"IMM" wrote in message
...

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Franz Heymann wrote:

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

Martin Brown wrote:



Solar power works reasonably at latitudes below about 45 degrees, but
it
is quite frankly a complete non-starter at latitudes 55N and above.
Unless you count biomass conversion in forests for indirect fuel
generation.



Agreed. Horses for courses.

However tide power is not impossible either. Not an easy one tho.

If only we could get fusion power working...


Fusion power is going to turn out to be a great deal filthier than
fission
power.



I don't think so. The fisson products would all be relatively short
lived isoptopes, and teh main product is helieum. Non radioactve helieum

Its only the vast amounts of radiation intereacting with the shielding
that would cause some radioactive compounds to be generated.


Fission power is the cleanest and least polluting energy source ever
produced on earth.



Yes, I tend to agree with you.


The number of deaths per kilowatt hour which occur in the extraction
and
processing of fossil fuels is a lot higher than the corresponding
number
for the extraction of uranium



I would not be surprised.


The pollution of the atmosphere by fossil fuel stations is vastly
worse
than
the pollution caused by nuclear power stations.

That is certainly true.

If all power stations were nuclear around the world the waste would pile
up
and be a huge problem in the future. Silly idea and should be forgotten.

It is obvious that you have never given a moments intelligent thought to
this question. You are just following the flock. The waste from a nuclear
power station is in fact a great deal easier to dispose of safely than the
waste from a fossil fuel plant. The trouble lies entirely in the fact that
the shepherds who persistently lead the sheep astray on this matter have not
even the faintest understanding of the issues involved in comparing methods
of disposing of waste from power stations.

Franz