and these guys run nuclear power stations....
in [UK Motorcycles]
|
From: Doki on 7 Dec 2009 12:11 "Krusty" <dontwantany(a)nowhere.invalid> wrote in message news:hfhea9$no9$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... > Stupendous Man wrote: > >> > To be fair their (french) reactors >> seem safe and reliable compared to others... >> >> I wouldn't know about that, but French contributions to automotive >> technology are numerous. Pioneers like Panhard and Michelin. Cars >> like Minerva, Hispano, Citroen, (although the famous 2CV was based on >> Posche's designs when he was interned for war reparations). The >> French contributions to science include many names still used today >> as measurement systems, like Curie, Volta, Joule, etc. Alll of this >> was erased by Renault's "contribitions" to the Jeep Cherokee. > > When did they get involved with the Cherokee? Well, they did own AMC at the time, so I assume they gave some technical assistance. That said, the Cherokee is an enormously long lived model.
From: Vito on 7 Dec 2009 12:22 "Scraggy" <scraggy(a)abuseisgoodforyou.org.be> wrote| | Other than the Scorpion and the Thresher you mean? | And despite sinking with loss of life, did their power plants explode or even leak? Sounds like pretty good nuke management too me.
From: Leszek Karlik on 7 Dec 2009 12:34 On Mon, 07 Dec 2009 18:09:14 +0100, Doki <mrdoki(a)gmail.com> wrote: [...] > Yes, millions may have been employed in the nuclear industry, but, if it > turns out that after you've built, run, and cleaned up after your > nuclear stations that you've made a loss, and would have been better off > sticking up a couple of cheap and quick coal stations, then it's been of > no benefit to society. At the moment, nobody seems to agree on what > nuclear power costs. Oh please, if that's the case then also nobody seems to agree on what coal power costs or, as a matter of fact, what anything costs. Which clearly proves that we should, in fact, do nothing and keep living in the caves. The human deaths caused by "cheap and quick coal stations" are staggering in amount when compared to deaths caused by nuclear power - deaths of coal miners, radioactive ash polluting the air and causing cancer, toxic emissions etc. http://nextbigfuture.com/2008/03/deaths-per-twh-for-all-energy-sources.html For the US, coal results in 15 deaths per TWh and nukes globally result in 0,04 deaths per TWh (global average for coal is 161 deaths per TWh). How many dollars would you assign to the value of people killed so you could run your AC with "cheap and quick" coal power? -- Leszek 'Leslie' Karlik NTV 650
From: Doki on 7 Dec 2009 13:19 "Leszek Karlik" <leslie(a)hell.pl> wrote in message news:op.u4kwfgzabkkx24(a)attitude-adjust... > On Mon, 07 Dec 2009 18:09:14 +0100, Doki <mrdoki(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > [...] >> Yes, millions may have been employed in the nuclear industry, but, if it >> turns out that after you've built, run, and cleaned up after your >> nuclear stations that you've made a loss, and would have been better off >> sticking up a couple of cheap and quick coal stations, then it's been of >> no benefit to society. At the moment, nobody seems to agree on what >> nuclear power costs. > > Oh please, if that's the case then also nobody seems to agree on what coal > power costs or, as a matter of fact, what anything costs. Which clearly > proves > that we should, in fact, do nothing and keep living in the caves. > > The human deaths caused by "cheap and quick coal stations" are staggering > in amount when compared to deaths caused by nuclear power - deaths of > coal miners, radioactive ash polluting the air and causing cancer, toxic > emissions etc. > > http://nextbigfuture.com/2008/03/deaths-per-twh-for-all-energy-sources.html > > For the US, coal results in 15 deaths per TWh and nukes globally result in > 0,04 deaths per TWh (global average for coal is 161 deaths per TWh). > How many dollars would you assign to the value of people killed so you > could run your AC with "cheap and quick" coal power? I'm not making a judgement either way on Nuclear. As I understand it, the cost of nuclear energy is still a matter of debate...
From: Twibil on 7 Dec 2009 14:18
On Dec 7, 4:11 am, "TOG(a)Toil" <totallydeadmail...(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > > > However, the voters don't care about hard data, they make their > > decisions based on emotions. > > A truer word was never said. Eh? Which one? (And BTW: People who use the above phrase -or who too readily agree with it- invariably do so with the implication that *they* would never sink to letting their emotions sway a decision: a statement exceedingly unlikely, save they were built by IBM.) |