View Single Post
Old 06-20-2009, 09:20 AM   #18
GeoffC
Chocolate Grasshopper ...
GeoffC ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.GeoffC ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.GeoffC ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.GeoffC ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.GeoffC ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.GeoffC ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.GeoffC ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.GeoffC ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.GeoffC ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.GeoffC ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.GeoffC ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
GeoffC's Avatar
 
Posts: 27,599
Karma: 20821184
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Scotland
Device: Muse HD , Cybook Gen3 , Pocketbook 302 (Black) , Nexus 10: wife has PW
Quote:
Originally Posted by HarryT View Post
Nuclear power does not generate "greenhouse gases".
Correct whilst it is in operation - but what are the greenhouse emissions in the installment of the power station and then again in de-commissioning.

Wind power generation is 'free', but again the infrastructure needed generates pollution upto assembly.

btw, wind-power uses a 'free' resource, therefore at some time the electricity thus generated should become free - until that point is seems that wind-generated electricity is (currently) more expensive than others.
The main reason it is seemingly successful is due almost entirely on govt. subsidy. But even if every square mile is filled with turbines there will remain the need for backup to be maintained for those occasions of insufficient wind.

The abiding issue is to discover the most efficient power, that which generates for the least cost in terms of finance/pollution etc ..... and to date there isn't really one - only theory.
GeoffC is offline   Reply With Quote