us with some interesting, almost unique problems.

http://www.intoeternitythemovie.com/

Have you considered this. We'll assume the unlikely event arises that scientists prove if we don't cut CO2 emissions rapidly we are heading for a climate catastrophe. Like I say this is unlikely but seeing as so many seem to think that this is the case we'll just go with it.

What then is the way forward it would have to be nuclear. It is the only option we have. We can talk about the potential disaster of nuclear waste but it would not compare to the immediate catastrophe the world would be faced with if it could not produce energy. The world economies would collapse, food shortage and famine would be abundant on a global scale, medical supplies would be difficult and often impossible to get distribute or even produce.

With out the production of energy we would see catastrophe and suffering the world had never seen.

So what's worse a potential disaster or a definite disaster?

[BCG Jason]

What then is the way forward it would have to be nuclear. It is the only option we have. We can talk about the potential disaster of nuclear waste but it would not compare to the immediate catastrophe the world would be faced with if it could not produce energy. The world economies would collapse, food shortage and famine would be abundant on a global scale, medical supplies would be difficult and often impossible to get distribute or even produce.

With out the production of energy we would see catastrophe and suffering the world had never seen.

So what's worse a potential disaster or a definite disaster?

Roland,

There are solutions and we don't need Nuclear once the PTB are out the way with proper research we can generate clean non dangerous energy sources I suspect this is one of them...

[Roland]

Roland,

There are solutions and we don't need Nuclear once the PTB are out the way with proper research we can generate clean non dangerous energy sources I suspect this is one of them...

I'm amazed that looks like the real deal. I've heard about this technology but the original man who claimed to have invented it was murdered. I notice the upload date is the 14 june 2008 any idea what happened?