And how many of those cancers can be directly attributed to nuclear power rather than the crap that passes for modern diet and the general poor physical condition / lack of exercise that is prevalent in the West...autogyro wrote:Dont forget it is one in three men in the US who will get cancer in their lives. How many on this forum?
My exact point, how can you tell when all the official bodies are so corrupt.Just_a_fan wrote:And how many of those cancers can be directly attributed to nuclear power rather than the crap that passes for modern diet and the general poor physical condition / lack of exercise that is prevalent in the West...autogyro wrote:Dont forget it is one in three men in the US who will get cancer in their lives. How many on this forum?
You want to save lives? Ban alcohol, tobacco and cars...
Is that 'corrupt' as in 'holding an opposing view'?autogyro wrote:
My exact point, how can you tell when all the official bodies are so corrupt.
You could guess like everyone else I suppose.
Just like you do with your magic gearbox Auto? Very sorry, that was not called for.autogyro wrote:Witholding or preventing the release of information is a defined form of corruption.
look up the energy pay pack of PV Cells and you can see why this is a terrible idea. Most of them take more energy to produce then they can payback before they are written off.Jon wrote:Is nuclear the way to go? I don't think so.
This thread is growing too quickly to address everything that has been said. However, in general, it is amazing how many so called smart people can't read beyond the literal meaning of words.
Also, it is appalling to see these same smart guys unable to have a knowledgeable discussion and instead try to pass on their knowledge mixed with their feelings as facts.
I'll let you decide who I am addressing.
That's all I'm going to say over what has been written already except for this: Why have so many posters ignored the thoughts of a fellow member on solar energy? It is a readily available energy for the whole world and, as inefficient as the current solar cells are, there's so much solar energy available that it just wouldn't matter.
We can even use the existing grid for distribution. There are many available storage options that can be used that do not require chemical batteries (like air wells, for example), but even if we use them initially we can get rid of most coal and nuclear generated electricity in a couple decades. Heck, I can make my home totally energy independent with a couple hundred thousand dollars, a figure which could lower drastically with mass production.
Imagine all the roofs in a city covered with solar panels. Hey, even better, there are now in development some solar cells that are as effective as the regular ones in converting energy but with the added plus that they are, hear this, almost transparent!! Yes, that means our windows can soon produce electricity too!! Imagine that tall skyscraper in Dubai made entirely with this tech. Hmm, or our cars...interesting, my car could be sitting in the parking lot, recharging without even being plugged to anything...I wonder if that would be useful???
In the last few years development on this front has been furious. This technologies are now commercially viable. That means that just a little more, and it can be general-public viable. So, why not focus on it?
Nice colour choice. Shame you're wrong on all counts but hey, everyone's entitled to their opinion...autogyro wrote:Nuclear Power is far to dangerous for human beings to meddle with.
Until a sensible and clean way is found to deal with nuclear waste, there should be no increases in nuclear power. For the present, all nuclear power should be fazed out.
Autogyro doesn't have opinions only facts.Just_a_fan wrote:Nice colour choice. Shame you're wrong on all counts but hey, everyone's entitled to their opinion...autogyro wrote:Nuclear Power is far to dangerous for human beings to meddle with.
Until a sensible and clean way is found to deal with nuclear waste, there should be no increases in nuclear power. For the present, all nuclear power should be fazed out.
Well, as it turns out, I did look it up. The question is, did you? Take a look at this:flynfrog wrote: look up the energy payback of PV Cells and you can see why this is a terrible idea. Most of them take more energy to produce then they can payback before they are written off.
This is just from a simple Wikipedia article, and it took me about 3 minutes to google for and read. Here's the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photovolta ... evelopmentLife-cycle analyses show that the energy intensity of typical solar photovoltaic technologies is rapidly evolving. In 2000 the energy payback time was estimated as 8 to 11 years[79], but more recent studies suggest that technological progress has reduced this to 1.5 to 3.5 years for crystalline silicon PV systems[73].
Thin film technologies now have energy pay-back times in the range of 1-1.5 years (S.Europe).[73] With lifetimes of such systems of at least 30 years[citation needed], the EROEI is in the range of 10 to 30. They thus generate enough energy over their lifetimes to reproduce themselves many times (6-31 reproductions, the EROEI is a bit lower) depending on what type of material, balance of system (or BOS), and the geographic location of the system.[80]
