The possibilities are endless.

[Tommy Tainant]

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.

 

[Skull Pilot]

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

 

[Tommy Tainant]

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.

 

[Skull Pilot]

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.

No it's not. How many people have died as a direct result of nuclear power?

And tell me in France how many nuclear accidents have there been

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Top 10 Nuclear Disasters in the World

Doesnt seem safe to me.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Top 10 Nuclear Disasters in the World

Doesnt seem safe to me.

Compared to what?

Tell me how many people do you think have died in the oil and gas industries?

 

[Skull Pilot]

Pandora's Promise

Watch and learn the truth not just the propaganda

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Top 10 Nuclear Disasters in the World

Doesnt seem safe to me.

Compared to what?

Tell me how many people do you think have died in the oil and gas industries?

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.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

The french have had these signs for over a decade and they are catching on over here as well.

 

[Freewill]

Top 10 Nuclear Disasters in the World

Doesnt seem safe to me.

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

 

[Skull Pilot]

The french have had these signs for over a decade and they are catching on over here as well.

A solar road sign is a far cry from providing the energy needed for the population

 

[Freewill]

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.

 

[Skull Pilot]

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.

Yeah they can't keep the reflectors on the lane lines in the roads for more than one winter

 

[Old Rocks]

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.

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.

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.

 

[Skull Pilot]

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.

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.

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.

Chernobyl is the same hackneyed red herring it always was

The reactor was of a faulty design never used in any other place and even now people are living in the so called hot zone where background radiation is lower than in some heavily populated cities


And it seems you are saying that improper procedures are dangerous but that is true for any and all things

 

[Old Rocks]

Top 10 Nuclear Disasters in the World

Doesnt seem safe to me.

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.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Hope springs eternal: "Pandora's Promise" and the truth about nuclear energy

Pandora's Promise: The Triumph of Hope over Fear in Nuclear Power?

 

[Skull Pilot]

Top 10 Nuclear Disasters in the World

Doesnt seem safe to me.

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.

No nuclear plant accident has ever killed thousands of people

And for someone who criticizes other for being anti science you sure seem to be carrying the Luddite torch on this matter

New designs and some older ones like integral fast reactors have completely passive self limiting characteristics as part of their design
96% of all the radioactive waste we have generated is recyclable we just won't do it

New reactors will burn the spent fuel of older reactors thus reducing waste even more

In denying this you are casting a vote for fossil fuels because no other alternative is as low carbon and energy dense as nuclear

 

[RGR]

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.

It does. All the natural gas derived from hydraulic fracturing to manufacture solar panels, the natural gas industry thanks you for your unending support. And...of yes...when the sun goes down and those solar panels stop making electricity, the natural gas industry will be happy, for a small fee, to generate all the electricity you need to replace it, 24/7.

 

[elektra]

Top 10 Nuclear Disasters in the World

Doesnt seem safe to me.

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

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.

The Davis Bessie incident. I was trained and did a few of the inspections that resulted from that problem. It was corrosion of the Reactor Head, the tubes that penetrate the head were welded in with dissimilar metals that began to corrode. At Davis Bessie the head was literally paper thin, literally, but the pressure is low enough in the reactor that it never breached or broke through and was discovered during a refueling outage.

I imagine if the reactor head was breached the Radioactivity alarms would of triggered and they would of shut the plant down automatically, with all the safety retrofits since Three Mile Island it is doubtful anything less than a safe shutdown would of been the result.

The steam from a failed reactor head would be contained in the containment vessel, which inside the containment building, 3 levels of safety.

Thus far no nuclear reactor vessel in the USA has ever failed.

All reactor heads have been replaced and are inspected.