On 15/02/2021 12:19, bert wrote:
In article , Spike
writes
On 12/02/2021 23:55, Fredxx wrote:
On 12/02/2021 22:14, T i m wrote:
Â*The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 12/02/2021 14:16, Tim Streater wrote:
On 12 Feb 2021 at 10:56:20 GMT, T r o l lÂ* wrote:
GB wrote:

snip

I was taken with his choice of words: "we believe that nuclear
power can
really mushroom".

And I wonder how many would want one ITBY, even compared with a
solar
farm, wind turbine(s)Â* or a biofuel / gas powered station?

Absolutely. We've got ugly as **** windmills and solar farms and a
nuclear power station all within 50 miles and the only one I'd live
near
is Sizewell B.

Of course you would.

As would many others.

Quiet, invisible except from the beach, and safer than
living near a wind turbine

Safer than living as near a nuke?

Given the number killed or injured it's very likely.

Solar farm - doesn't work much in winter, or at night all year round.

But could with additional storage and doesn't melt down and pollute
the surrounding environment for thousands of years:

What additional storage? More batteries consuming the rare element
Lithium? Or did you have some other storagein mind?

Wind turbine - ****ing noisy if you're near it, doesn't produce
much and often
none at all.

See above re storage and don't melt down and pollute the surrounding
environment for thousands of years:

They do fail in spectacular ways. Only if you place large nukes near
oceans with a history of tsunamis or known safety flaws.

Others - no gas to this village.

Ah, an ideal place to put a nuke then, especially for everyone else.

Clean energy, why not. Certainly less CO2 than all your 'green' energy
and far more reliable. No need to wait for the sun to rise and the wind
to blow.

T i m is so good at assessing risks, he rode a motorcycle and went
fanatical-vegan.

According to Tim, Tim is good at everything he touches, which is just
about everything.

If animal secretions aren't allowed in T i m's household, I guess the
Mrs swallowing is out of the question?