On Sun, 28 Feb 2021 21:20:22 +0000, Vir Campestris
wrote:

On 26/02/2021 00:29, T i m wrote:
How soon after it 'destroyed Manchester' could they rebuild Manchester
again?

a) Straight away.
b) Many years later.

c) Neither of the above. There would be an awful lot of nasty stuff
floating around in the water from all the destroyed industry, and at the
least they'll have to deal with the mud. And assuming they rebuild the
dam demand for property might be a bit low.

OOI, how much of what was (conventionally) bombed flat during any war
(where the war has stopped) has not been rebuilt pretty quickly?

How many of the areas flooded during our floods have just been
abandoned for 30+ years?

Is all the rubble, glass and insulation from the twin towers still in
a heap?

My point is whilst I agree there can be some pretty grim stuff kicking
about after any major event / disaster / catastrophe, most of it *can*
be safely cleaned away by folks with buckets and shovels.

What is it with you people who feel there is a need to try to conflate
a man made disaster that is just what it is then goes away ... with a
man made disaster that means you can't go near the place for many
years after? (And that doesn't only have to be nuclear but that's one
of the worst to mange / clear up). 1500+ miles is a long way to walk
with a dustpan and brush.

Ok, for the hard of thinking, working on the 'what the can go wrong,
will go wrong' basis,*anything* that pollutes somewhere in such a way
that it can't be inhabited for a very long time, in my book, isn't 'a
good thing'?

Now, does that mean we have the choice to do without all bad /
potentially bad things? No, of course not, but 'most people' would
only consider keeping them on whilst there was no alternative.

I can promise you, as soon as there is a viable 'alternative' form of
energy (to nuclear), we will stop using nuclear, no matter how close
(but not at) 100% 'safe' they promise it to be.

We have seen such promises before ...

My point is not that nuclear is 100% safe.

Quite.

It's just that it doesn't
destroy the climate,

Well, if we ignore the damage done to the environment done when you
make anything, be it a solar panel, wind turbine or nuclear power
station (and in their decommissioning ... but where nuclear may have
'extra issues'), neither do solar, wind, hydro etc?

stop at night or when the weather is wrong,

Different subject.

nor
have the risks that the Chinese demonstrated so nicely.

No, but certainly do have 'risks'.

IMHO It's the least bad alternative.

Ah, that it may well be, again, until it goes wrong and impacts you or
your family. And that 'going wrong' can be in a different country
thousands of miles away.

Fusion would be better, especially
H-H fusion, not least because the waste is short life and there's no
fuel problem.

Agreed.

But I'm not going to hold my breath for that.

No, it does look to be a long way off still, well, how they are
dealing with it so far.

Show me a viable safe alternative and I'll be campaigning outside Sizewell.

Again, just because something seems to be the only solution, doesn't
justify it's existence, *if* the risks / costs are too great.

It's very similar to our keeping of sentient animals to then slaughter
and eat when there are *already* alternatives out there, when the mere
keeping and feeding them is already causing all of us (humans and the
other animals) more issues than the solution it provides.

The 'lesser of two evils' in this case would be *having* to kill and
exploit sentient creatures, not be doing so as the first choice?

Like with consuming animals, consuming fossil fuels have distracted us
from doing what we could / should have been doing otherwise.


Cheers, T i m