Princeton Posted July 12, 2006 Share Posted July 12, 2006 you bury it in the ground. Â It's that simple. There's always risks. The risk associated with burying it in the gorund is that it may leak through some kind of geological shift, 8.0 earthquake in shropshire for example. The risk associated with not are climate chaos. Â So the danger is a catastrophic 1 in a 100million year geological event in which case we'll have more important things to worry about. Â Blair is grasping the nettle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youwhatref Posted July 12, 2006 Share Posted July 12, 2006 you bury it in the ground. It's that simple. There's always risks. The risk associated with burying it in the gorund is that it may leak through some kind of geological shift, 8.0 earthquake in shropshire for example. The risk associated with not are climate chaos.  So the danger is a catastrophic 1 in a 100million year geological event in which case we'll have more important things to worry about.  Blair is grasping the nettle.  Blair has to grasp it. Someone has to and it's a shame it has taken so long. Supplies of Gas and Oil will dwindle over time especially with India/China needing more. With many parts of the world so unstable we have to look at new options. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muddycoffee Posted July 12, 2006 Share Posted July 12, 2006 I've got nothing against nuclear power, it's the waste it produces, if we could find some way of safely handling it then I'd be all for lots of power stations. Â The problem of nuclear waste is blown way out of all proportion. New stations are so efficient that they make a fraction of the waste the existing british stations currently use. The radiation risk from working in a hospital is also many times greater than working in a power station. Â Apart from the construction cost of new nuclear station, which can be more or less disregarded because all forms of power generation require masses of concrete, including wind turbines. Then nuclear is extremely green. Â I like the idea of wind turbines, and the rest of the world seems to have no problem running them and all the stuff about maintenance cost and lack of wind I believe to be hogwash, based on very early models, installed decades ago. Â Ideally we will all have mini wind turbines and solar panels on our houses and micro generation will be the way forward in 10 years, but at the present this still costs nearly half the price of a house to implement, and we need new large nuclear power to keep us up and running for now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Princeton Posted July 12, 2006 Share Posted July 12, 2006 solar pannels require the mining of rare materials and produce lots of CO2 in their production. All these kind of things are, at the end of the day, tinkering at the edges and investing money in them is like buying an anorak to repell a tidal wave. We should keep are views. Though I do believe there are more important things, what's the point in trashing them for no real benefit? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muddycoffee Posted July 12, 2006 Share Posted July 12, 2006 solar pannels require the mining of rare materials and produce lots of CO2 in their production. All these kind of things are, at the end of the day, tinkering at the edges and investing money in them is like buying an anorak to repell a tidal wave. We should keep are views. Though I do believe there are more important things, what's the point in trashing them for no real benefit? Â The last part of that doesn't make any sense love. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Princeton Posted July 12, 2006 Share Posted July 12, 2006 we should keep the views of our landscape. Especially when destroying them would have no real benefit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hook Posted July 12, 2006 Share Posted July 12, 2006 we should keep the views of our landscape. Especially when destroying them would have no real benefit  Forgive me, but how does putting Solar Panels on ones roof destroy the views you're harping on about? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlquarUK Posted July 12, 2006 Share Posted July 12, 2006 We are an island, and most of the planet is covered in water. We should be using the waves in 'farms' if open sea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nick2 Posted July 12, 2006 Share Posted July 12, 2006 Ideally we will all have mini wind turbines and solar panels on our houses and micro generation will be the way forward in 10 years, but at the present this still costs nearly half the price of a house to implement, and we need new large nuclear power to keep us up and running for now. Â There was a good report on TV last night about how energy efficient the Japanese are, they have hydrogen power cells, solar cells and wind turbines on their houses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prioryx Posted July 12, 2006 Share Posted July 12, 2006 It was suggested to me that wind turbines should be put underground so that they are not an eyesore Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now