Doug wrote:
> On 18 Sep, 09:09, "nightjar" .me.uk>
> wrote:
>>> On 17 Sep, 22:17, "nightjar" .me.uk>
>>> wrote:
>>>> "Doug"
riseup.net> wrote in message>>
>>
>>>>> For all those with electric cars and battery chargers or who use
>>>>> trains. Of course, the obvious solution,
>>
>>>> ... is to stop protesters from trying to interfere with plans for
>>>> new power
>>>> stations.
>>
>>> Nope because carbon capture is unproven and expensive and is being
>>> used merely as an excuse to build more heavily polluting coal power
>>> stations.
>>
>> Carbon capture is only needed to meet the most stringent of future
>> targets. There are several other technologies that can be used to
>> meet current standards that are well proven, from simple measures
>> like improving the thermal efficiency of the generating plant to
>> modern answers like co-firing biomass. All are relatively expensive,
>> but the cost will be passed onto the consumer.
>>
> This sort of technological tinkering at the edges may provide small
> gains but it doesn't solve the problem.
That depends on what one believes the problem to be.
>>> While renewables look attractive they cannot meet demand and are in
>>> some cases uneconomic.
>>
>> Something we have been saying on here for a while.
>>
> Becuase its obvious?
It's obvious to those with an open and analytical mind. Which isn't you
Doug.
>>
> The use and very long-term storage of radioactive material is
> obviously hazardous to human life and at risk from sabotage.
> Decommissioning of nuclear plants is extremely expensive.The mining
> and transport of uranium is polluting. There is a strong possibility
> that radioactive areas causes cancer clusters. Unless people like you
> can prove conclusively that nuclear power is absolutely safe the
> precautionary principle should be applied and attention should be
> given instead to reducing energy wastage with a view to reducing
> pollution.
How can evidence to be gathered if the proposers aren't allowed to set up a
working installation?
