Junkyard -Not at all. Its not a question of me not liking the answer.
It is a fact that at current usage there is a few decades of nuclear fuel left and that is as a small % of the worlds energy usage.
Chat Forum
[closed]
Tidal Power - the future?
-
Posted 1 year ago #
-
It's tedious chaps - especially TJ and Zokes (yes Zokes - I blame TJ for invoking your name on this one, but please don't play the game).
Posted 1 year ago # -
Here we go - personal attack from Zokes as he is exposed for talking nonsense.
Sorry Druidh.
Posted 1 year ago # -
I'm anti-nuke but everything I've read suggests that there is no shortage of fissionable material, especially given emerging technologies.
Posted 1 year ago # -
TandemJeremy - Member
Err - sorry TJ, but you started it....
Here we go - personal attack from Zokes as he is exposed for talking nonsense.Posted 1 year ago # -
Here we go - personal attack from Zokes as he is exposed for talking nonsense.
Have a look at the top of Pg2 - I think you'll find that's the first mention of my name anywhere on this thread. And lo and behold, it's an ad hominem attack by your good self.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Druidh - the nuclear industries own people say around 40 years of known fuel at current usage - this is the issue.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Zokes - that was a simple prediction - I do not make any attack on you there and lo and behold I was right in my prediction.
Posted 1 year ago # -
TJ:
Feel free to read any of the tedious threads there have been on this topic.
Then read these posts in this thread:
molgrips - Member
I understand there's some argument about whether or not nuclear fuel supplies are as limited as some people claim.
Junkyard - Member
NO PLEASE GOD NOOOOOOOOOOOO
It has been done you choose to ignore it. It is not as conclusive as you suggest. No one can answer anything to your satisfaction when you put the TJ head of stubborness on NO ONE
Posted 1 year ago # -
So then - yo still have no answer to this Zokes. I'll leave it at that with the major flaw in your pro nuclear evangelisicm exposed.
By the nuclear industries own figures there is a few decades of fuel available at current usage rates. Thus nuclear can never be more than a bit part player in the worlds energy consumption
Posted 1 year ago # -
Zokes - that was a simple prediction - I do not make any attack on you there and lo and behold I was right in my prediction.
Well, instead of bringing what was quite an interesting thread down to the predictable dirge with your negative use - deliberately trolling with a loaded statement, why didn't you just exalt the virtues of tidal turbines? Like I did?
Posted 1 year ago # -
It is a fact that at current usage there is a few decades of nuclear fuel left
Playing the game now but; where do you get that information from? I don't think that you can just make a statement like that with no peer approved study or even peer reviewed study to back it up.
Posted 1 year ago # -
It is a fact that at current usage there is a few decades of nuclear fuel left
I wonder what the ROI on a nuclear power plant is and over what time period? And if the companies that build them are aware of the limited fuel supplies?
Posted 1 year ago # -
TandemJeremy - Member
So then - yo still have no answer to this Zokes. I'll leave it at that with the major flaw in your pro nuclear evangelisicm exposed.Where have I been evangelical about anything on this thread, apart from the need to build renewables?
I've even praised your logic, and you're still not happy!
Posted 1 year ago # -
Thorium.
Relatively abundant. More efficient than Uranium. Less waste. Shorter half-life (as radioactive as ash after 500 years). Can't be made into bombs.
Posted 1 year ago # -
druidh - Member
Thorium.
Abundant. More efficient than Uranium. less waste. Shorter half-life. Can't be made into bombs.Unproved tech, can't be done, includes the worrd NUCLEAR
C'mon now, I think we know how this works!
Posted 1 year ago # -
druidh - Member
Thorium.
Abundant. More efficient than Uranium. less waste. Shorter half-life. Can't be made into bombs.Be great if it works and well worth the research into it. Unproven and experimental as yet.
Posted 1 year ago # -
TandemJeremy - Member
FTFYTidal Power
Be great if it works and well worth the research into it. Unproven and experimental as yet.
Posted 1 year ago # -
PMSL!!!
Posted 1 year ago # -
includes the worrd NUCLEAR
~Again you try to portray me as a luddite scared of nuclear when actually that is not my position.
I know you have to do this as I have exposed the massive flaws in your pro nuclear attitude but it really is tiresome.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Oh good, a (potentially interesting) thread about tidal power than gets turned into a nuclear debate by the usual retards - joy!
Posted 1 year ago # -
~Again you try to portray me as a luddite scared of nuclear when actually that is not my position.
Find your name in that post.
I don't think you'll find you were mentioned. But that you associated yourself with it speaks volumes...
I have exposed the massive flaws in your pro nuclear attitude but it really is tiresome.
Posted 1 year ago # -
TJ JUST STOP
Posted 1 year ago # -
I can feel the banhammer descending on me so I have to walk away.
Sorry for the disruption on the thread.
Zokes - I have clearly exposed massive flaws in your pro nuclear stance and you simply refuse to answer them preferring to mock and belittle showing the paucity of your arguemnt
Posted 1 year ago # -
I don't think you'll find you were mentioned. But that you associated yourself with it speaks volumes...
zokes, you're bordering on trolling now. I that's the polite way of putting it.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Zokes - I have clearly exposed massive flaws in your pro nuclear stance and you simply refuse to answer them preferring to mock and belittle showing the paucity of your arguemnt
I reiterate: Try reading
If you think that's evangelistic of nuclear, then you need your head seeing to.
Posted 1 year ago #
Topic Closed
This topic has been closed to new replies.
