Comments on: Unbelievable UK Nuclear Decision http://ecolocalizer.com/2008/01/10/unbelievable-uk-nuclear-decision/ News & commentary on sustainability, activism, urban planning, politics, and our world. Tue, 22 May 2012 15:40:56 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: Solar Power Cuts http://ecolocalizer.com/2008/01/10/unbelievable-uk-nuclear-decision/comment-page-1/#comment-55098 Solar Power Cuts Fri, 08 Feb 2008 16:32:31 +0000 http://ecoworldly.com/2008/01/10/unbelievable-uk-nuclear-decision/#comment-55098 <strong>The Basics of Solar Power For Your Home...</strong> Solar power is an alternative energy source with tremendous economic and environmental benefits. If you're considering it for your home, here are the basics.... The Basics of Solar Power For Your Home…

Solar power is an alternative energy source with tremendous economic and environmental benefits. If you’re considering it for your home, here are the basics….

]]> By: Gavin Hudson http://ecolocalizer.com/2008/01/10/unbelievable-uk-nuclear-decision/comment-page-1/#comment-55097 Gavin Hudson Sun, 27 Jan 2008 14:23:46 +0000 http://ecoworldly.com/2008/01/10/unbelievable-uk-nuclear-decision/#comment-55097 A video argument against nuclear power as a feasible climate change solution. It's true... wind, solar, wave, geothermal, etc. seem very much preferable. http://video.stumbleupon.com/#p=badenwjlvw A video argument against nuclear power as a feasible climate change solution. It’s true… wind, solar, wave, geothermal, etc. seem very much preferable.

http://video.stumbleupon.com/#p=badenwjlvw

]]> By: Jake http://ecolocalizer.com/2008/01/10/unbelievable-uk-nuclear-decision/comment-page-1/#comment-55084 Jake Wed, 16 Jan 2008 19:14:36 +0000 http://ecoworldly.com/2008/01/10/unbelievable-uk-nuclear-decision/#comment-55084 its a poor decision but mostly becuase of the risk and negligable benifits, regading what we would do with the waste product the UK already deals with a lot of the stuff we get sent from other countries, so its not AS big an issue its a poor decision but mostly becuase of the risk and negligable benifits, regading what we would do with the waste product the UK already deals with a lot of the stuff we get sent from other countries, so its not AS big an issue

]]> By: Pem Charnley http://ecolocalizer.com/2008/01/10/unbelievable-uk-nuclear-decision/comment-page-1/#comment-55087 Pem Charnley Tue, 15 Jan 2008 10:09:07 +0000 http://ecoworldly.com/2008/01/10/unbelievable-uk-nuclear-decision/#comment-55087 To quote you, Karl: "The only major issue with nuclear power is waste. Other than that ..." Other than that? What do you mean "other than that?" You've just blithely glossed over the most hideous aspect! If there's waste, how can you call it a "clean" source of energy? Take a look at this piece to fully appreciate the costs of dealing with waste. As a taster, the opening paragraph reads thus: British taxpayers will have to fork out more than £30bn to clean up Sellafield, unpublicised official documents reveal. It is so contaminated that the process will take well over a century and, even then, the site will have to stay under "indefinite institutional control". <a href="http://environment.independent.co.uk/green_living/article3333865.ece#2008-01-13T00:00:01-00:00" rel="nofollow">Please click.</a> To quote you, Karl:

“The only major issue with nuclear power is waste. Other than that …”

Other than that? What do you mean “other than that?” You’ve just blithely glossed over the most hideous aspect! If there’s waste, how can you call it a “clean” source of energy?

Take a look at this piece to fully appreciate the costs of dealing with waste.

As a taster, the opening paragraph reads thus:

British taxpayers will have to fork out more than £30bn to clean up Sellafield, unpublicised official documents reveal. It is so contaminated that the process will take well over a century and, even then, the site will have to stay under “indefinite institutional control”.

Please click.

]]> By: Karl http://ecolocalizer.com/2008/01/10/unbelievable-uk-nuclear-decision/comment-page-1/#comment-55085 Karl Mon, 14 Jan 2008 23:44:36 +0000 http://ecoworldly.com/2008/01/10/unbelievable-uk-nuclear-decision/#comment-55085 It is very sad how uneducated the vast majority of people are on nuclear power. Of all base-load power source options available, there are only two that are feasible in the foreseeable future: coal and nuclear. Coal is very cheap and safe, and current and future advancements in coal technology will allow it to become immensly cleaner. The only major issue with nuclear power is waste - other than that, it is clean, cheap, and the SAFEST base-load power option available. Please do research. It is very sad how uneducated the vast majority of people are on nuclear power. Of all base-load power source options available, there are only two that are feasible in the foreseeable future: coal and nuclear. Coal is very cheap and safe, and current and future advancements in coal technology will allow it to become immensly cleaner. The only major issue with nuclear power is waste – other than that, it is clean, cheap, and the SAFEST base-load power option available. Please do research.

]]> By: Pem Charnley http://ecolocalizer.com/2008/01/10/unbelievable-uk-nuclear-decision/comment-page-1/#comment-55091 Pem Charnley Sun, 13 Jan 2008 17:38:10 +0000 http://ecoworldly.com/2008/01/10/unbelievable-uk-nuclear-decision/#comment-55091 Phil, I had hoped that the links I provided would prove more than revealing. They are there to take the story further and provide answers to any questions you may have. My intention with this post was to flag the story for a US audience and point them in the right directions. Certainly, I thought by remarking that Sweden enjoys upto 50% sustainable energy, the UK, being prone to strong tides and winds could benefit rather more from energy sources other than nuclear. With regards to background radiation levels, I don't want them rising at all thanks. And until I am convinced that nuclear waste doesn't poison the planet, I maintain that it is a very dirty form of energy. Phil, I had hoped that the links I provided would prove more than revealing. They are there to take the story further and provide answers to any questions you may have.

My intention with this post was to flag the story for a US audience and point them in the right directions.

Certainly, I thought by remarking that Sweden enjoys upto 50% sustainable energy, the UK, being prone to strong tides and winds could benefit rather more from energy sources other than nuclear.

With regards to background radiation levels, I don’t want them rising at all thanks. And until I am convinced that nuclear waste doesn’t poison the planet, I maintain that it is a very dirty form of energy.

]]> By: Phil http://ecolocalizer.com/2008/01/10/unbelievable-uk-nuclear-decision/comment-page-1/#comment-55086 Phil Sun, 13 Jan 2008 14:04:27 +0000 http://ecoworldly.com/2008/01/10/unbelievable-uk-nuclear-decision/#comment-55086 I'm glad to hear my government had enough sense to do this at least. This article is horrifically unrevealing, it suggest a 4% drop in CO2 from nuclear, but backs this up with no facts. It also fails to mention whether renewable sources could do anything like the same(they can't at the current time, and to get them up to standard will take years and millions of pounds). I'm not against renewable, it is the way to go. But it's just not feasible yet. Also, people assume nuclear energy is bad, without ever thinking for themselves, if all our energy was nuclear, the background radiation levels would hardly increase at all. I’m glad to hear my government had enough sense to do this at least.
This article is horrifically unrevealing, it suggest a 4% drop in CO2 from nuclear, but backs this up with no facts.
It also fails to mention whether renewable sources could do anything like the same(they can’t at the current time, and to get them up to standard will take years and millions of pounds).
I’m not against renewable, it is the way to go.
But it’s just not feasible yet.

Also, people assume nuclear energy is bad, without ever thinking for themselves, if all our energy was nuclear, the background radiation levels would hardly increase at all.

]]> By: Giant Frickin’ Laser to Destroy Save World « Earth2Tech http://ecolocalizer.com/2008/01/10/unbelievable-uk-nuclear-decision/comment-page-1/#comment-55088 Giant Frickin’ Laser to Destroy Save World « Earth2Tech Sun, 13 Jan 2008 01:14:33 +0000 http://ecoworldly.com/2008/01/10/unbelievable-uk-nuclear-decision/#comment-55088 [...] The laser is designed to fire at a tiny hydrogen capsule and cause a fusion reaction, the kind that powers the sun as well as our thermonuclear arsenal. Theoretically the intense energy released could be captured and provide a huge amount of clean energy. However, we’ve heard big promises from nuclear before. [...] [...] The laser is designed to fire at a tiny hydrogen capsule and cause a fusion reaction, the kind that powers the sun as well as our thermonuclear arsenal. Theoretically the intense energy released could be captured and provide a huge amount of clean energy. However, we’ve heard big promises from nuclear before. [...]

]]> By: Support this story on Stirrdup http://ecolocalizer.com/2008/01/10/unbelievable-uk-nuclear-decision/comment-page-1/#comment-55089 Support this story on Stirrdup Fri, 11 Jan 2008 23:35:24 +0000 http://ecoworldly.com/2008/01/10/unbelievable-uk-nuclear-decision/#comment-55089 <strong>Unbelievable UK Nuclear Decision...</strong> This story has been submitted to Stirrdup. Your support can help it become hot.... Unbelievable UK Nuclear Decision…

This story has been submitted to Stirrdup. Your support can help it become hot….

]]> By: GreenCarGuy http://ecolocalizer.com/2008/01/10/unbelievable-uk-nuclear-decision/comment-page-1/#comment-55090 GreenCarGuy Fri, 11 Jan 2008 16:14:55 +0000 http://ecoworldly.com/2008/01/10/unbelievable-uk-nuclear-decision/#comment-55090 Noooooo! Stoppppp! What are they thinking? Noooooo! Stoppppp! What are they thinking?

]]>