Just Stop Oil protests

[Alan Harper's Tash]

I don't have an issue with their right to protest, I simply think they are going to get a hiding if they continue their preferred method pissing off the public

Occasionally someone will get hurt, but the vast majority of their protests do not result in them being assaulted.

 

[mosssideblue]

Occasionally someone will get hurt, but the vast majority of their protests do not result in them being assaulted.

Agree, but if they continue along the piss off the public track, I foresee someone getting hurt badly

 

[meltonblue]

It didn't on TV this morning, it was more about discussing the financial losses to those affected

Ah, I thought you meant the conversations I was referring to personally. TV, absolutely. They’d argue that’s been the same with any civil disobedience protests.

 

[BerkshireBlue]

Anyone who thinks nuclear and wind aren’t cheap clean energy doesn’t have a clue about the energy debate.

Actual LCOE (levelled cost of energy) of power plants per mW.

Coal $41
Nuclear $31
Gas $36

The only reason people think of green and Nuclear as expensive is because the calculations include the cost of having backup coal and gas power plants idling in case the green and nuclear power plants stop producing energy.

The only reason people who haven’t read up on the subject think nuclear is expensive is because of waste storage and building cost. The truth is that storage is insanely cheap, cheaper than disposing of waste products from carbon fuels and build costs have plummeted thanks to France and Japan where a reactor can be built in <3 years.

Ha ha that's the first time I've heard someone call nuclear clean. I think the population of Chernobyl will disagree with you somewhat. Talk about clueless

 

[Metal Biker]

Ha ha that's the first time I've heard someone call nuclear clean. I think the population of Chernobyl will disagree with you somewhat. Talk about clueless

Nuclear power is clean. It produces no emissions or harmful greenhouse gases, can operate 24/7 and is not dependent on favourable weather conditions. How about you ask the French instead, who have been using nuclear power for the majority of their energy requirements for several decades without incident.

Also, the total number of deaths from nuclear energy related incidents is estimated to be around 100,000. The total number of deaths from burning fossil fuels and their emissions stands at around 1.2m people every year. Yet one isn't considered as deadly as 'scawy nuculur'!

Discrediting nuclear energy so flippantly by referencing Chernobyl as a negative is like saying flying is bad because 9/11. It just makes me assume you haven't done much research into the nuclear industry, how it reuses fuels (Like the French do, but the Americans don't), the number of alternate fuels being considered, that the majority of the 'radioactive waste' is actually harmless and of very low yield and not what you'd automatically reference (like glowing green spent fuel rods which is pure Hollywood). That they're making them smaller and more efficient, or that they're working on SMR's which can eventually power an entire city and are no larger in size than a small house.

As for being clueless, that was the Soviets and their lack of understanding about nuclear power. It's not something you mess around with; they did and boy did it backfire massively. Remember a nuclear reactor cannot explode. Chernobyl's reactor did NOT explode. It got way too hot, and like a giant steam kettle without water, it popped. They're not wired the same as nuclear bombs are. But just like with electricity, if you don't show it respect, it can kill. We know better now.

 

[BerkshireBlue]

Nuclear power is clean. It produces no emissions or harmful greenhouse gases, can operate 24/7 and is not dependent of favourable weather conditions. How about you ask the French instead, who have been using nuclear power for the majority of their energy requirements for several decades without incident.

Also, the total number of deaths from nuclear energy related incidents is estimated to be around 100,000. The total number of deaths from burning fossil fuels and their emissions stands at around 1.2m people every year. Yet one isn't considered as deadly as 'scawy nuculur'!

Discrediting nuclear energy so flippantly by referencing Chernobyl as a negative is like saying flying is bad because 9/11. It just makes me assume you haven't done much research into the nuclear industry, how it reuses fuels (Like the French do, but the Americans don't), the number of alternate fuels being considered, that the majority of the 'radioactive waste' is actually harmless and of very low yield and not what you'd automatically reference (like glowing green spent fuel rods which is pure Hollywood). That they're making them smaller and more efficient, or that they're working on SMR's which can eventually power an entire city which are no larger than in size than a small house.

As for being clueless, that was the Soviets and their lack of understanding about nuclear power. It's not something you mess around with; they did and boy did it backfire massively. Remember a nuclear reactor cannot explode. Chernobyl's reactor did NOT explode. It got way too hot, and like a giant steam kettle without water, it popped. They're not wired the same as nuclear bombs are. But just like with electricity, if you don't show it respect, it can kill. We know better now.

where did I dismiss it mate? its the short term fix but it's not the long term solution.
saying it's clean is ridiculous though, the waste product is radioactive with a half life of 25000 years ffs. Do your research. How about Fukushima? or a the Japanese just a clueless as the soviets (a completely racist comment as they are some of the best nuclear scientists in the world)

 

[Metal Biker]

where did I dismiss it mate? its the short term fix but it's not the long term solution.
saying it's clean is ridiculous though, the waste product is radioactive with a half life of 25000 years ffs. Do your research

How much of the radioactive waste produced has such a half life?

Clue: it's less than 1% of all produced.

PS. do you have a long term solution?

 

[Metal Biker]

How about Fukushima? or a the Japanese just a clueless as the soviets (a completely racist comment as they are some of the best nuclear scientists in the world)

Fukushima? The Japanese ignored numerous safety guidelines and warnings from the Americans. They didn't turn off the reactor when the tsunami was expected to hit, built the reactor on a faultline, but here's the big kicker; nobody is expected to die from any radiation emitted from the reactor at Fukushima.

Nobody. Not one. The radiation didn't "cross the ocean" like the media claimed at the time, the food is not contaminated. It's been an expensive clearup, yes, but human cost? Nothing reported thus far. Environmental cost? Neglible, if any. They were quick to isolate any hazards. The main issue NEST teams have established was the fact an expensive reactor can't be used any more.

 

[BerkshireBlue]

How much of the radioactive waste produced has such a half life?

Clue: it's less than 1% of all produced.

PS. do you have a long term solution?

Yes Nuclear Fusion

 

[Metal Biker]

Yes Nuclear Fusion

Which requires more study and investment, which is part of the whole nuclear industry, which currently uses fission.

So you want to invest in the development of nuclear fusion by NOT currently investing in the nuclear industry, which has stated needs fission to get fusion off the ground?