Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Checkmateking on May 30, 2011 at 5:59

This is an idiotic move, they will just wind up burning a ton of coal, typical European reactionists.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by adubu on May 30, 2011 at 7:42

Checkmateking---burning lots of NG now and near future is  OK with me---then one day they will run out of NG and coal--- guess what-- they will be back to nuclear---their Winters are COLD and they want their Beer warm also.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Two Dogs, Pirate on May 30, 2011 at 12:46

With our past experiences with the Germans I think the less nuclear they are the safer the world will be.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Hale Yayuh on May 30, 2011 at 16:14

Aw, come on, that is an incredibly ridiculous reply.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Two Dogs, Pirate on May 30, 2011 at 16:40

Why? Just 5 years before I was born we were fighting a world war with them. Today is Memorial Day for all that died in that war and other wars. What is ridiculous about that?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Two Dogs, Pirate on May 30, 2011 at 18:02

They seem to be with there leaking nuclear power plant.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Lrb2brnot2b on May 30, 2011 at 18:27

They still have a chip on their shoulder about what brought that war to a close.  I can tell you this from experience,  you had better not turn your back on any of them unless you want an extra blade between the two shoulder blades you already have.  Their hate for America is to the bone.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by adubu on May 31, 2011 at 0:58

remember why Japan attack Pearl Harbor it was all about OIL supply. The same as most all wars since are about.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Max on May 31, 2011 at 3:39

Found this article about the true cost of Nuclear energy if a power company had to pay the cost of an accident through the use of an insurance on the industry instead of the government, (taxpayers).  The amounts given is in Euros and predicted a cost increase of between C3.9 to C67.1 per KWH to fund the insurance in a 10 year period.  When we, (U.S.), talk about the increased cost to switch to renewal's, we use penny's per KWH!

 

http://www.pv-magazine.com/news/details/beitrag/true-cost-of-nuclea...

 

Nuclear accidents on the scale of Chernobyl and Fukushima effects everyone, no matter where you are in the world.  Every American has particles from the Chernobyl accident in their bodies today, those particles will be buried with you when you die and someone with the proper equipment would be able to find those particles 10,000 years from now if they dug you up.  Could these particles cause cancer to develop in you, yes, but the chances are very small, they would have to affect the right cell at the right time to cause it to mutate.  Given that your body is made up of about a Trillion cells, the risk is about the same as living in Denver, CO.  The same could be said about medical X-ray's, each time you have an X-ray, some of the particles don't leave your body.  The health risk associated with this radiation is very low, given the benefits of medical Radiology.  

 

I think we should use the true cost of all fuels to see which direction we should choose.  A major switch to NG to produce electricity and as a motor fuel would be cost effective in the long run.  

 

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by LP on May 31, 2011 at 23:53

I think we forget, sometimes, that between 1945 and 1963 we "tested" 206 atmospheric nuclear bombs at the Nevada test site. This number does not include bombs tested in other locations (Pacific) or those tested underground. This number is just those bombs tested above ground in the State of Nevada. That is a whole lot of radiation.

Atmospheric testing of nuclear bombs at the Nevada test site:

1945–50 – 1 bomb

1951      – 19 bombs

1952-54  -  11 bombs

1955-56  – 18 bombs

1957       – 32 bombs

1958       – 37 bombs

1960-61   – 32 bombs

1962-63   – 56 bombs

Information from the Radiochemistry Society. http://www.radiochemistry.org/

 

 

• ▶ Reply