Home Politics & Debate
If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨

Nuclear power Stations

2»

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Nuclear plants are the least crap of the crap options.

    Wind - too expensive for more than about 10% of our energy, and they use massive amounts of concrete which means huge amounts of CO2 being produced.

    Wave - see above

    Solar - again too expencive and not feasable here

    Fosil fuels - dirty, unreliable, market unstable
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    there are of course other ways to tackle the problem - And reduce the amount of electricity we use

    for instance - to get rid of traditional lightbulbs

    Spend less time pissing about on discussion sites on the internet would be one way.............
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Toadborg wrote:
    Spend less time pissing about on discussion sites on the internet would be one way.............

    That's not a price I want to pay.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    bongbudda wrote:
    Nuclear plants are the least crap of the crap options.

    Wind - too expensive for more than about 10% of our energy, and they use massive amounts of concrete which means huge amounts of CO2 being produced.

    Wave - see above

    Solar - again too expencive and not feasable here

    Fosil fuels - dirty, unreliable, market unstable

    yeh but with wind we should get its potential, and in no way is the amount of building material involved in turbines comparable to a nuclear power station

    nuclear power stations tend to last 25-30years at most, building one is hugely energy intensive, so is preparing the fuel, and so is storing it safely - the only thing a nuclear power station has going for it, is that for the time it's running it's stable


    tidal in this country would work well btw

    we do need more wind and tidal "power stations" but we need to replace our nuclear ones that are soon to be decommisioned for stability

    make those energy saving lightbulbs compulsory and stop people having above 26 degrees on their thermostats :p
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    yeh but with wind we should get its potential, and in no way is the amount of building material involved in turbines comparable to a nuclear power station

    make those energy saving lightbulbs compulsory and stop people having above 26 degrees on their thermostats :p

    It is many many tonnes of concrete per turbine, more if they are at sea, concrete manufactor is one of the big causes of CO2 emmissions.

    And no, people should be able to have their houses really warm if they want to pay for it.
Sign In or Register to comment.