View Single Post
Old 10-11-2009, 20:01   #29
Ignitionnet
Inactive
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Leeds, West Yorkshire
Age: 48
Posts: 13,995
Ignitionnet has a pair of shiny starsIgnitionnet has a pair of shiny starsIgnitionnet has a pair of shiny starsIgnitionnet has a pair of shiny starsIgnitionnet has a pair of shiny stars
Ignitionnet has a pair of shiny starsIgnitionnet has a pair of shiny starsIgnitionnet has a pair of shiny starsIgnitionnet has a pair of shiny starsIgnitionnet has a pair of shiny starsIgnitionnet has a pair of shiny starsIgnitionnet has a pair of shiny starsIgnitionnet has a pair of shiny starsIgnitionnet has a pair of shiny starsIgnitionnet has a pair of shiny stars
Re: 10 new nuclear power station sites named

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre View Post
Nor is just nuclear.

A sensible government would have several methods of generation. we should have a mix, as we do now.

Coal Fired
Gas Fired
Hydro
Wind
Tidal
Nuclear

We should keep a diverse portfolio of generation methods. The nuclear plants are nearing end of life and they should be replaced with newer ones - that's all.
Drop at very least the first one from that list and preferably both the first two, I'm firmly in favour of the rest and totally agree. No-one has suggested we abandon them though as far as I'm aware, merely that we renew and increase reliance on nuclear generation. If it means lessening reliance on fossil fuels that's a bonus.

It's laughable, with technological progress, that we are even contemplating continuing to burn hydrocarbons to generate electricity.
Ignitionnet is offline   Reply With Quote