Quote:
Originally Posted by Caligari
Once again, any links to back up your claims (like the ones i have provided) would be appreciated.
It has nothing to do with Greenpeace or global warming etc. and everything to do with the facts which validate the grim reality of high level nuclear waste being generated in very large quantities every year and the lack of safe storage for this waste.
It's a ticking time bomb.
It also doesn't help when you have countries like Japan who get the bright idea to make a nuke plant in the ring of fire...
It's created a major disaster which has now spread beyond 100 miles from the site on land and thousands of miles in the ocean, and it will continue to do untold damage for many years to come.
So in conclusion, trying to promote nukes as "cleaner" than solar is ludicrous at best.
It has already been proven that the emissions/pollution from the manufacturing of solar panels is far less per output than fossil fuel production, and far better than nuclear power production on both a safety and environmental level.
.
|
Okay, you're clearly not going to change your mind nor do you wish to learn anything. Solar is perfectly clean, because arsenic, cadmium, and lead aren't toxic at all. It's nuclear, not coal, that spews millions of tons of pollutants into the air every day. Everybody should just move to south Floruda, where every day is sunny and they don't need any electricity at night. Happy now?
Give me a shout if you ever grow out of your fanboy stage and want to look at the positives and negatives of things.
__________________
For historical display only. This information is not current:
support@bettercgi.com ICQ 7208627
Strongbox - The next generation in site security
Throttlebox - The next generation in bandwidth control
Clonebox - Backup and disaster recovery on steroids