... to me nuclar power is completly fine... i dont sem to have a problem... its just common people have a frar of mutation and monster and stuff... if properly taken care of they would be okay.... what doyou think
Those undersea cables you're talking about need a lot of maintenance and repair, considering current economies in the world, not many can afford that kind of expense, especially because it's a long term investment.
protective coating. i duno wich 1 but i'm sure there is some that will help. maybe even just a rubber around the cable will do wonders. but i'm not saying that my plan is THE masterplan. there are enoufg what if's and how's that i havn't been thinking about yet. thats where research, investment and willpower comes along
as for why nuclear power plants are bad... i'm not going to repeat that all the time. just read back what i and other people have said =)
I'm going to trust the word of those people who know what they're talking about in regards to this subject, I'm sure they have considered the aspects of protective coating, the problem is the conditions on the bottom of the ocean tend to be different than those on the surface.
My views on nuclear power are pretty split minded because nuclear power plants provide jobs and good pay to executives and workers, also it adds to our economy and GDP. On the other hand most people find that nuclear power plants are the main cause for global warming. Nuclear power plants are also important to power many homes and buildings. Enviornmentalists like my 6th grade Global Sustainability teacher think that they are bad but, we should have them Andy Colleran said "The world needs power sources but if we use fossil fuels and nuclear power then it can ruin the earth's ecosystem, so there should be a limit to the number of nuclear power plants each country should be aloud to have. Another fact about it is that it produces much more energy then wind farms and solar power plants. It takes over 50 times the space to produce the same ammount of energy a nuclear power plant can produce. So my say is the same as Mr. Colleran's views i think that we need them but we should have a limit.
the problem is the conditions on the bottom of the ocean tend to be different than those on the surface.
i guess we are talking about 2 different things then. i never ment to use cables on the bottom of the ocean. i ment to use cable when the windmills are build just a few mile from the coast. the other 2 solutions i said wre about the deeper parts of the ocean. (neither of those 2 require cables on the bottom) anyway a other solution wold be putting those cables in a pipe so no water can come near it.
I'm going to trust the word of those people who know what they're talking about in regards to this subject,
I'm not against wind/solar power, I just don't think it is a good thing to label nuclear power sources as 'bad'. It gives it a bad reputation when it really is a good power source that still has long ways to go. This is why I say you might as well just call it an option, and use it where you can't/don't want to use other power sources.
it might not be dense but there is alot of power
No, it is not dense and there isn't a lot of power. It takes many more windmills to harvest the same amount of energy one or two dams may create, this is because not only is the water moving just as fast as the wind, but it is also much more dense, allowing for faster turbine spinning.
did the government ever ask you to buy a house there or to invest in your place? i don't think our government is doing those kinda things.
What do you mean by this? I understand your position, for the government to give larger subsidies and breaks to alternative energy companies and steal those breaks from larger multinational energy corporations -- For that, I agree with you. But there has to be some sort of return on it, the government uses taxpayer money. That money has to have a reason for going there. If there is no profit incentive in the future for the citizens of that country, then simply spending the money to make a switch on the grounds that it'll contribute less to environmental damage is usually not enough. This is why no government has every roof put on solar panels at a low price or something -- it is good for the environment, but until their longevity can be increased to a point where they give people financial incentive, they really are just a nice idea.
No, it is not dense and there isn't a lot of power. It takes many more windmills to harvest the same amount of energy one or two dams may create, this is because not only is the water moving just as fast as the wind, but it is also much more dense, allowing for faster turbine spinning.
still does the landscape to be right to be able to make 1. windmills you can build anywere. (and yes there is alot power. but we will never agree on that i guess.)
What do you mean by this? I understand your position, for the government to give larger subsidies and breaks to alternative energy companies and steal those breaks from larger multinational energy corporations -- For that, I agree with you. But there has to be some sort of return on it, the government uses taxpayer money. That money has to have a reason for going there. If there is no profit incentive in the future for the citizens of that country, then simply spending the money to make a switch on the grounds that it'll contribute less to environmental damage is usually not enough. This is why no government has every roof put on solar panels at a low price or something -- it is good for the environment, but until their longevity can be increased to a point where they give people financial incentive, they really are just a nice idea.
what we get in return is energy thats not making any waste. (no taxpayer money is going to the storage and guarding of nuclear waste.) and also does the project give alot of jobs (wich is good in time of crisis ) normale jobs not high-schooled jobs like in a nuclear station. also do we get a new tourist attraction wich also gets some money rolling.
the problem whit Urk is that the people there do not like change and always want it to be like in history. sure that our government does not look at that tiny town. and destroyed there old culture. life go's on but you will not see that in urk. they rather complain about how bad evrything is now. so we are kinda ignoring them. even tho they have a few good points that the government f*cked them.
Topic, not topis. Sources, not sorces. You forgot to finish your parenthesis. I'm, not im. I think PS should be capitalized. Grammar, not grammer. And you need a period at the end.
Also, I don't think there is a need for that topic. Nuclear power is an alternative energy source and the only way to deem if it is good or bad is by discussing other alternatives in nuclear energy, thereby already accomplishing the goals of the new thread.
yeah, nuclear power is not so bad. there is the atomic waste and we dont know where to put it but thats ok! because i like my water and food with isotops.
It is the same as some random old hippie comes to you and asks. Do you want to take an investment. it will cost you 1 billion dollars and you wont earn it back.
did the government ever ask you to buy a house there or to invest in your place
Well I stated it wrong. It is the same. If a random old man comes to Obama and asks. You invest 1 billion dollar and I create a ugly windmill park at the rocky mountains. You won't earn a single dollar back but other countries would maybe think it is great.
it's ugly and efficient just like a airplane.
Planes arent ugly. You are.
looks like it's time for you to move your ars to zeeland then =) it's not like we care about urk, they have been complaining about evrything ever since we made flevoland. it doesn't realy bother us anymore. you could say we are used to the complains from urk by now. =)
We don't complain much. Only the Dominee's. And who is "us" you and your mom.
Well I stated it wrong. It is the same. If a random old man comes to Obama and asks. You invest 1 billion dollar and I create a ugly windmill park at the rocky mountains. You won't earn a single dollar back but other countries would maybe think it is great.
then tell me who was this guy that went to rutte and asked to invest in it?
Planes arent ugly. You are.
thats a very mature comment. (sarcasm)
And who is "us" you and your mom.
again a very mature comment... us is the rest of the netherlands.
then why do you say that "It is the same as..." if it is the same then some of the things you mention should be like how it realy happend. but nothing you mentiond in that sentence comes close to what realy happens.
Well I'm not.
obviusly
Since when do you speak for the rest of the Netherlands.
are you blind? do you see any1 care about urk? hahaha. it wouldn't surprice me if they build the windmills there to get rid of that annoying little town.
anyway this is offtopic. and your comment that it is ugly is evrything but a good statement to not build them.
