The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
We all need energy. All of us here are using PCs or Laptops powered by massive Nuclear power stations (unless you have a gas generator or wind/solar power) and our homes rely on lighting and electricity for all manner of now-vital things.
But is it safe and efficient? The Blair government certainly thinks so. Tony Blair stated that it was in our best interest to spend more on Nuclear energy and less on fossil fuels. This has a sound background in that the fossil fuels we use up are in shorter supply and will eventually run out. It also has a detrimental effect on our planet as we use up the available resources.
The Clean-Safe idea of Nuclear energy comes from the large Nuclear Energy companies themselves. A consortium of companies who have hired several Ex-Greenpiece activists to clean up their image. These spokespeople know exactly what to say when it comes to green issues, but are working and being paid large sums to put across exactly what our government and the US government want to hear.
Nuclear power stations, however, have been proved time and time again to be unsafe, leaking and dis-organised areas which could, at any time, lead to disasters, both great and small. Rivers and land around Nuclear sites have been monitored by scientists for their contamination and several studies based on this evidence had led to power-station owners being sued for negligence.
But that’s ok, isn’t it? As long as they get sued, it doesn’t matter if a bit of radiation leaks out. Not that it would do any harm, aside from the fact that it changes human cells that, years later, can lead to many types of cancer or cause organs to fail.
But that’s not all. The waste created by these plants stays radioactive for many years and must be buried very deep underground to prevent it becoming dangerous to human and animal life. With more and more people using up the land space on this planet, there is less space where the waste can be buried far enough away to be ‘harmless’ to us. Not only that, but the waste has to be transported and there have already been cases where accidents have caused contamination.
So what are the alternatives? Solar and wind energy are good, but not half as efficient and are far more costly to set up in order to get the same power outage. Dams are very efficient, but to get enough power they must be built on areas where the dammed river will have enough power to run them. All three together may well be the answer, but would require mass funding in the short term from government. And it’s here that we hit the problem. The Government is only interested in the short term. After all, its main aim is to win votes in the next election. They’re not going to risk this by thinking about our future in the long term, they want to save us money in the short term with quick wins, and who cares about our grandchildren?
But this is my view, albeit backed up by findings of scientists. What do you think about the situation? Should we look at removing Nuclear energy or keep it? What can be done instead?
But is it safe and efficient? The Blair government certainly thinks so. Tony Blair stated that it was in our best interest to spend more on Nuclear energy and less on fossil fuels. This has a sound background in that the fossil fuels we use up are in shorter supply and will eventually run out. It also has a detrimental effect on our planet as we use up the available resources.
The Clean-Safe idea of Nuclear energy comes from the large Nuclear Energy companies themselves. A consortium of companies who have hired several Ex-Greenpiece activists to clean up their image. These spokespeople know exactly what to say when it comes to green issues, but are working and being paid large sums to put across exactly what our government and the US government want to hear.
Nuclear power stations, however, have been proved time and time again to be unsafe, leaking and dis-organised areas which could, at any time, lead to disasters, both great and small. Rivers and land around Nuclear sites have been monitored by scientists for their contamination and several studies based on this evidence had led to power-station owners being sued for negligence.
But that’s ok, isn’t it? As long as they get sued, it doesn’t matter if a bit of radiation leaks out. Not that it would do any harm, aside from the fact that it changes human cells that, years later, can lead to many types of cancer or cause organs to fail.
But that’s not all. The waste created by these plants stays radioactive for many years and must be buried very deep underground to prevent it becoming dangerous to human and animal life. With more and more people using up the land space on this planet, there is less space where the waste can be buried far enough away to be ‘harmless’ to us. Not only that, but the waste has to be transported and there have already been cases where accidents have caused contamination.
So what are the alternatives? Solar and wind energy are good, but not half as efficient and are far more costly to set up in order to get the same power outage. Dams are very efficient, but to get enough power they must be built on areas where the dammed river will have enough power to run them. All three together may well be the answer, but would require mass funding in the short term from government. And it’s here that we hit the problem. The Government is only interested in the short term. After all, its main aim is to win votes in the next election. They’re not going to risk this by thinking about our future in the long term, they want to save us money in the short term with quick wins, and who cares about our grandchildren?
But this is my view, albeit backed up by findings of scientists. What do you think about the situation? Should we look at removing Nuclear energy or keep it? What can be done instead?
Indeed, electricity is a complex issue, one which won't go away anytime soon. I certainly believe there's a case for having solar panels on the majority of roofs, especially for offices, warehouses and factories, if the uptake was high enough, it would result in a significant decrease in the amount of power required from other sources, at least in summer anyway, but it won't happen unless the price of the equipment falls significantly, or the government chooses to subsidise it. As for the 'eye-sore' issue, how often do you look at your roof?
We all need energy. All of us here are using PCs or Laptops powered by massive Nuclear power stations (unless you have a gas generator or wind/solar power) and our homes rely on lighting and electricity for all manner of now-vital things.
But is it safe and efficient? The Blair government certainly thinks so. Tony Blair stated that it was in our best interest to spend more on Nuclear energy and less on fossil fuels. This has a sound background in that the fossil fuels we use up are in shorter supply and will eventually run out. It also has a detrimental effect on our planet as we use up the available resources.
The Clean-Safe idea of Nuclear energy comes from the large Nuclear Energy companies themselves. A consortium of companies who have hired several Ex-Greenpiece activists to clean up their image. These spokespeople know exactly what to say when it comes to green issues, but are working and being paid large sums to put across exactly what our government and the US government want to hear.
Nuclear power stations, however, have been proved time and time again to be unsafe, leaking and dis-organised areas which could, at any time, lead to disasters, both great and small. Rivers and land around Nuclear sites have been monitored by scientists for their contamination and several studies based on this evidence had led to power-station owners being sued for negligence.
But that’s ok, isn’t it? As long as they get sued, it doesn’t matter if a bit of radiation leaks out. Not that it would do any harm, aside from the fact that it changes human cells that, years later, can lead to many types of cancer or cause organs to fail.
But that’s not all. The waste created by these plants stays radioactive for many years and must be buried very deep underground to prevent it becoming dangerous to human and animal life. With more and more people using up the land space on this planet, there is less space where the waste can be buried far enough away to be ‘harmless’ to us. Not only that, but the waste has to be transported and there have already been cases where accidents have caused contamination.
So what are the alternatives? Solar and wind energy are good, but not half as efficient and are far more costly to set up in order to get the same power outage. Dams are very efficient, but to get enough power they must be built on areas where the dammed river will have enough power to run them. All three together may well be the answer, but would require mass funding in the short term from government. And it’s here that we hit the problem. The Government is only interested in the short term. After all, its main aim is to win votes in the next election. They’re not going to risk this by thinking about our future in the long term, they want to save us money in the short term with quick wins, and who cares about our grandchildren?
But this is my view, albeit backed up by findings of scientists. What do you think about the situation? Should we look at removing Nuclear energy or keep it? What can be done instead?
But is it safe and efficient? The Blair government certainly thinks so. Tony Blair stated that it was in our best interest to spend more on Nuclear energy and less on fossil fuels. This has a sound background in that the fossil fuels we use up are in shorter supply and will eventually run out. It also has a detrimental effect on our planet as we use up the available resources.
The Clean-Safe idea of Nuclear energy comes from the large Nuclear Energy companies themselves. A consortium of companies who have hired several Ex-Greenpiece activists to clean up their image. These spokespeople know exactly what to say when it comes to green issues, but are working and being paid large sums to put across exactly what our government and the US government want to hear.
Nuclear power stations, however, have been proved time and time again to be unsafe, leaking and dis-organised areas which could, at any time, lead to disasters, both great and small. Rivers and land around Nuclear sites have been monitored by scientists for their contamination and several studies based on this evidence had led to power-station owners being sued for negligence.
But that’s ok, isn’t it? As long as they get sued, it doesn’t matter if a bit of radiation leaks out. Not that it would do any harm, aside from the fact that it changes human cells that, years later, can lead to many types of cancer or cause organs to fail.
But that’s not all. The waste created by these plants stays radioactive for many years and must be buried very deep underground to prevent it becoming dangerous to human and animal life. With more and more people using up the land space on this planet, there is less space where the waste can be buried far enough away to be ‘harmless’ to us. Not only that, but the waste has to be transported and there have already been cases where accidents have caused contamination.
So what are the alternatives? Solar and wind energy are good, but not half as efficient and are far more costly to set up in order to get the same power outage. Dams are very efficient, but to get enough power they must be built on areas where the dammed river will have enough power to run them. All three together may well be the answer, but would require mass funding in the short term from government. And it’s here that we hit the problem. The Government is only interested in the short term. After all, its main aim is to win votes in the next election. They’re not going to risk this by thinking about our future in the long term, they want to save us money in the short term with quick wins, and who cares about our grandchildren?
But this is my view, albeit backed up by findings of scientists. What do you think about the situation? Should we look at removing Nuclear energy or keep it? What can be done instead?