@TMTisFree

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: @BrianK Quote: Your statement suggests France somehow is not a supporter of dictators? I have not missed your inability to comprehend basic claim in a post.

I have not missed the convenience of your position to strongly support an industry in your nation that props up dictorators while feeling morally justified to claim you really want them to not exist.

Last edited by BrianK on 27-Mar-2011 at 02:43 PM.

@Dandy

Quote:

Quote: TMTisFree wrote: The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer". The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source". The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts". The TMTisfree approach to our non-problems: "once you're dead you don't need shirts anymore".

Exactly! It speaks volumes when someone is so willing to mischaracterize a view point.

There's certainly wackos on each side. I'm sure you could find a person who claims to be an environmentalist who says not washing clothes is a good thing. Finding an example does not promote them to spokesperson nor established that all environmentalists believe such a thing. For the other side one can look to US Republican Representative Shimkus who claims Global Warming won't destroy the planet because God told us after the Flood that he'd never again destroy all living creatures.

I'm glad to see those here that accept the current scientific view that man does play a role in the environment, that responsibility and more knowledge is key to this use and understanding aren't slagging off anti-GWers views as simply a group of religious wackos. To circle back I think these are speaking volumes.

@TMTisFree

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: @Dandy ... so that I have been finally giving the right to build the 10 1MW windmills: meaning that I am basically getting significantly richer without doing any work (less in fact) for at least the next 25 years. So, many, many, many thanks for your delicate attention to me by your success to push wrong-headed policies to fight absent problems. I appreciate it!

Wow - I'm at a loss for words!
TMT really finally converted to a green energy producer!
Who'd have thought that...
TMT, you're my pride and joy!


Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: Remind me to post here some photos of the windmills when building begins. ...

Yes - why not?

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: Anyway, what about you, as you made the claim, demonstrating nuclear is not safe for people with real empirical data (no models, no projections/predictions, no future tense, etc., you get it)?

My position is that we are living in a "democratic" system, where the majority of the people decides what they want and what not. Sometimes the majority sees things as I do and sometimes not. So what?
Just watch the current news - today we had state parliament elections in two states here in Germany. And the majority decided to elect parties that will advance nuclear power phase-out. That's the reality - like it or not.

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: Quote: "but these estimates are not yet sufficiently reliable to use" You find your own rebuttal yourself. Great.

I thought it's only fair to mention that there is still uncertainty about those figures (yours included).
As I understood it, that can mean the number could be bigger or smaller.
Currently nobody can tell - time will tell...

Had you cited this statement, your figures above might very well have been received as more realistic...

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: It is always a pleasure to see believers of the [C]AGW gravy train pushing themselves into the grave (here or elsewhere).

Sorry to diasappoint you, but I'm still alive...

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: This is even below my number (56). The remaining values you quote are predictions only ie we don't know/care (scientifically speaking).

I can agree on the "we don't know"-part.
But I strongly object the "we don't care"-part.

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: Quote: ... Wind power in populated areas is largely worthless. Just what I have been saying for years here.

Isn't that in strong contradiction with your statement above, where you said you were going "to build the 10 1MW windmills"?

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: Let face it: your irrational fear of nuclear energy is unfounded (and renewables are a dead end). Will YOU change your POV? I bet no.

Face it: If you (or I) think nuclear energy is dangerous or not - and even if this fear is irrational or not - does not matter at all. As I stated above - that's democracy - the majority decides...

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: ... Still washing your clothes by hand in Germany Haha! ...

Naah - I'm a nudist and don't have clothes to wash...


EDIT:
Fixed quoting

Last edited by Dandy on 27-Mar-2011 at 06:35 PM.
Last edited by Dandy on 27-Mar-2011 at 06:34 PM.
Last edited by Dandy on 27-Mar-2011 at 06:32 PM.

_________________
Ciao

Dandy
__________________________________________
If someone enjoys marching to military music, then I already despise him.
He got his brain accidently - the bone marrow in his back would have been sufficient for him!
(Albert Einstein)

@Plaz

Quote:

Plaz wrote: @Dandy Quote: Hmmmmm - noone interested in discussing the usefulness of nuclear power to fight global warming I'm a geothermal kind of guy. Maybe way too hot to handle, but at least when you spill lava it's not so dang radioactive.

I wouldn't have thought that using geothermal includes spilling lava...

_________________
Ciao

Dandy
__________________________________________
If someone enjoys marching to military music, then I already despise him.
He got his brain accidently - the bone marrow in his back would have been sufficient for him!
(Albert Einstein)

@TMTisFree

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: @Dandy Quote: Hey - did you already suggest to French air force to write this slogan onto the bombs they drop on Ghaddafi's troups? They might want to award you... Do you suggest that it is a good policy to support dictator?

No - I don't.
But I dare to doubt that democracy is the solution to all problems.
Maybe something in between is - I don't know - I only know I'm not a politician and don't want to be one...

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: Given the German historical track record, one wonders if you give it a thought before opening your mouth.

Do you really think French historical track record (or the historical track record of any western nation) is without "dark spots"? BrianK already listed some...
We have a saying here:
"The one who is sitting in a glasshouse should better not throw stones around..."

_________________
Ciao

Dandy
__________________________________________
If someone enjoys marching to military music, then I already despise him.
He got his brain accidently - the bone marrow in his back would have been sufficient for him!
(Albert Einstein)

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @TMTisFree I have not missed the convenience of your position to strongly support an industry in your nation ...

At least he's in the green power business now (according to his words, that is)...


But taking money from those he's constantly railing at seems a bit strange (at best)...

Last edited by Dandy on 27-Mar-2011 at 06:29 PM.

_________________
Ciao

Dandy
__________________________________________
If someone enjoys marching to military music, then I already despise him.
He got his brain accidently - the bone marrow in his back would have been sufficient for him!
(Albert Einstein)

@Dandy

Quote:

I wouldn't have thought that using geothermal includes spilling lava...

Hey, did the hole deep enough and there could be trouble... darn valcanoes

@Thread
And on the nuclear issue...
Humans prove continuously that we are fallible. I'm not against nuclear, but if you're going to build it, build it with worst case scenario in mind. Some one made a good point on another blog... robots everywhere in Japan, why not Fukushima? Of course you're going to need to seriously shield those electronics.

What we should never hear.....
"What? Meltdown... but that wasn't ever supposed to happen. What do we do now?"

Plaz

@Dandy

Quote:

Dandy wrote: Quote: @TMTisFree I have not missed the convenience of your position to strongly support an industry in your nation ... At least he's in the green power business now (according to his words, that is)... But taking money from those he's constantly railing at seems a bit strange (at best)...

I don't think for TMT that's strange. The impression I get from reading TMT's posts is he's one that'd accept the Ayn Rand Libertarian belief that overt selfishness is a virtue.

@BrianK

Quote:

I have not missed the convenience of your position to strongly support an industry in your nation that props up dictorators

I have missed though you inability to read in people's mind. Always fun and funny

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@Dandy

Quote:

TMT really finally converted to a green energy producer!

I see it more as a business opportunity to suck deep in your wallet with your consent (I can provide vaseline), but don't tell others
(Btw, I announced it 2 years ago in this thread so nothing really new here.)
(And to be sure, I think it is bad policy to subsidize inefficient and unreliable energy pseudo technologies.)

Quote:

TMT, you're my pride and joy!

You money is welcomed.

Quote:

And the majority decided to elect parties that will advance nuclear power phase-out. That's the reality - like it or not.

I like it. It will be great business to sell you more and more of our nuclear electricity as this will lower my own cost meaning that the differential with what I will produce will be greater. I know profiting from (or with the help?) people's stupidity wrongness (democratically elected you state) is morally questionable for some, but hey, Customer asks, we deliver.

Quote:

Currently nobody can tell - time will tell...

Yeah, future is the last refuge when one refuses to accept the empirical reality: you are just deluding yourself.

Quote:

Sorry to diasappoint [sic] you, but I'm still alive...

Nah, only satisfaction to rebut with empirical data. I am all for data-based decisions.

Quote:

I can agree on the "we don't know"-part. But I strongly object the "we don't care"-part.

You seem to miss the "scientifically speaking" part. We don't care because:
1/ we at the present time don't see any consequences (data are data);
2/ epidemiological evidences suggest we will not be able, in the future, to attribute such potential consequences to any precise events ietoo diffuse effects, current cancer prevalence, etc (predictions are not data).

Quote:

Isn't that in strong contradiction with your statement above, where you said you were going "to build the 10 1MW windmills"?

No, the plan is to build in countryside, but the local greens are affected by the NIMBY syndrome.

Quote:

Face it: If you (or I) think nuclear energy is dangerous or not - and even if this fear is irrational or not - does not matter at all. As I stated above - that's democracy - the majority decides...

Trying to deflect because the response is too damning?

Quote:

Quote: Still washing your clothes by hand in Germany Haha! Naah - I'm a nudist and don't have clothes to wash...

Excuse me while I puke.
Fine now.
I guess this second non-response finely underline the great hypocrisy of your green position.

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@Dandy

Quote:

No - I don't.

Fine, so your point was?

Quote:

I only know I'm not a politician and don't want to be one...

I am so glad to read that, fewww!

Quote:

We have a saying here:

Marvellous. What was you point then, if any?

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@Plaz

Quote:

Plaz wrote: @Dandy Quote: I wouldn't have thought that using geothermal includes spilling lava... Hey, dig the hole deep enough and there could be trouble... darn valcanoes

Yeah - especially if one would do that in Yellowstone...


Quote:

Plaz wrote: @Thread And on the nuclear issue... Humans prove continuously that we are fallible. I'm not against nuclear, but if you're going to build it, build it with worst case scenario in mind.

Back in 1982 I was involved in the design of the fast breeder reactor SNR-300 in Kalkar, which never went online.

We had to calculate the statics and for in case of an earthquake or an aeroplane crashing onto the breeder we had to take a frequency of 8 Hz into account and for the case of a sodium coolant fire a temperature of 800 °C. The worst case scenario was that both happened simultanously and we had to calculate accordingly.

As far as I know Tsunamies e.g. had not been taken into account.
Actually the Federal State of North Rhine-Westphalia is several hundred kilometers away from the coast, but nevertheless certain cataclysmic events (like e.g. the impact of an asteroid in the north sea or noth atlantc) - as unlikely as they may be - could very well cause an Tsunami strong enough to reach Kalkar - and then we would have been in exactly the same position as Fukushima, as noone thought something like that would ever happen and so the emergency cooling system would also have failed, as it equally wasn't flood protected.

So the question arises: what has to be covered by a worst case scenario and what not? To take Tsunamies into account at a location that is several hundred kilometers away from the coast causes additional costs, which would make the the plant less profitable.

So a line has to be drawn at what has to be included in a worst case scenario and what not - or the endeavour could not be financed.

Regarding Fukushima we know that the designers took earthquakes into account up to a magnitude of 8.2 - but the quke at hand was said to have had a magnitude of 9.0 and caused an accordingly huge Tsunami wave.

Whom does one want to blame for that?

This once again demonstrates that there is nothing like "ultimate nuclear safety"...


Quote:

Plaz wrote: Some one made a good point on another blog... robots everywhere in Japan, why not Fukushima? Of course you're going to need to seriously shield those electronics.

That's what I asked myself after the first block-unit blew up.
They (Sony?) demonstrated a robot that could dance and jump - why don't they have an army of remote controlled robots to fight nuclear catastrophes (just in case)?
Now they could use them...

Maybe it is a good idea to have some of such "Nuke Fighter Robots" within the reach of each nuclear plant so they can be quickly deployed "in the front line" in case of accidents with nuclear pollution. They should at least be equipped with cameras (preferably 3d HD cameras with night vision equipment) and be able to remove debris. Als remote controlled "flying cameras" should be available to be able to get an overview of the dmage as fast as possible.

Furthermore each country that has nuclear facilities should have a larger number of such NFRs at standby sate at a central location to be able to quickly send them to the affected place(s).

I know this also means additional costs - but this could help to avoid such cataclysmic developments of nuclear accidents like in Fukushima.

My impression from what was available on the news is that lacking overview of the situation was the main cause for the accident to get out of control.
Due to the electricity outage all the instruments in the control centre did not work and there were no other options to get the required information than to send people in and risk to contaminate them heavily.

What I really don't understand regarding the Fukushima accident is that it took TEPCO one entire week to come up with the idea to build an emergency power line.
This was wasting precious time, IMO...
It already should have been clear immediately after the flood that there is the risk of a meltdown if they don't have electricity for the coolant punps.
So why did they wait so long?

Quote:

Plaz wrote: What we should never hear..... "What? Meltdown... but that wasn't ever supposed to happen. What do we do now?" Plaz

That's were they seem to be now...

Last edited by Dandy on 28-Mar-2011 at 11:00 AM.

_________________
Ciao

Dandy
__________________________________________
If someone enjoys marching to military music, then I already despise him.
He got his brain accidently - the bone marrow in his back would have been sufficient for him!
(Albert Einstein)

@Dandy

Quote:

But taking money from those he's constantly railing at seems a bit strange (at best)...

Technically, YOU are giving money to me in exchange for a service. Fortunately, my ability to run businesses is not limited by my evidences-based researches and views on stupid policies and related consequences. It even is an advantage: understanding people's motives (why and how wrong they are) is somewhat of a requirement to prospect future opportunities (and achieve success).

In this case, euros come from the sky and I am here to collect.

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@TMTisFree

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: @Dandy Quote: TMT really finally converted to a green energy producer! I see it more as a business opportunity to suck deep in your wallet with your consent (I can provide vaseline), but don't tell others

Pooh-Bah, you old farrow!


Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: (Btw, I announced it 2 years ago in this thread so nothing really new here.)

Must have overlooked that...

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: (And to be sure, I think it is bad policy to subsidize inefficient and unreliable energy pseudo technologies.)

...such as nuclear power, yes.

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: Quote: TMT, you're my pride and joy! You money is welcomed.

I rather like to pay for green power than for nuclear power and its consequences.

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: Quote: And the majority decided to elect parties that will advance nuclear power phase-out. That's the reality - like it or not. I like it. It will be great business to sell you more and more of our nuclear electricity ...

You can keep the nuclear electricity - I'm just interested in renewable energy.

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: Quote: Currently nobody can tell - time will tell... Yeah, future is the last refuge when one refuses to accept the empirical reality: you are just deluding yourself.

Do you want to imply you can predict future?

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: Quote: Sorry to disappoint you, but I'm still alive... ... I am all for data-based decisions.

So you are saying you would rejoice if someone made a "data-based decision" and sends you straight into a heavily nuclear contaminated building (with radiation being 100.000 - 10.000.000 above normal) without being sufficiantly protected against contamination, like the poor guys at Fukushima?

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: Quote: I can agree on the "we don't know"-part. But I strongly object the "we don't care"-part. You seem to miss the "scientifically speaking" part.

No, I didn't miss that.
Already forgotten that we had such kind of "scientists" that didn't care here in Germany about 66 years ago?
E.g. Dr. Josef Mengele?

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: We don't care because: 1/ we at the present time don't see any consequences (data are data);

Blinded by the light, eh?
I can suggest some really good opticians, if you like...


Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: 2/ epidemiological evidences suggest we will not be able, in the future, to attribute such potential consequences to any precise events ietoo diffuse effects, current cancer prevalence, etc (predictions are not data).

I think this is a matter of from which side you approach the issue.
Some are unethical enough to sacrify innocent people (see e.g. Dr. Mengele) "for the sake of science" and others aren't.
Make your choice.

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: Quote: Dandy wrote: Isn't that in strong contradiction with your statement above, where you said you were going "to build the 10 1MW windmills"? No, the plan is to build in countryside,

Is the coutryside of France unpopulated lately?

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: but the local greens are affected by the NIMBY syndrome.

I'd say they can't have it both ways (green energy, but not from their own backyard)...

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: Quote: Dandy wrote: Face it: If you (or I) think nuclear energy is dangerous or not - and even if this fear is irrational or not - does not matter at all. As I stated above - that's democracy - the majority decides... Trying to deflect because the response is too damning?

No - just pointing out the obvious...

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: Quote: Dandy wrote: Naah - I'm a nudist and don't have clothes to wash... Excuse me while I puke. Fine now. I guess this second non-response finely underline the great hypocrisy of your green position.

I guess you overlooked the smileys...

EDIT:
Fixed quoting...

Last edited by Dandy on 30-Mar-2011 at 08:59 AM.
Last edited by Dandy on 30-Mar-2011 at 08:58 AM.
Last edited by Dandy on 30-Mar-2011 at 08:57 AM.
Last edited by Dandy on 30-Mar-2011 at 08:55 AM.
Last edited by Dandy on 30-Mar-2011 at 08:45 AM.
Last edited by Dandy on 30-Mar-2011 at 08:41 AM.

_________________
Ciao

Dandy
__________________________________________
If someone enjoys marching to military music, then I already despise him.
He got his brain accidently - the bone marrow in his back would have been sufficient for him!
(Albert Einstein)

@Dandy

Quote:

So a line has to be drawn at what has to be included in a worst case scenario and what not - or the endeavour could not be financed. Regarding Fukushima we know that the designers took earthquakes into account up to a magnitude of 8.2 - but the quke at hand was said to have had a magnitude of 9.0 and caused an accordingly huge Tsunami wave. Whom does one want to blame for that? This once again demonstrates that there is nothing like "ultimate nuclear safety"...

This is called risk assessment. No one has ever claimed an "ultimate nuclear safety", this is silly because risks, risks' evaluation and safety are all relative. What is claimed is that nuclear safety is higher (much higher) than in any other (energy) technology because risks associated with nuclear production has been stringently assessed and numerous protective measures has been implemented in plants making nuclear electricity more expensive (but safer) than that from coal or gas.

Now what is clear is that:
1/ Nature is unpredictable (a worse case scenario is nothing absolute);
2/ 40 years old nuclear plants have very well behave against 2 major and successive natural disasters far above worse-case specifications;
3/ putting diesel backups at sea level is incomprehensible: design flaw is obvious and regulation is at fault for not catching it.

I myself have followed the Fukushima events by reading and appreciating the very professional tone of the reports written by Lewis Page at The Register (the story begins here and develops there).

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@TMTisFree

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: @Dandy Quote: No - I don't. Fine, so your point was? ...

Jokes aren't funny if they have to be explained...
(sigh)

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: Quote: We have a saying here: Marvellous. What was you point then, if any? ...

Not to finger point at others while you aren't any better yourself...

_________________
Ciao

Dandy
__________________________________________
If someone enjoys marching to military music, then I already despise him.
He got his brain accidently - the bone marrow in his back would have been sufficient for him!
(Albert Einstein)

@Dandy

Quote:

I rather like to pay for green power than for nuclear power and its consequences.

Paying higher cost for unreliable electricity is strange (at best) but fortunately, it is business' prerogatives (and electricity is electricity wherever it comes from) to please customer needs however ideological (=wrong) they are. But who I am to discuss your money?

Quote:

Is the coutryside of France unpopulated lately?

Where planned, only by birds (not for long though, that is until the 10 bird-choppers are erected).

Quote:

I'd say they can't have it both ways (green energy, but not from their own backyard)...

This is the greens' main problem... They want energy without any inconveniences, 'rule' renewables have none (to save the planet), deny to act and then fight against the very policy they pushes for: eco-lunacy and green hypocrisy are boundless.

Quote:

I guess you overlooked the smiley

No.

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@Dandy

Quote:

Yeah - especially if one would do that in Yellowstone...

If Yellowstone decides to go big anytime soon, I think you could kiss half the USA goodbye.


Quote:

So the question arises: what has to be covered by a worst case scenario and what not?

You're getting a little too specific in detail. Worst case is loss of control over the pile and meltdown... regardless of what might have caused it. Metor, tsunami, terror attack.... rampant hoard of angry beavers.

Your core has melted and is posioning the area. How do you completely contain/neutralize it in less that 2 hours? If you can't answer that, don't build one near me. Oh wait... they already did.

Quote:

Quote: What we should never hear..... "What? Meltdown... but that wasn't ever supposed to happen. What do we do now?" That's were they seem to be now...

And that's the really sad stupid part.

Plaz

Last edited by Plaz on 28-Mar-2011 at 12:45 PM.

@TMTisFree

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: @Dandy Quote: So a line has to be drawn at what has to be included in a worst case scenario and what not - or the endeavour could not be financed. Regarding Fukushima we know that the designers took earthquakes into account up to a magnitude of 8.2 - but the quke at hand was said to have had a magnitude of 9.0 and caused an accordingly huge Tsunami wave. Whom does one want to blame for that? This once again demonstrates that there is nothing like "ultimate nuclear safety"... ... No one has ever claimed an "ultimate nuclear safety", this is silly because risks, risks' evaluation and safety are all relative.

Nevertheless the nuclear power lobby and their bought politicians likes to imply that.

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: What is claimed is that nuclear safety is higher (much higher) than in any other (energy) technology because risks associated with nuclear production has been stringently assessed and numerous protective measures has been implemented in plants making nuclear electricity more expensive (but safer) than that from coal or gas.

I'm aware of that.
Nevertheless I do not like the thought I might be one of those poor heavily contaminated victims - and most other people think so as well.

Nobody wants to risk getting cancer and a long lasting, lingering illness.
So it comes that people say: "No, we don't want that!"
I can fully understand that.

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: Now what is clear is that: 1/ Nature is unpredictable (a worse case scenario is nothing absolute);

Fully agreed.

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: 2/ 40 years old nuclear plants have very well behave against 2 major and successive natural disasters far above worse-case specifications;

Yes, they did surprisingly well.
As I said in the other posting - IMO the way things developed are due to lack of oversight.
But I currently cannot imagine a rational explanation why it took TEPCO one entire week to come up with the idea to build an emergency power supply.

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: 3/ putting diesel backups at sea level is incomprehensible: design flaw is obvious and regulation is at fault for not catching it.

Fully agreed.

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: I myself have followed the Fukushima events by reading and appreciating the very professional tone of the reports written by Lewis Page at The Register (the story begins here and develops there).

Thanks for the link - I will read it...

_________________
Ciao

Dandy
__________________________________________
If someone enjoys marching to military music, then I already despise him.
He got his brain accidently - the bone marrow in his back would have been sufficient for him!
(Albert Einstein)

@TMTisFree

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: @Dandy Quote: I rather like to pay for green power than for nuclear power and its consequences. Paying higher cost for unreliable electricity is strange (at best) ...

Hmmmm - obviously that depends on the direction from which you're looking at it.
For me as a private person it is obviouly much less expensive to put a wind generator and geothermal in my garden and furthermore to have solar panels on the roof than to build a (small) nuclear power station in my garden. I can sell the electricity that is produced in excess to what I consume (O.K. - that would be valid for the hypothetical small nuclear power station in the garden as well).

Not sure what you mean with "unreliable energy". Solar panels are very reliable as long as there is light, solar thermal electric power plants are reliable as long as the sun shines, wind generators are also reliable as long as the wind blows, hydro-electric power plants are very reliable and geothermal also is. And none of them has the risk of contaminating the surrounding environment for decades, centuries or even milleniums (depending on the nuclear fuel).

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: (and electricity is electricity wherever it comes from)

That's obviously right.

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: ... But who I am to discuss your money?

What money?


Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: Quote: Is the coutryside of France unpopulated lately? Where planned, only by birds (not for long though, that is until the 10 bird-choppers are erected).

Muahaha! Bird choppers!
Hadn't heard this term before...
Open an gourmet restaurant nearby...


Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: Quote: I'd say they can't have it both ways (green energy, but not from their own backyard)... This is the greens' main problem... They want energy without any inconveniences, 'rule' renewables have none (to save the planet), deny to act and then fight against the very policy they pushes for: eco-lunacy and green hypocrisy are boundless.

There may be some who are that way - but not all...

Quote:

TMTisFree wrote: Quote: I guess you overlooked the smiley No.

Well, as you sounded as if you took that serious...

_________________
Ciao

Dandy
__________________________________________
If someone enjoys marching to military music, then I already despise him.
He got his brain accidently - the bone marrow in his back would have been sufficient for him!
(Albert Einstein)