We’re taking the Energy Minister to court: Greenpeace

Get of the fccking bandwagon Greenpeace you fccking hippies. Nuclear is green. We just want the lights to work.
 
Look I'm in favour of nuclear, but it needs to be managed right. I don't normally agree with Greenpeace, but if they are right that the government has not done their homework on this, then they are right to take them to court.
 
Greenpiece just green in the face cause they got spied on.
They should know considering what they do, people have to keep an eye on them so they can know when to euthanize them.
 
Ancalagon said:
Look I'm in favour of nuclear, but it needs to be managed right. I don't normally agree with Greenpeace, but if they are right that the government has not done their homework on this, then they are right to take them to court.
Click to expand...

Completely. If they can drag Toxic Tina down, I might even click on their website.
 
Ancalagon said:
Look I'm in favour of nuclear, but it needs to be managed right. I don't normally agree with Greenpeace, but if they are right that the government has not done their homework on this, then they are right to take them to court.
Click to expand...

This.

I am not a big Greenpeace fan but if Greenpeace forces our government to implement nuclear in the correct way without shortcuts then why not the lawsuit?
 
Greenpeace exists primarily so that dudes with no skills or money can get laid by being "heroic".
 
Nick333 said:
Get of the fccking bandwagon Greenpeace you fccking hippies. Nuclear is green. We just want the lights to work.
Click to expand...
You really want those charlies in Eskom running more nuclear power stations ?
 
Tbh, I expect Greenpeace to be wrong most of the time.
 
Nuclear needs quite a bit of handholding - water (lots and lots and lots of it), fuel, etc, plus the builds tend to be horrifically expensive.
Wind needs well, Wind. Way cheaper to build, and the running costs are negligible, as is the damage to the environment.
Wind power is rather cheap if you have it, and we do have it (wind)...

Essentially Wind is cheaper to build, and far far far cheaper to run.

http://www.theguardian.com/environm...cheapest-energy-unpublished-eu-analysis-finds

That said, we need a mixed basket of power provision.

Hydro, Solar, Wind, Nuclear, Gas turbine, Solar + Storage etc

Proof of pricing - http://www.lazard.com/PDF/Levelized Cost of Energy - Version 8.0.pdf

Wind handily beats nuclear costs by a few hundred percent.
 
Last edited:
Nick333 said:
Prooff. Pleez.
Click to expand...
lsheed_cn said:
Nuclear needs quite a bit of handholding - water (lots and lots and lots of it), fuel, etc, plus the builds tend to be horrifically expensive.
Wind needs well, Wind. Way cheaper to build, and the running costs are negligible, as is the damage to the environment.
Wind power is rather cheap if you have it, and we do have it (wind)...

Essentially Wind is cheaper to build, and far far far cheaper to run.

http://www.theguardian.com/environm...cheapest-energy-unpublished-eu-analysis-finds

That said, we need a mixed basket of power provision.

Hydro, Solar, Wind, Nuclear, Gas turbine, Solar + Storage etc

Proof of pricing - http://www.lazard.com/PDF/Levelized Cost of Energy - Version 8.0.pdf

Wind handily beats nuclear costs by a few hundred percent.
Click to expand...

Sorry, forgot to link. The nice poster below you gave enough references though. Solar is also dropping in price currently, will most likely catch up to the same by the time they finish the nuclear project (will only be done in a minimum of 15 years).
 
Skerminkel said:
We do want Nuclear.
Click to expand...

Nuclear fusion maybe, not fission. Fission reactors are too expensive and dangerous with incompetent clowns.

“If the wuker demunds are not met, we will trash the reactor”.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter