View Single Post
Old 04-16-2009, 07:59 AM   #93
tirsales
MIA ... but returning som
tirsales ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.tirsales ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.tirsales ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.tirsales ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.tirsales ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.tirsales ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.tirsales ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.tirsales ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.tirsales ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.tirsales ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.tirsales ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
tirsales's Avatar
 
Posts: 1,600
Karma: 511342
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Germany
Device: PRS-505 and *Really* not owning a PRS-700
Quote:
Originally Posted by HarryT View Post
A nuclear plant produces no CO2..
Depends. Try integrating stuff like the resource-delivery or plant construction.

Quote:
The amount of "high level" waste produced is actually pretty small, and disposing of it not really very difficult. Dig a deep hole is a geologically stable area. Drop it in. Cover it with 100m of concrete. Problem solved.
As if. 1) Can you guarantee for any given region that it is "geologically stable under all conditions"? That there is no chance of a leakage e.g. into ground water?
2) Digging a hole big enough is not that cheap
3) The whole process is expensive
But - as I already stated - I am not opposed to nuclear power plants. Just stating that you should always remember the negative points.

Quote:
Certain it's not perfect - no industrial plant can exist that doesn't have some adverse effect on the environment - but the environmental impact of a nuclear power station is a lot less than that of a coal station.
This I can agree with - wrt the currently known research.
tirsales is offline   Reply With Quote