Quote:
Originally Posted by jamesqf
Sure, if you can figure out how to shut up the anti-nuclear hysterics long enough to get it built - and not have them shut it down in response to tsunami damage to a plant half a world away.
|
I would like a system whereby consumers could choose, so if they choose renewables only and they are not producing then those households are cut off and not charged, those of us happy with Nuclear could continue to have power and heat. Maybe when West London dwelling Gaurdian readers suffer some consequences of what they preach they might like a move to the real world.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamesqf
I beg to differ. Better than in the 1950s, sure, but it's still not all that great, per random nose tests between 1990-2003.
|
You would need to have a nose here in the 1950s to conclude that. At that time all power was coal, trains ran on coal and houses were heated by coal fires in a fireplace, not the case these days in 80-90% of homes - biomass excluded of course.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamesqf
Oh, and you think they won't be back, when/if you give them the chance?
|
No. And even if they did it wouldn't matter as much as it did in the
early 1970s.