One to wind TurNiP up.

http://transitionculture.org/2011/03...alexis-rowell/

Old but still relevent.

On 27/05/13 08:47, Tim Streater wrote:
In article
,
harry wrote:

One to wind TurNiP up.

http://transitionculture.org/2011/03...ear-was-a-mist

ake-even-before-fukushima-an-open-letter-to-chris-huhne-from-alexis-rowell/


Old but still relevent.

No, old and irrelevant. Each one of these "points" is comprehensively
demolished each time it's put forward. But you're too dim to notice.

Exactly so. 17% of the worlds electricity, and the lowest death rate of
any power generation industry overall.

The facts speak for themselves.

--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.

harry-the-troll is back.

--
F

On 27/05/2013 08:47, Tim Streater wrote:
In article
,
harry wrote:

One to wind TurNiP up.

http://transitionculture.org/2011/03...ear-was-a-mist

ake-even-before-fukushima-an-open-letter-to-chris-huhne-from-alexis-rowell/


Old but still relevent.

No, old and irrelevant. Each one of these "points" is comprehensively
demolished each time it's put forward. But you're too dim to notice.

+1

Colin Bignell

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 27/05/13 08:47, Tim Streater wrote:
In article
,
harry wrote:

One to wind TurNiP up.

http://transitionculture.org/2011/03...ear-was-a-mist
ake-even-before-fukushima-an-open-letter-to-chris-huhne-from-alexis-rowell/

Old but still relevent.

No, old and irrelevant.

Bit like harry then.


Exactly so. 17% of the worlds electricity, and the lowest death rate of
any power generation industry overall.

The facts speak for themselves.

but harry is a born again green arse, their 'bible' dosent recognize the
word 'fact'

Tim Streater wrote:

In article
,
harry wrote:

One to wind TurNiP up.

http://transitionculture.org/2011/03...w-nuclear-was-
a-mistake-even-before-fukushima-an-open-letter-to-chris-huhne-from-alexi
s-rowell/

Old but still relevent.

No, old and irrelevant. Each one of these "points" is comprehensively
demolished each time it's put forward. But you're too dim to notice.

First claimed point "Nuclear is too expensive"

That's an easy one to test:

Electricity prices

Italy - Electricity domestic average 22p/kWh
UK - Electricity domestic average 15.5p/kWh
France - Electricity domestic average 14p/kWH

Nuclear Generation

Italy 0 TWH/pa
UK 62.1 TWH/pa
France 387.8 TWH/pa

Gosh yes, nuclear has really pushed electricity prices up in France,
not.

So the first claim is a lie, that tends to indicate that it's not worth
reading the rest of the ****.

--
Burn Hollywood burn, burn down to the ground

On 27/05/2013 14:23, Steve Firth wrote:
Tim Streater wrote:

In article
,
harry wrote:

One to wind TurNiP up.

http://transitionculture.org/2011/03...w-nuclear-was-
a-mistake-even-before-fukushima-an-open-letter-to-chris-huhne-from-alexi
s-rowell/

Old but still relevent.

No, old and irrelevant. Each one of these "points" is comprehensively
demolished each time it's put forward. But you're too dim to notice.

First claimed point "Nuclear is too expensive"

That's an easy one to test:

Electricity prices

Italy - Electricity domestic average 22p/kWh
UK - Electricity domestic average 15.5p/kWh
France - Electricity domestic average 14p/kWH

Nuclear Generation

Italy 0 TWH/pa
UK 62.1 TWH/pa
France 387.8 TWH/pa

Gosh yes, nuclear has really pushed electricity prices up in France,
not.

So the first claim is a lie, that tends to indicate that it's not worth
reading the rest of the ****.

As I have commented before, if Harry believes it, it is probably wrong,
irrespective of what 'it' is.

Colin Bignell

On May 27, 2:23*pm, (Steve Firth) wrote:
Tim Streater wrote:
In article
,
*harry wrote:

One to wind TurNiP up.

http://transitionculture.org/2011/03...w-nuclear-was-
a-mistake-even-before-fukushima-an-open-letter-to-chris-huhne-from-alexi
s-rowell/

Old but still relevent.

No, old and irrelevant. Each one of these "points" is comprehensively
demolished each time it's put forward. But you're too dim to notice.

First claimed point "Nuclear is too expensive"

That's an easy one to test:

Electricity prices

Italy - Electricity domestic average 22p/kWh
UK - Electricity domestic average 15.5p/kWh
France - Electricity domestic average 14p/kWH

Nuclear Generation

Italy 0 TWH/pa
UK * * *62.1 TWH/pa
France *387.8 TWH/pa

Tch Much of the French nuclear plant is due for replacemant.
The we'll see the true cost.

Taxpayer subsidised, in debt, in danger of default.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear..._and_economics

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear...Nuclear_safety

On Mon, 27 May 2013 09:03:56 -0700, harry wrote:

Taxpayer subsidised,

Pot. Kettle. Black.

--
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
My posts (including this one) are my copyright and if @diy_forums on
Twitter wish to tweet them they can pay me £30 a post
*lightning surge protection* - a w_tom conductor

On 27/05/13 17:03, harry wrote:
On May 27, 2:23 pm, (Steve Firth) wrote:
Tim Streater wrote:
In article
,
harry wrote:
One to wind TurNiP up.
http://transitionculture.org/2011/03...w-nuclear-was-
a-mistake-even-before-fukushima-an-open-letter-to-chris-huhne-from-alexi
s-rowell/
Old but still relevent.
No, old and irrelevant. Each one of these "points" is comprehensively
demolished each time it's put forward. But you're too dim to notice.
First claimed point "Nuclear is too expensive"

That's an easy one to test:

Electricity prices

Italy - Electricity domestic average 22p/kWh
UK - Electricity domestic average 15.5p/kWh
France - Electricity domestic average 14p/kWH

Nuclear Generation

Italy 0 TWH/pa
UK 62.1 TWH/pa
France 387.8 TWH/pa
Tch Much of the French nuclear plant is due for replacemant.
The we'll see the true cost.

Taxpayer subsidised, in debt, in danger of default.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear..._and_economics

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear...Nuclear_safety

France shows that a 80% nuclear wont break the bank. Finland reckons its
the cheapest alterntaive bar none.

Areva reactors are overpriced at the moment, but they are not the only
game in town.

But even at worst case prices the Areva reactor still knocks wind/solar+
backup into the tall grass.
Cheapest generation is coal.,Cheapest zero carbon is nuclear. Take your
pick.

Renewable is neither cheap nor low carbon. Its total pants.

--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.

harry wrote:

On May 27, 2:23 pm, (Steve Firth) wrote:
Tim Streater wrote:
In article
,
harry wrote:

One to wind TurNiP up.

http://transitionculture.org/2011/03...w-nuclear-was-
a-mistake-even-before-fukushima-an-open-letter-to-chris-huhne-from-alexi
s-rowell/

Old but still relevent.

No, old and irrelevant. Each one of these "points" is comprehensively
demolished each time it's put forward. But you're too dim to notice.

First claimed point "Nuclear is too expensive"

That's an easy one to test:

Electricity prices

Italy - Electricity domestic average 22p/kWh
UK - Electricity domestic average 15.5p/kWh
France - Electricity domestic average 14p/kWH

Nuclear Generation

Italy 0 TWH/pa
UK 62.1 TWH/pa
France 387.8 TWH/pa

Tch Much of the French nuclear plant is due for replacemant.
The we'll see the true cost.

Taxpayer subsidised, in debt, in danger of default.

Unlike domestic solar and windpower eh. Harold? Oh no, you're telling
pork pies, again, "renewables" are subsidised to the hilt and are the
most expensive form of electricity, ever. If you want to end up paying
50p/unit for electricity vote for "renewables".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear..._and_economics

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear...Nuclear_safety

As ever links posted without comment, presumably to try to give the
impression that there is a nuclear safety and an economic problem with
nuclear. Using the source that it is created and edited by morons.

The first link says nothing bad about the economics of nuclear power in
France, so quite what you think is damning about it is a mystery.

The second link tries to cast FUD on nuclear but the truth is that
French nuclear incidents are notable by their absence. The ASN is simply
being hyper-cautious.

You might want to address the fact that coal fired power stations have
emitted more radioactive material than all of the nuclear power stations
in the world and all of the A-bomb tests in the world combined. But I
bet you won't.

I also bet you won't dare to comment on how much fossil fuel is used to
create photovoltaic panels.

In further confirmation that the so-called greens are lying ****bags the
"Alexis Rowell" article that you linked to was published in the
self-interest magazine that he edits, yet it is described as a "guest
publication". A bit of honesty would have helped, don't you think[1].



[1] Yes you don't.

--
Burn Hollywood burn, burn down to the ground

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
.. .
harry wrote:

On May 27, 2:23 pm, (Steve Firth) wrote:
Tim Streater wrote:
In article
,
harry wrote:

One to wind TurNiP up.

http://transitionculture.org/2011/03...w-nuclear-was-
a-mistake-even-before-fukushima-an-open-letter-to-chris-huhne-from-alexi
s-rowell/

Old but still relevent.

No, old and irrelevant. Each one of these "points" is comprehensively
demolished each time it's put forward. But you're too dim to notice.

First claimed point "Nuclear is too expensive"

That's an easy one to test:

Electricity prices

Italy - Electricity domestic average 22p/kWh
UK - Electricity domestic average 15.5p/kWh
France - Electricity domestic average 14p/kWH

Nuclear Generation

Italy 0 TWH/pa
UK 62.1 TWH/pa
France 387.8 TWH/pa

Tch Much of the French nuclear plant is due for replacemant.
The we'll see the true cost.

Taxpayer subsidised, in debt, in danger of default.

Unlike domestic solar and windpower eh. Harold?

But that's completely irrelevant to the argument posit that the "French"
nuclear price is, or in this case isn't, the achievable price in an
unsubsidised world

tim

On 27/05/13 21:10, tim...... wrote:

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
.. .
harry wrote:

On May 27, 2:23 pm, (Steve Firth) wrote:
Tim Streater wrote:
In article
,
harry wrote:

One to wind TurNiP up.


http://transitionculture.org/2011/03...w-nuclear-was-

a-mistake-even-before-fukushima-an-open-letter-to-chris-huhne-from-alexi

s-rowell/

Old but still relevent.

No, old and irrelevant. Each one of these "points" is
comprehensively
demolished each time it's put forward. But you're too dim to
notice.

First claimed point "Nuclear is too expensive"

That's an easy one to test:

Electricity prices

Italy - Electricity domestic average 22p/kWh
UK - Electricity domestic average 15.5p/kWh
France - Electricity domestic average 14p/kWH

Nuclear Generation

Italy 0 TWH/pa
UK 62.1 TWH/pa
France 387.8 TWH/pa

Tch Much of the French nuclear plant is due for replacemant.
The we'll see the true cost.

Taxpayer subsidised, in debt, in danger of default.

Unlike domestic solar and windpower eh. Harold?

But that's completely irrelevant to the argument posit that the
"French" nuclear price is, or in this case isn't, the achievable price
in an unsubsidised world

tim

government calculated cost price of nuclear was 6-8p a unit.

IF you don't shut it down tax it out of existence, make owners sign in
blood on massive insurance policies designed to rebuild the country from
scratch if someone drops a fuel rod and decomission to a level where its
less radioactive than the inside of an empty lead box after you have
finished etc etc.

ALL of which have been proposed by the Liberal 'democrats'.

--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.

On May 27, 8:05*pm, (Steve Firth) wrote:
harry wrote:
On May 27, 2:23 pm, (Steve Firth) wrote:
Tim Streater wrote:
In article
,
*harry wrote:

One to wind TurNiP up.

http://transitionculture.org/2011/03...w-nuclear-was-
a-mistake-even-before-fukushima-an-open-letter-to-chris-huhne-from-alexi
s-rowell/

Old but still relevent.

No, old and irrelevant. Each one of these "points" is comprehensively
demolished each time it's put forward. But you're too dim to notice..

First claimed point "Nuclear is too expensive"

That's an easy one to test:

Electricity prices

Italy - Electricity domestic average 22p/kWh
UK - Electricity domestic average 15.5p/kWh
France - Electricity domestic average 14p/kWH

Nuclear Generation

Italy 0 TWH/pa
UK * * *62.1 TWH/pa
France *387.8 TWH/pa

Tch Much of the French nuclear plant is due for replacemant.
The we'll see the true cost.

Taxpayer subsidised, in debt, in danger of default.

Unlike domestic solar and windpower eh. Harold? Oh no, you're telling
pork pies, again, "renewables" are subsidised to the hilt and are the
most expensive form of electricity, ever. If you want to end up paying
50p/unit for electricity vote for "renewables".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear...nagement_and_e...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear...Nuclear_safety

As ever links posted without comment, presumably to try to give the
impression that there is a nuclear safety and an economic problem with
nuclear. Using the source that it is created and edited by morons.

The first link says nothing bad about the economics of nuclear power in
France, so quite what you think is damning about it is a mystery.

The second link tries to cast FUD on nuclear but the truth is that
French nuclear incidents are notable by their absence. The ASN is simply
being hyper-cautious.

You might want to address the fact that coal fired power stations have
emitted more radioactive material than all of the nuclear power stations
in the world and all of the A-bomb tests in the world combined. But I
bet you won't.

I also bet you won't dare to comment on how much fossil fuel is used to
create photovoltaic panels.

In further confirmation that the so-called greens are lying ****bags the
"Alexis Rowell" article that you linked to was published in the
self-interest magazine that he edits, yet it is described as a "guest
publication". A bit of honesty would have helped, don't you think[1].

[1] Yes you don't.

--
Burn Hollywood burn, burn down to the ground

The link says the French nuclear is subsidised to the hilt and in
danger of going bust without further cash from the French
taxpayer.
Also much plant is old and in need of renewal. Then we'll see the true
cost.
Let them privatise it so it has to stand alone.
EDF is haggling for government subsidies in this country re the
Hinckley point project

The current price paid for FIT electricity is £0.1544/Kwh and falling.
http://www.ofgem.gov.uk/Sustainabili...r%202012 .pdf

New nuclear power is expected to double present electricity costs.
http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21839684

So spouting your usual drivel

On May 27, 10:03*pm, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
On 27/05/13 21:10, tim...... wrote:









"Steve Firth" wrote in message
. ..
harry wrote:

On May 27, 2:23 pm, (Steve Firth) wrote:
Tim Streater wrote:
In article
,
*harry wrote:

One to wind TurNiP up.

http://transitionculture.org/2011/03...w-nuclear-was-

a-mistake-even-before-fukushima-an-open-letter-to-chris-huhne-from-alexi

s-rowell/

Old but still relevent.

No, old and irrelevant. Each one of these "points" is
comprehensively
demolished each time it's put forward. But you're too dim to
notice.

First claimed point "Nuclear is too expensive"

That's an easy one to test:

Electricity prices

Italy - Electricity domestic average 22p/kWh
UK - Electricity domestic average 15.5p/kWh
France - Electricity domestic average 14p/kWH

Nuclear Generation

Italy 0 TWH/pa
UK * * *62.1 TWH/pa
France *387.8 TWH/pa

Tch Much of the French nuclear plant is due for replacemant.
The we'll see the true cost.

Taxpayer subsidised, in debt, in danger of default.

Unlike domestic solar and windpower eh. Harold?

But that's completely irrelevant to the argument posit that the
"French" nuclear price is, or in this case isn't, the achievable price
in an unsubsidised world

tim

government calculated cost price of nuclear was 6-8p a unit.

IF you don't shut it down tax it out of existence, make owners sign in
blood on massive insurance policies designed to rebuild the country from
scratch if someone drops a fuel rod and decomission to a level where its
less radioactive than the inside of an empty lead box after you have
finished etc etc.

ALL of which have been proposed by the Liberal 'democrats'.

All reasonable concerns that could cost the taxpayer.

And still the nuclear waste problem is unsolved.

On 28/05/13 07:20, harry wrote:
On May 27, 10:03 pm, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
On 27/05/13 21:10, tim...... wrote:









"Steve Firth" wrote in message
.. .
harry wrote:
On May 27, 2:23 pm, (Steve Firth) wrote:
Tim Streater wrote:
In article
,
harry wrote:
One to wind TurNiP up.
http://transitionculture.org/2011/03...w-nuclear-was-
a-mistake-even-before-fukushima-an-open-letter-to-chris-huhne-from-alexi
s-rowell/
Old but still relevent.
No, old and irrelevant. Each one of these "points" is
comprehensively
demolished each time it's put forward. But you're too dim to
notice.
First claimed point "Nuclear is too expensive"
That's an easy one to test:
Electricity prices
Italy - Electricity domestic average 22p/kWh
UK - Electricity domestic average 15.5p/kWh
France - Electricity domestic average 14p/kWH
Nuclear Generation
Italy 0 TWH/pa
UK 62.1 TWH/pa
France 387.8 TWH/pa
Tch Much of the French nuclear plant is due for replacemant.
The we'll see the true cost.
Taxpayer subsidised, in debt, in danger of default.
Unlike domestic solar and windpower eh. Harold?
But that's completely irrelevant to the argument posit that the
"French" nuclear price is, or in this case isn't, the achievable price
in an unsubsidised world
tim
government calculated cost price of nuclear was 6-8p a unit.

IF you don't shut it down tax it out of existence, make owners sign in
blood on massive insurance policies designed to rebuild the country from
scratch if someone drops a fuel rod and decomission to a level where its
less radioactive than the inside of an empty lead box after you have
finished etc etc.

ALL of which have been proposed by the Liberal 'democrats'.
All reasonable concerns that could cost the taxpayer.

And still the nuclear waste problem is unsolved.
sigh. No the problem of nuclera waste isn't solved because it's
difficult to make irrational people understand things: you being a prime
example.
There is of course no PHYSICAL problem with nuclear waste.

Its a bit like the Devil. No matter how much you say 'I dont actually
see him anywhere' someone will claim that he comes in and posseses them
on a daily basis...

We haven't solved the problem of the mentally challenged.

Probaly the best thing to do is sit all teh harrys of the world in a big
holiday camp bbu8ilt on top of a radioactive waste dump,. equipped with
geiger counters and tell them they are 'health meters' .
And the higher they are the more bacteria they are getting rid opf.

They would believe it. They believe anything.






--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.

harry wrote:

And still the nuclear waste problem is unsolved.

Red-hot fusion is going to save the planet!

http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/...usion-research

On Mon, 27 May 2013 23:17:57 -0700, harry wrote:

The link says the French nuclear is subsidised to the hilt and in danger
of going bust without further cash from the French taxpayer.
Also much plant is old and in need of renewal. Then we'll see the true
cost.

Let them privatise it so it has to stand alone.

And do the same to the renewables programmes.



--
Terry Fields

tim...... wrote:

Unlike domestic solar and windpower eh. Harold?

But

Those *******s who snip all context, eh tim?

--
Burn Hollywood burn, burn down to the ground

harry wrote:

And still the nuclear waste problem is unsolved.

Lie.

--
Burn Hollywood burn, burn down to the ground

On May 27, 7:24*pm, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
On 27/05/13 17:03, harry wrote:









On May 27, 2:23 pm, (Steve Firth) wrote:
Tim Streater wrote:
In article
,
* harry wrote:
One to wind TurNiP up.
http://transitionculture.org/2011/03...w-nuclear-was-
a-mistake-even-before-fukushima-an-open-letter-to-chris-huhne-from-alexi
s-rowell/
Old but still relevent.
No, old and irrelevant. Each one of these "points" is comprehensively
demolished each time it's put forward. But you're too dim to notice.
First claimed point "Nuclear is too expensive"

That's an easy one to test:

Electricity prices

Italy - Electricity domestic average 22p/kWh
UK - Electricity domestic average 15.5p/kWh
France - Electricity domestic average 14p/kWH

Nuclear Generation

Italy 0 TWH/pa
UK * * *62.1 TWH/pa
France *387.8 TWH/pa
Tch Much of the French nuclear plant is due for replacemant.
The we'll see the true cost.

Taxpayer subsidised, in debt, in danger of default.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear...nagement_and_e...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear...Nuclear_safety

France shows that a 80% nuclear wont break the bank. Finland reckons its
the cheapest alterntaive bar none.

Areva reactors are overpriced at the moment, but they are not the only
game in town.

But even at worst case prices the Areva reactor still knocks wind/solar+
backup into the tall grass.
Cheapest generation is coal.,Cheapest zero carbon is nuclear. Take your
pick.

Renewable is neither cheap nor low carbon. Its total pants.

--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc’-ra-cy) – a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.

We seem to be rushing headlong into total dependance on gas. We need
coal to bridge the gap between now and when we get new nuke plants
built. Time for Harry's friends to get all their objections in.

Philip

On May 28, 7:38*am, Andy Burns wrote:
harry wrote:
And still the nuclear waste problem is unsolved.

Red-hot fusion is going to save the planet!

http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/...usion-research

Well fusion might. But not the cold sort.
And not in our lifetimes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion

On May 28, 8:52*am, (Steve Firth) wrote:
harry wrote:
And still the nuclear waste problem is unsolved.

Lie.

Oh, more details then?

On 28/05/13 18:45, harry wrote:
On May 28, 7:38 am, Andy Burns wrote:
harry wrote:
And still the nuclear waste problem is unsolved.
Red-hot fusion is going to save the planet!

http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/...usion-research
Well fusion might. But not the cold sort.
And not in our lifetimes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion
cold fusion wouldn't generate enough heat to be useful anyway :-)


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.

On 28/05/13 18:46, harry wrote:
On May 28, 8:52 am, (Steve Firth) wrote:
harry wrote:
And still the nuclear waste problem is unsolved.
Lie.
Oh, more details then?
its well known that many solutions exist. What there isn't a solution
to, is people who wont accept any of the solutions, on principle :-)


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.

On 28/05/2013 07:20, harry wrote:
....
And still the nuclear waste problem is unsolved.

The only problem attached to nuclear waste is that people like you think
there is a problem.

Colin Bignell

harry wrote:
On May 28, 7:38 am, Andy Burns wrote:
harry wrote:
And still the nuclear waste problem is unsolved.

Red-hot fusion is going to save the planet!

http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/...usion-research

Well fusion might. But not the cold sort.
And not in our lifetimes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion

"Our lifetimes"?

You a lot older than me:-)

--
Adam

"harry" wrote in message
...
On May 28, 8:52 am, (Steve Firth) wrote:
harry wrote:
And still the nuclear waste problem is unsolved.

Lie.

Oh, more details then?

Used nuke fuel is reprocessed into
more nuke fuel or used in breeders.

On May 28, 7:16*pm, Nightjar
wrote:
On 28/05/2013 07:20, harry wrote:
...

And still the nuclear waste problem is unsolved.

The only problem attached to nuclear waste is that people like you think
there is a problem.

Colin Bignell

If it wasn't a big problem, it would have been solved by now.
Everything's simple to the simple minded.

On May 28, 8:09*pm, "ARW" wrote:
harry wrote:
On May 28, 7:38 am, Andy Burns wrote:
harry wrote:
And still the nuclear waste problem is unsolved.

Red-hot fusion is going to save the planet!

http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/...usion-research

Well fusion might. *But not the cold sort.
And not in our lifetimes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion

"Our lifetimes"?

You a lot older than me:-)

--
Adam

You still won't see fusion power.

You'll die young anyway. Tom cats don't live for long! :-)
Done in by some girl's father.

You have a dissolute life (all that wanking) whereas I am a clean
living fellow.

On May 28, 8:41*pm, Tim Streater wrote:
In article
,

*harry wrote:
On May 27, 10:03*pm, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
ALL of which have been proposed by the Liberal 'democrats'.

All reasonable concerns that could cost the taxpayer.

And still the nuclear waste problem is unsolved.

No harry, it was solved 20 years ago and the solution has been in use
(in the UK) these 20 years. As I posted back in late Jan / early Feb. Do
keep up.

Yes, I recall some drivel.

The true facts are here. Nothing has been done.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-le...United_Kingdom
Notice that the taxpayer is going to have to fund all this.

And he-
http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cumbria-21253673
More or less the same story

On 29/05/13 08:42, harry wrote:
On May 28, 7:16 pm, Nightjar
wrote:
On 28/05/2013 07:20, harry wrote:
...

And still the nuclear waste problem is unsolved.
The only problem attached to nuclear waste is that people like you think
there is a problem.

Colin Bignell
If it wasn't a big problem, it would have been solved by now.
Everything's simple to the simple minded.
It has been solved harry.

As I said, the problem is that people like you choose not to believe
that it has.

http://rogerhelmermep.wordpress.com/...nuclear-power/


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.

On May 28, 9:03*pm, "Rod Speed" wrote:
"harry" wrote in message

...

On May 28, 8:52 am, (Steve Firth) wrote:
harry wrote:
And still the nuclear waste problem is unsolved.

Lie.

Oh, more details then?

Used nuke fuel is reprocessed into
more nuke fuel or used in breeders.

You really are on cloud nine.
As always one ignorant f***r
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fuel_reprocessing

On 29/05/2013 08:42, harry wrote:
On May 28, 7:16 pm, Nightjar
wrote:
On 28/05/2013 07:20, harry wrote:
...

And still the nuclear waste problem is unsolved.

The only problem attached to nuclear waste is that people like you think
there is a problem.

Colin Bignell

If it wasn't a big problem, it would have been solved by now.

I rather doubt there is any solution to the problem of people, like you,
who refuse to believe the facts.

As for nuclear waste, we have had the technology to recycle 95% of it,
including all the high level waste, for more than half a century. It
just happens to be cheaper to store it safely instead.

Colin Bignell

"harry" wrote in message
...
On May 28, 9:03 pm, "Rod Speed" wrote:
"harry" wrote in message

...

On May 28, 8:52 am, (Steve Firth) wrote:
harry wrote:
And still the nuclear waste problem is unsolved.

Lie.

Oh, more details then?

Used nuke fuel is reprocessed into
more nuke fuel or used in breeders.

You really are on cloud nine.

We'll see...

As always one ignorant f***r

Wota stunning line in rational argument you have there, ****wit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fuel_reprocessing

Says nothing useful about using breeders to get rid of spent fuel.

On May 29, 10:49*pm, "Rod Speed" wrote:
"harry" wrote in message

...









On May 28, 9:03 pm, "Rod Speed" wrote:
"harry" wrote in message

....

On May 28, 8:52 am, (Steve Firth) wrote:
harry wrote:
And still the nuclear waste problem is unsolved.

Lie.

Oh, more details then?

Used nuke fuel is reprocessed into
more nuke fuel or used in breeders.
You really are on cloud nine.

We'll see...

As always one ignorant f***r

Wota stunning line in rational argument you have there, ****wit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fuel_reprocessing

Says nothing useful about using breeders to get rid of spent fuel.

That's because you are in lala land. You can't.

On May 29, 3:19*pm, Nightjar
wrote:
On 29/05/2013 08:42, harry wrote:

On May 28, 7:16 pm, Nightjar
wrote:
On 28/05/2013 07:20, harry wrote:
...

And still the nuclear waste problem is unsolved.

The only problem attached to nuclear waste is that people like you think
there is a problem.

Colin Bignell

If it wasn't a big problem, it would have been solved by now.

I rather doubt there is any solution to the problem of people, like you,
who refuse to believe the facts.

As for nuclear waste, we have had the technology to recycle 95% of it,
including all the high level waste, for more than half a century. It
just happens to be cheaper to store it safely instead.

Colin Bignell

Another one in Lala land.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...n-8479145.html

Notice who's paying.
The taxpayer.
And this is a tiny fraction of what's to come.

On May 29, 8:57*am, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
On 29/05/13 08:42, harry wrote: On May 28, 7:16 pm, Nightjar
wrote:
On 28/05/2013 07:20, harry wrote:
...

And still the nuclear waste problem is unsolved.
The only problem attached to nuclear waste is that people like you think
there is a problem.

Colin Bignell
If it wasn't a big problem, it would have been solved by now.
Everything's simple to the simple minded.

It has been solved harry.

As I said, the problem is that people like you choose not to believe
that it has.

http://rogerhelmermep.wordpress.com/...aordinary-safe...

Oh and some MEP is a nuclear expert?

On 30/05/2013 07:15, harry wrote:
On May 29, 3:19 pm, Nightjar
wrote:
On 29/05/2013 08:42, harry wrote:

On May 28, 7:16 pm, Nightjar
wrote:
On 28/05/2013 07:20, harry wrote:
...

And still the nuclear waste problem is unsolved.

The only problem attached to nuclear waste is that people like you think
there is a problem.

Colin Bignell

If it wasn't a big problem, it would have been solved by now.

I rather doubt there is any solution to the problem of people, like you,
who refuse to believe the facts.

As for nuclear waste, we have had the technology to recycle 95% of it,
including all the high level waste, for more than half a century. It
just happens to be cheaper to store it safely instead.

Colin Bignell

Another one in Lala land.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...n-8479145.html

Notice who's paying.
The taxpayer.

As we would have if the plant had not been privatised. Essentially that
is a story about a government project that is over time and over budget,
which is hardly unusual.

And this is a tiny fraction of what's to come.

This is the result of Britain wanting to have nuclear weapons and
building the facilities to provide the fuel without any regard for
anything, bar meeting the deadline for demonstrating that they could
build an H-bomb.

It is in no way an indicator of what will happen in future with nuclear
power. All the clean up costs are included in the calculations for that
and are a major reason that nuclear power comes out at around the same
cost as coal power, although still half the cost of onshore wind and one
third the cost of offshore wind.

As I said, the only problem about nuclear waste is people like you who
think there is a problem.

Colin Bignell

On 30/05/13 07:10, harry wrote:
On May 29, 10:49 pm, "Rod Speed" wrote:
"harry" wrote in message

...









On May 28, 9:03 pm, "Rod Speed" wrote:
"harry" wrote in message
...
On May 28, 8:52 am, (Steve Firth) wrote:
harry wrote:
And still the nuclear waste problem is unsolved.
Lie.
Oh, more details then?
Used nuke fuel is reprocessed into
more nuke fuel or used in breeders.
You really are on cloud nine.
We'll see...

As always one ignorant f***r
Wota stunning line in rational argument you have there, ****wit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fuel_reprocessing
Says nothing useful about using breeders to get rid of spent fuel.
That's because you are in lala land. You can't.
course you can. You can even breed plutonium from depleted uranium left
over after fuel enrichment.


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.