Posted by David Hansen on October 18, 2007, 3:08 pm
On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 15:26:09 +0100 someone who may be Peter Parry
How does this compare with the mercury emitted producing the extra
electricity needed to power incandescent bulbs?
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
Posted by Peter Parry on October 18, 2007, 4:19 pm
On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 16:08:19 +0100, David Hansen
Quite badly if compared with sensible generation methods such as
Posted by John Stumbles on October 18, 2007, 6:48 pm
On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 17:19:57 +0100, Peter Parry wrote:
To advocate nuclear, which generates highly toxic waste which needs to
be kept out of the biosphere for orders of magnitude longer than the
pyramids have been around, while criticising the Hg in CFLs, is definitely
one for the Mote & Beam department.
The clairvoyants' meeting has been cancelled due to unforseen circumstances.
Posted by nicksanspam on October 18, 2007, 7:02 pm
This seems off-topic for alt.solar.thermal,
home of "practical uses for t he sun's heat."
Posted by Eeyore on October 18, 2007, 7:25 pm
John Stumbles wrote:
Unless there is a perceived need to reprocess nuclear fuel, keeping it out of
the biosphere is absurdly simple. You just 'contain' it in a safe place !
Reprocessing was originally done in the UK to obtain the plutonium needed for
the bomb, then on a flawed belief that supplies of uranium would run out and
finally (on a profit driven basis) in order to serve an international market of
reactor users who didn't want to deal with such issues themselves.
As a result Britain did indeed become the world's 'nuclear dustbin' but it has
nothing to do with the everyday running requirements of thermal reactors !