Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
GCR - Trends - France to pave 1,000km of road with solar panels
I actually like the fact that they will pay for it by taxing dirty petrol.
The world just gets better and better.
Nope, nuclear is dangerous.GCR - Trends - France to pave 1,000km of road with solar panels
I actually like the fact that they will pay for it by taxing dirty petrol.
The world just gets better and better.
Solar panels are pretty dirty themselves
France would be better off expanding it's already successful nuclear program then they could sell even more power to their idiot neighbors who refuse to embrace nuclear power
Nope, nuclear is dangerous.GCR - Trends - France to pave 1,000km of road with solar panels
I actually like the fact that they will pay for it by taxing dirty petrol.
The world just gets better and better.
Solar panels are pretty dirty themselves
France would be better off expanding it's already successful nuclear program then they could sell even more power to their idiot neighbors who refuse to embrace nuclear power
Compared to what?
A few miles up the road from here 266 men died in a pit disaster. Mining is incredibly dangerous, especially when left to the private sector.Compared to what?
Tell me how many people do you think have died in the oil and gas industries?
A solar road sign is a far cry from providing the energy needed for the populationThe french have had these signs for over a decade and they are catching on over here as well.
GCR - Trends - France to pave 1,000km of road with solar panels
I actually like the fact that they will pay for it by taxing dirty petrol.
The world just gets better and better.
GCR - Trends - France to pave 1,000km of road with solar panels
I actually like the fact that they will pay for it by taxing dirty petrol.
The world just gets better and better.
Sounds to me to be another reason to raise taxes. I do not believe these cell can withstand being driven over 24/7. Concrete shows wear in a short amount of time, I can't imagine what would happen to solar cells.
This past April 26th marked the 24th anniversary of the Chernobyl nuclear plant accident. It came as the nuclear industry and pro-nuclear government officials in the United States and other nations were trying to “revive” nuclear power. And it followed the publication of a book, the most comprehensive study ever made, on the impacts of the Chernobyl disaster.Nope, nuclear is dangerous.GCR - Trends - France to pave 1,000km of road with solar panels
I actually like the fact that they will pay for it by taxing dirty petrol.
The world just gets better and better.
Solar panels are pretty dirty themselves
France would be better off expanding it's already successful nuclear program then they could sell even more power to their idiot neighbors who refuse to embrace nuclear power
No it's not. How many people have died as a direct result of nuclear power?
http://www.globalresearch.ca/new-bo...l-death-toll-985-000-mostly-from-cancer/20908
And tell me in France how many nuclear accidents have there been
This past April 26th marked the 24th anniversary of the Chernobyl nuclear plant accident. It came as the nuclear industry and pro-nuclear government officials in the United States and other nations were trying to “revive” nuclear power. And it followed the publication of a book, the most comprehensive study ever made, on the impacts of the Chernobyl disaster.Nope, nuclear is dangerous.GCR - Trends - France to pave 1,000km of road with solar panels
I actually like the fact that they will pay for it by taxing dirty petrol.
The world just gets better and better.
Solar panels are pretty dirty themselves
France would be better off expanding it's already successful nuclear program then they could sell even more power to their idiot neighbors who refuse to embrace nuclear power
No it's not. How many people have died as a direct result of nuclear power?
http://www.globalresearch.ca/new-bo...l-death-toll-985-000-mostly-from-cancer/20908
And tell me in France how many nuclear accidents have there been
Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment was published by the New York Academy of Sciences.
It is authored by three noted scientists:
Russian biologist Dr. Alexey Yablokov, former environmental advisor to the Russian president;
Dr. Alexey Nesterenko, a biologist and ecologist in Belarus; and
Dr.Vassili Nesterenko, a physicist and at the time of the accident director of the Institute of Nuclear Energy of the National Academy of Sciences of Belarus.
Its editor is Dr. Janette Sherman, a physician and toxicologist long involved in studying the health impacts of radioactivity.
The book is solidly based — on health data, radiological surveys and scientific reports — some 5,000 in all.
It concludes that based on records now available, some 985,000 people died, mainly of cancer, as a result of the Chernobyl accident. That is between when the accident occurred in 1986 and 2004. More deaths, it projects, will follow.
The book explodes the claim of the International Atomic Energy Agency– still on its website that the expected death toll from the Chernobyl accident will be 4,000. The IAEA, the new book shows, is under-estimating, to the extreme, the casualties of Chernobyl.
Fukushima is not over yet, and it only takes once for extreme results. And how many nukes near the New Madrid Fault? How many storage pools with 2 to 5 times as many rods in them as they were designed for? Nukes are dangerous.
And the problem here is that the very people advocating a vast increase in nuclear power also advocate far less government regulation. So a private company can make a decision that kills thousands of people. And, with over 50 years in mechanical maintenance, I can assure that Murphy's Laws are a fact.
Nothing is absolutely safe. The manufacture and distribution of the gasoline for your car has killed many more then either the American or French commercial nuclear power. Irresponsible nuclear power is a threat.
In the US there has been no deaths as a direct result of nuclear power operations. The worse being the following:
5. Three Mile Island Accident, Pennsylvania USA 1979 – Level 5
28th March saw two nuclear reactors meltdown. It was subsequently the worst disaster in commercial nuclear power plant history. Small amounts of radioactive gases and radioactive iodine were released into the environment. Luckily, epidemiology studies have not linked a single cancer with the accident.
Just so you know, there were not two nuclear reactor meltdowns at TM. Unit 2 melted down and for the most part the containment structures held. Unit 1 is still in operation today. The meltdown occurred because of incredible human error and plant design. Both of which have been corrected.
That said there was at least one incident that I think more troublesome. The David Bessie plant and the ALMOST breach of the reactor head. It was clearly the result of managements, and the NRC, drive to make money. IF the head would have breached at power it is anyone's guess what would have happened, my thoughts, it would have been the end of nuclear power in America
- See more at: Top 10 Nuclear Disasters in the World
And the problem here is that the very people advocating a vast increase in nuclear power also advocate far less government regulation. So a private company can make a decision that kills thousands of people. And, with over 50 years in mechanical maintenance, I can assure that Murphy's Laws are a fact.
Nothing is absolutely safe. The manufacture and distribution of the gasoline for your car has killed many more then either the American or French commercial nuclear power. Irresponsible nuclear power is a threat.
In the US there has been no deaths as a direct result of nuclear power operations. The worse being the following:
5. Three Mile Island Accident, Pennsylvania USA 1979 – Level 5
28th March saw two nuclear reactors meltdown. It was subsequently the worst disaster in commercial nuclear power plant history. Small amounts of radioactive gases and radioactive iodine were released into the environment. Luckily, epidemiology studies have not linked a single cancer with the accident.
Just so you know, there were not two nuclear reactor meltdowns at TM. Unit 2 melted down and for the most part the containment structures held. Unit 1 is still in operation today. The meltdown occurred because of incredible human error and plant design. Both of which have been corrected.
That said there was at least one incident that I think more troublesome. The David Bessie plant and the ALMOST breach of the reactor head. It was clearly the result of managements, and the NRC, drive to make money. IF the head would have breached at power it is anyone's guess what would have happened, my thoughts, it would have been the end of nuclear power in America
- See more at: Top 10 Nuclear Disasters in the World
GCR - Trends - France to pave 1,000km of road with solar panels
I actually like the fact that they will pay for it by taxing dirty petrol.
The world just gets better and better.
I have worked at Three Mile Island, it is a very nice, operating plant. A Babcock and Wilcox plant, I think maybe 11 of our 100 plants were built by B&W.
Nothing is absolutely safe. The manufacture and distribution of the gasoline for your car has killed many more then either the American or French commercial nuclear power. Irresponsible nuclear power is a threat.
In the US there has been no deaths as a direct result of nuclear power operations. The worse being the following:
5. Three Mile Island Accident, Pennsylvania USA 1979 – Level 5
28th March saw two nuclear reactors meltdown. It was subsequently the worst disaster in commercial nuclear power plant history. Small amounts of radioactive gases and radioactive iodine were released into the environment. Luckily, epidemiology studies have not linked a single cancer with the accident.
Just so you know, there were not two nuclear reactor meltdowns at TM. Unit 2 melted down and for the most part the containment structures held. Unit 1 is still in operation today. The meltdown occurred because of incredible human error and plant design. Both of which have been corrected.
That said there was at least one incident that I think more troublesome. The David Bessie plant and the ALMOST breach of the reactor head. It was clearly the result of managements, and the NRC, drive to make money. IF the head would have breached at power it is anyone's guess what would have happened, my thoughts, it would have been the end of nuclear power in America
- See more at: Top 10 Nuclear Disasters in the World
