Jump to content
  • Sign up for free and receive a month's subscription

    You are viewing this page as a guest. That means you are either a member who has not logged in, or you have not yet registered with us. Signing up for an account only takes a minute and it means you will no longer see this annoying box! It will also allow you to get involved with our friendly(ish!) community and take part in the discussions on our forums. And because we're feeling generous, if you sign up for a free account we will give you a month's free trial access to our subscriber only content with no obligation to commit. Register an account and then send a private message to @dave u and he'll hook you up with a subscription.

Fracking


Rico1304
 Share

Recommended Posts

Yep, everyone but you is stupid and ignorant Dennis. Such is the cross you bare.

Thats you describing yourself. Quit hitting yourself, shall i kwote you from today calling everyone stu pid for the tories again? In comparison ive merely pointed out to you the folly of a history and politics graduate deciding your ideas about nuclear safety.

You resorting to desperation here again only demeans yourself, here let me wipe your chin.

  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The presentation and model I mentioned showed that the unreliability of renewables is the killer, we need back ups or we are screwed. It was even able to show the impacts of unknown technology - say batteries able to store surplus when it's windy or sunny - and the cost of changes to infrastructure required were prohibitive.

I'll see if I'm able to share it, I know it was used by government for some policy work.

Renewables dont kill thats a bit upside down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Depends if you are on a dialysis machine on a cold, dark day in February.

Yeah and if it saved my life Id blow me own face off and live out my days without a face too.

 

If I had to.

 

But im not blowing my face off today.

 

Id rather take my chances with global warming than have unusuable nuclear waste contaminating the land, water and air for a hundred thousand years or indeed the earths crust melting away from fracking.

 

Im pretty sure global warming, according to a scientific majority of experts has been passed the point of no return for at least a year now its quite irreversable and stockpiling nuclear waste is not going to help much even if it keeps the lights on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I talk to the part of the brain that organises grammer on a base level let me iin your heads before words are unassembled and scanned for meaning. Your egos already involved its too late at that stage pure data should be left and understood and not broken down into meaningless ego contexity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thats you describing yourself. Quit hitting yourself, shall i kwote you from today calling everyone stu pid for the tories again? In comparison ive merely pointed out to you the folly of a history and politics graduate deciding your ideas about nuclear safety.

You resorting to desperation here again only demeans yourself, here let me wipe your chin.

 

No, you didn't though, did you Dennis.

 

You did what you always do, you inferred that people on this board disagree with you because they are stupid, ignorant or just not as brave and pioneering as you are. It's the same tedious paper-tiger shit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who?

Its an idea not a person, our democracy fails for the same reason as a concept because we keep looking to bring human error into it, as long as we look to representatives it just cannot work, you send your own email or send it by courier and rely on him to do what fruit and fibre optics does in a second, why? Because we have a false concept called a leader who we must pledge allegiance to, what is this shit? Its inefficient, ideas we agree on be our leader not no man, its not a count of how many ladies or blacks in the cabinet, all are represented by themselves.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, you didn't though, did you Dennis.

 

You did what you always do, you inferred that people on this board disagree with you because they are stupid, ignorant or just not as brave and pioneering as you are. It's the same tedious paper-tiger shit.

No i never and in light of the lack of evidence presented Its safe to assume you are lying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its an idea not a person, our democracy fails for the same reason as a concept because we keep looking to bring human error into it, as long as we look to representatives it just cannot work, you send your own email or send it by courier and rely on him to do what fruit and fibre optics does in a second, why? Because we have a false concept called a leader who we must pledge allegiance to, what is this shit? Its inefficient, ideas we agree on be our leader not no man, its not a count of how many ladies or blacks in the cabinet, all are represented by themselves.

Yes, far more efficient to have every single person voting on every single peice of legislation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Assume what you want, I'm one of about three people who are still occasionally listening.

One of three who neg me regularly but the reps stAying positive so democracy wins again stu loses his dubious claim of one of three.

 

Denigration of dennis is an offence upon your own person.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or we can wait to get renewables online to the scale we need and suffer even more from climate change.

 

People are going to die, lots of them, if it isn't addressed radically. Your MRI scan for the kids is not even on the radar of issues.

 

See, I am not even anti nuclear energy per se, because I am enough of a realist to see that there is some degree of merit to what you say. My remark was against the laughable industry talking points parroted on here that Fukushima was "no drama" and hence people need to chill the fuck out. That is the reaction of a 5 year old, but not of civlized countries.

 

The people in charge at Tepco were absolutely shitting it during the events and nobody had a clue what was going on. Which is what happens if you let profit driven companies build and run power plants containing some of the most hazardous materials we know in an area positioned in a region known for its tectonic activity http://volcano.oregonstate.edu/vwdocs/volc_images/north_asia/japan_tec.html

 

Nuclear energy does have its upsides, I agree, but to deny it is a huge play with fire is disingenuous. It is a "one real strike and you're out" situation for a lot of people. But as usual people will only react once something big happens, that will be felt in Europe or the US.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

See, I am not even anti nuclear energy per se, because I am enough of a realist to see that there is some degree of merit to what you say. My remark was against the laughable industry talking points parroted on here that Fukushima was "no drama" and hence people need to chill the fuck out. That is the reaction of a 5 year old, but not of civlized countries.

 

The people in charge at Tepco were absolutely shitting it during the events and nobody had a clue what was going on. Which is what happens if you let profit driven companies build and run power plants containing some of the most hazardous materials we know in an area positioned in a region known for its tectonic activity http://volcano.oregonstate.edu/vwdocs/volc_images/north_asia/japan_tec.html

 

Nuclear energy does have its upsides, I agree, but to deny it is a huge play with fire is disingenuous. It is a "one real strike and you're out" situation for a lot of people. But as usual people will only react once something big happens, that will be felt in Europe or the US.

 

It's playing with a lot less fire than fossil fuels though, and that's really the main issue.

 

If nuclear gets as many strikes as oil then we'll have an issue, I wouldn't argue with that. I also agree people would react more to nuclear failures than the likes of the oil disasters in the US that killed people, wiped out whole ecosystems and will no doubt leave a legacy of health and social issues for the people. Nuclear presses certain buttons for a lot of people, not necessarily all rational ones.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, that's what every person with half a brain realises is a fucking stupid idea.

No its the only way to solve all our problems overnight. Letting other people decide and act in your name is what happens when your dead.

 

You seem not to grasp that living in a democracy requires participation? Theres half a brain of thought incomplete here.

 

Voting every five years works for no one but mps.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's playing with a lot less fire than fossil fuels though, and that's really the main issue.

 

If nuclear gets as many strikes as oil then we'll have an issue, I wouldn't argue with that. I also agree people would react more to nuclear failures than the likes of the oil disasters in the US that killed people, wiped out whole ecosystems and will no doubt leave a legacy of health and social issues for the people. Nuclear presses certain buttons for a lot of people, not necessarily all rational ones.

Oils less dangerous on your shirt, ask litvenyenko maybe it was oil that killed him?

 

It dont matter what you fink u dunt liv in a decockracy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's playing with a lot less fire than fossil fuels though, and that's really the main issue.

 

If nuclear gets as many strikes as oil then we'll have an issue, I wouldn't argue with that. I also agree people would react more to nuclear failures than the likes of the oil disasters in the US that killed people, wiped out whole ecosystems and will no doubt leave a legacy of health and social issues for the people. Nuclear presses certain buttons for a lot of people, not necessarily all rational ones.

 

No disagreement about anything there, bar the "lot less" part. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No its the only way to solve all our problems overnight. Letting other people decide and act in your name is what happens when your dead.

 

You seem not to grasp that living in a democracy requires participation?

 

You seem not to grasp that it would require constant participation above all other things. You also seem rather keen to change the subject or disappear when people point out to you the actual practicalities of your system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No disagreement about anything there, bar the "lot less" part. 

 

Mate, think about the global deaths from fossil fuel accidents. Then add in the damage it has done to the environment. Then factor in the absolute fucking mayhem it's going to cause with food shortages and wars when climate change really kicks in. 

 

It's genuinely not even in the same ball-park.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...