The Irony of the “Green Roadshow”
May 3rd, 2009
|
| Share |
The “Green Roadshow“ (Croissant Neuf Circus) is a real life crappy circus kind of thing that travels around the UK and brainwashes children by telling them that the future is all about “Sustainability” ™ as per the “Green” political element. They arrive in a big diesel truck and set up their solar powered system which powers their little lights and small PA system. They roll some electric vehicles off of trailers and out of the backs of the diesel and gasoline vehicles that brought them there. There are rides, or rather… a ride.
And yes, they are totally part and parcel of the Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace politics which can be seen on their website and others. It’s amazing how these groups have spun their message to the point of being seen as an educational and wholesome show for kids.
First the most obvious: This is the solar power system that powers the PA system and provides most of the power for the main events. The systems have to be super-effecient and use very low power equipment because it’s solar. The solar power system consists of a big truck with solar panels on the top and a lot of lead-acid batteries in the back. The truck, however, is not solar, it’s got a big diesel engine, which you need to haul around all that lead and sulferic acid.
Now here’s an interesting question: Since you’ve got those big ass batteries and the big diesel engine to begin with, why even bother with the solar panels? The engine produces excess power which is generally wasted when it’s idling and the vehicle is either not moving or just coasting. Energy could also be provided by a basic electrodynamic breaking system. Hell, it might even improve fuel effeciency to get rid of that solar panel and replace it with a means of grabbing some extra energy off of the engine. If the energy were harvested primarily during idling, there wouldn’t be much, if any fuel effeciency reduction, and that big wind-catcher would be gone from the roof.
They also have some electric vehicles, along with many gasoline or diesel powered vehicles
I’m willing to bet that ridiculous little thing didn’t get there on its own power. It’s more likely it was just loaded onto a trailer or a truck, like most of the other stuff.
Now here’s a picture from the “Green Roadshow” that brings home another point I’ve found interesting:
It’s absolutely amazing that through a combination of spin, obfuscation and general mindlessness, burning wood has now become good for the enviornment. Yes, it’s a renewable biofuel. Lets just stop and consider this for a second: A tree takes decades to grow by soaking up CO2 and sequestrting it in the wood of said tree. If you leave it alone, it will continue to do so, possibly for centuries and will, in the process, create habitat for numerous organisms. When the tree eventually dies, it may release much of the CO2 back into the atmosphere as it decays, or it may very well only partially rot and become pete or alpine humus, as many tress do. In that case, it sequesters the carbon effectively forever.
But no, you go and cut the tree down, thus destroying a fully mature carbon sync and replacing it with a sapling that will take decades to reach the same size and carbon absorption capacity. Then what do you do with this tree, which you have just killed? Turn it into a durable good of some kind? No, you light the goddamned thing on fire and burn it, releasing smog, dioxins and years and years worth of CO2 in a matter of minutes.
Don’t get me wrong, I do like wood fired pizza, but passing it off as green? You’ve got to be kidding me.
If anything, this roadshow should show kids just how limited “renewable” energy is. Despite the fact that they use super-effecient LED lights and have a no-frills show without any energy-hungry devices, they still have to use such a large bank of batteries that it takes a sizable truck to haul the thing from venue to venue.
“Don’t go near that thing kid, all that high quality silicone cost more than your family’s car probably does and we need every square inch of it”
Wow, solar power can run a little fountain. It’s the perfect use of it, because it’s low power and not that important, so it won’t matter when the sun goes down. (Go ahead, kid, I know what you’re thinking. Nobody is looking. Just go ahead and pee in there while you can.)
This entry was posted on Sunday, May 3rd, 2009 at 8:38 pm and is filed under Bad Science, Culture, Education, Enviornment, Obfuscation, Politics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
View blog reactions
May 7th, 2009 at 4:07 pm
tim bastable said:
The bottom line is that terrestrial solar energy is too dilute to be of any real use except in special cases. This diluteness — or low energy density — stems from the indisputable fact that the maximum amount of energy that can be harnessed from the sun under optimum conditions is just under one kW per square meter (11 square feet) per hour. This is the maximum amount of energy that the sun showers on the earth and there is no way to increase it without increasing the size of the sun. And it gets worse. There is no way the maximum limit can be converted to useful power.
Losses from the conversion process, weather conditions, etc., would drive the average available power down to under 100W per square meter. (Of course, come night-time the solar energy source disappears until morning). Therefore massive amounts of solar power will obviously demand massive collecting areas to provide the billions of watts that advanced societies need to survive. From an economic angle solar power will always suffer from negative economies of scale. In other words, increasing average costs will prevail.
To make the point even clearer, here are some more facts: To generate electricity on cloudy days and during the night a solar station would need massive storage facilities. These facilities would have to be replenished at 6 or 7 times the rate at which it is drained by the load. A little arithmetic, therefore, shows that a 1000 MW plant needs at least 6,000 MW peak power. This assumes optimum conditions, 10 per cent efficiency and 50 per cent spacing.
In any kind of energy source evaluation, it is always important to consider the ancillary sources involved that may contribute unfavorably. For example, in considering solar, (and wind-power) one must consider the cost of materials for construction, the land used and the fate of those materials in the future to name a few significant factors. This are issues only just beginning to be addressed by the renewable industry as they face opposition to plant siting.
tim bastable said:
Did you read the comments? The fact that burning wood for heat is a local air-quality issue is the whole point. It really is not relevant that it is carbon neutral in the long run if it is causing smog in the short term. Other methods of using wood as an energy source again suffer from the low energy value of wood and the fact that it would be used faster than it could be replaced. Even shifting to other biofuels isn’t the answer, for a litany of reasons starting with the fact that we need arable land for food first and ending with the fact that all biofuels have too low an energy density to power our civilization.
If you look at the history of energy technology, you will see many more misses than hits. Most new ideas are just plain wrong; most new technology is too expensive, has limited application, or Nature’s siding with the hidden flaw is just too much to overcome. All of these factors are working against solar and biofuels, and no dog-and-pony show will make them go away.
Quote Comment
May 7th, 2009 at 7:20 pm
tim bastable said:
The only time I think you can legitimately call wood carbon neutral is if it is verified to be from a managed forestry system where the trees are replanted after harvested and they’re the grow pretty fast. If it is wood that came from traditional logging where the trees could be more than one hundred years old and they are just logged once over and not as part of a managed forest then it is not carbon neutral because they’re old and not replaced.
Also, I don’t think burning of the longer growing hardwood kinds of trees is ever the kind of thing you can say is renewable because they take a long time to grow to maturity and are too valuable both as wood and as trees.
if they are burning oak or something like that then i think it’s fair to call them on it. If it’s forest farmed pines and stuff then maybe there is an argument to be made.
Quote Comment
June 11th, 2009 at 3:54 am
sounds like good clean fun, cheers
Quote Comment
September 8th, 2011 at 9:09 pm
Depleted cranium is a virtual crappy website kind of thing that that is inhabited by engineering types who appear to loath anyone who advocates alternative ways of dealing with environmental degradation. Its mostly inhabited by geeks who worship nuclear energy , who HATE alternative types with a passion and it attempts to brainwash its visitors by telling them that the future is all about endless expansion and the right of mankind to f**k up the planet as much as possible because, in the end ” GOOD science ” will fix it all up. Just like it has at Fukushima ☺
That’s parodying the start of your article, which is a prime example of over the top crabbiness . I would be more inclined to respect your world view if you weren’t so disparaging towards others who don’t believe your dogma
“ You’ve called Andy “ a smelly clown “, ( he’s actually quite clean ) you replied to another poster “ We know this because we understand the underlying physics and math, and your outburst of infantile name-calling only underlines the fact that you do not. “ Superiority complex showing here my friends ? I think so ….
Another favourite
“This belief that we can somehow covert to a minimum-energy lifestyle is a pipe-dream without any scientific or engineering foundations and until these can be shown criticism is warranted.
You would do well to cure your own deep ignorance on these subjects before you arrogate yourself the role of criticizing anyone that does not support this type of farce unquestioned.”
Hmm, not a lot of humility here guys , lets talk about pipe dreams, its not only hippies who have them …..
What IS really interesting is the overwhelming hostility shown by the author of this article to what is really quite a harmless and optimistic attempt to show that there are alternatives. Now the technology isn’t perfect, in an ideal world Andy and Sally would use electric trucks to cart their equipment about, they would use more environmentally friendly batteries and they perhaps should think twice about their Pizza Oven ( wood burning creates a hell of a lot of horrible smoke that isn’t pleasant ), however in the grand scheme of things, one wood burning stove isn’t much compared to the millions of fires used by the worlds poor to cook their food daily. Or the vast amounts of co2 emitted into the atmosphere by the brown coal power stations here in australia . Or more frighteningly, the thought of people like Ahmadinejad and his ilk getting hold of nukes anytime, which is why I think that we have to limit the spread of nuclear power, unless it can be neutered so the possibilities of spread of weapons can be negated.
So far, that’s a “ pipe dream“ of gigantic proportions that make the claims of green activists fade into insignificance. I’ve been waiting 50 years to see the solutions to the problems of long term storage, terrorist threats, major contamination during accidents ,highly expensive decommissioning and most importanly- what happens to these plants if we suffer a ‘ dark age “ and our ability to tend them long term is lost.
So far I haven’t seen signs of solutions to these issues, whereas I do see significant advances in the ability of renewables to provide base load power in the past year or two AND if we do suffer social melt down , at least if left unattended, solar plants , wind turbines and geothermal plants are NOT going to cause catastrophic pollution that can happen when nukes go wrong, which IS BAD science.
If any of you dudes have an answer to THAT one, you might win me over to your side, I’d LOVE Nuclear power to be the solution , but it ain’t anywhere near happening despite the claims of its optimistic adherents.
Quote Comment
September 8th, 2011 at 9:46 pm
2 years and 3 months to a necro-post. Is that a record?
Quote Comment
September 8th, 2011 at 9:50 pm
Matthew said:
One would think.
There can’t be too many of us following this page anymore.
Quote Comment
September 8th, 2011 at 11:16 pm
dave said:
My hostility is not toward the actual burning of wood or use of these systems directly. You’re right that they are, in and of themselves, quite harmless.
That’s not the point. Homeopathy is also, in and of itself harmless but it’s harmful in that it does not actually address the problems but claims to. In doing so, it obscures the need for real treatment.
I don’t appreciate hearing that wind power will somehow stop global warming because if we just build enough turbines we’ll have plenty of power. We won’t, and those who perpetuate this myth have made it politically expedient to spend billions on such projects. Meanwhile the coal burners of the world remain in service and people watch wind turbines being built believing that something is actually being done about the problem.
dave said:
Yes, that is a problem. I’d prefer they switch to something like electricity (generated from a clean source) or at least safe, efficient gas stoves.
Cooking with wood and calling it “good for the environment” is sure as hell not putting that message out there, now is it?
dave said:
This site has a search function. Enter “Coal” into it. You’ll notice I’m not very fond of using it as major energy source. Actually, I’m constantly taken by how destructive and filthy it is.
dave said:
Well, after the initial period where active cooling is needed you really don’t need to tend to them to any real extent.
But it is interesting you think it so likely that we’re all about to experience a collapse of society that will have everyone suddenly living in mud huts. I don’t know about you, but I’d prefer to avoid that.
It seems to be some kind of recurring theme that many will spout about how our technology is about to fail us and we’re soon to be eating muddy porridge in a cold cabin somewhere in the post-apocalyptic wilderness. Perhaps it’s a Luddite fantasy or wishful thinking.
Quote Comment
September 9th, 2011 at 1:57 am
dave said:
Not just engineering types, my training is in science (physics specifically).
It just so happens though that those ‘alternative’ ways of dealing with environmental degradation just CAN’T WORK (kind of like how ‘alternative’ medicine are things you put in your body to cure you that don’t actually work).
dave said:
How many people did the radiation from Fukushima Dai-Ichi kill? Oh right, zero.
BTW: If we don’t expand our form of life into new niches we will die off as a species so we’re going to have to find a way to do it (and had it not been for people like you we’d have already largely solved the CO₂ problem).
dave said:
Some things are just so stupid that there’s pretty much no much other way to respond.
dave said:
More like frustration borne out of dealing with people who just can’t accept reality.
dave said:
It also happens to be true.
Though it’s interesting that you are spending time criticising our tone, almost as if you can’t actually find anything wrong with what we’re saying.
dave said:
It is NOT in anyway harmless.
The people who have set that up are lying to kids about what we need to do and telling them that some tokenism which won’t work will be sufficient to solve our problems when they damn well won’t be.
dave said:
Yet they promote a wood burner as a good thing.
No technology is perfect but that doesn’t mean we have to give a free pass to things that just don’t have a chance at working (you really should stop holding nuclear to higher standard than everything else).
dave said:
Do you realise that it’s people who like you (though Bob Brown deserves some credit for that as well) that have kept Hazelwood open for so long?
dave said:
Don’t bother with Ahmadinejad, he isn’t the one who actually runs Iran, instead you need to see what the Mullahs are saying and they haven’t been talking about blasting Israel out of existence (then again, Mao became a lot more cautious when he got the bomb so even if Ahmadinejad had the power there’d probably be little to worry about).
I suspect that the mullahs will end up being the ones who regret getting the bomb (if they can work around all the Israeli sabotage) since it would render Iran impossible to invade and thus remove any perceived need for them to protect the people from foreign invasion thereby making a real revolution possible. It’d also probably limit their options in terms of supplying terrorist groups attacking Israel which might help the mid-east peace process along.
dave said:
I take it you’ve never heard of the Molten Salt Reactor?
Besides, the countries which produce the most CO₂ already either have nuclear weapons or are stable democracies.
dave said:
Already solved (been solved for decades).
dave said:
Not a serious concern given how strongly built the plants are and the existence of armed guards on site (a terrorist would go after an easier target like a chemical plant).
dave said:
How much does it cost to rip out a wind farm when the subsidy runs out?
Most nuclear power plants have enough money for decommissioning already set aside anyway.
dave said:
If we suffered a new dark age we’d have much more immediate concerns than what happens to the old reactors (and how quickly would this new dark ages start?).
It almost sounds like you want a dark age (quite common for those on the political right wing which is where the green movement is).
dave said:
Because you’re too ignorant of basic science to understand that they aren’t even issues in the first place.
dave said:
You’ve seen press releases claiming that, not actual significant advances.
See http://nucleargreen.blogspot.com/2011/08/emperors-new-clothes-pproblem-of.html for what it would take for renewables to handle baseload.
dave said:
The consequences of social meltdown would be sufficiently bad that a nuclear power plant doing a Chernobyl (which no western reactor can do) wouldn’t really make all that much of a difference (did you know that there are people still living in the Chernobyl exclusion zone who are in fine health?).
dave said:
Nuclear isn’t just the best option, it’s the only option.
Somehow I don’t think you really mean that though, you seem like you’re more interested in being righteous than right.
drbuzz0 said:
The low energy fanatics tend to think everyone should live the way they’d like to live (i.e. ’simply’, in small villages using nothing their puny minds can’t comprehend) and if they can’t convince us to live that way or legislate it then they’ll just imagine (and hope) that society collapses into the kind of low-energy society they want.
The fact that the Greens are by necessity coercive (since the majority of the population don’t really want to follow them) means that it probably shouldn’t be a surprise that they’d think that way (and it also means that they can’t afford to let nuclear power exist).
Quote Comment
September 19th, 2011 at 6:12 am
I thought I would wait a bit so see just what you lot would come up with in reply ,and unfortunately its soooo predictable . See once again, you guys get on your high horses and insult people who do not agree with you and you make assumptions about us that are generalizations. If I don’t love nuclear I am a “luddite”, “righteous” “too ignorant of basic science” a person ” who just can’t accept reality.” Now I find out that its people like me who have kept the brown coal stations running “ – I suppose it had nothing to do with the fossil fuel industry and its tax payer funded subsidies , or the fact that nuclear power has been traditionally far more expensive than coal and gas ? Hmm, why are you guys so ANGRY? It must be because your pet power source hasn’t fulfilled its promise and hasn’t produced the virtually free power that they promised us in the 1950s (I’ve seen the propaganda films they produced then , they were full of crap !)
I believe in scientific advance. Although not a science/engineering person I have a keen interest in science. I hang around with the scientistss at work and I have interesting conversations with them. I know they are not all like you (thank goodness ) and although one says he would happily live on top of a reactor ( he’s still a very good friend of mine ) , quite a few of them are not enamoured with nukes.
Contrary to your assumptions, I do not want us all to live in mud huts .Its not a luddite fantasy on my part when I postulate that our civilisation is not going to be around forever. I don’t WANT it to collapse,but if you have studied history you would be aware that no civilization lasts indefinitely. So in that case, we have a responsibility to future generations not to leave them a legacy of thousands of unattended nuclear power plants which, if they fall prey to earthquakes, volcanic activity, meddling by unqualified people etc,, could render large areas unliveable for centuries. Do you consider that its aceptable for 80,000 in fukushima currently living in camps. its come out today that they considered evacuating Tokyo. 30, frigging million !
Its likely that many of those 80,000 won’t ever be able to return to their land in their lifetime . If you can attest that its IMPOSSIBLE for a new nuclear plant to ever go into meltdown or be damaged badly by a quake then my fears will be resolved, but you know damn well its not possible to make such a claim . I find your arrogance disturbing, but no doubt the guys who built the space shuttle and the titanic had the same world view before things went wrong ….
I use technology a hell of a lot, my job involves using info tech. I believe that science can solve many of our current problems, if we are open to new ideas and don’t rubbish them, but I don’t think you guys are open minded at all. You have this fixation towards nukes as being the only solution and you are just as bad as the ultra greens ( of which I am not a part ) . I am somewhere in the middle. I believe that if we are going to have any chance of avoiding catastrophic agw we are going to have to use whatever we can to mitigate our emissions. Nuclear might be a part of this, if we can fix the dangerous aspects, likwise, geothermal, wind, sea, hydro, solar all have a part to play. I note that solar plants using molten salts are being used to provide baseload power, http://www.climatespectator.com.au/commentary/dawn-baseload-solar-energy but we don’t actully need renewable baseload in the short run,.
If we put all our eggs in the nuclear basket and a plant goes down, it causes economic chaos – witness shortages in all sorts of industries after fukushima. It makes sense to diversify and make more small plants of various kinds like they did in woking
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/saturdayextra/stories/2008/2314663.htm
and the govt intend to do in london.
I am serious, if someone can come up with a nuclear solution that safely covers all the issues i mentioned above ( and you guys are just shrugging them off as usual which is predictable, but sad ) perhaps say crack cold fusion , or sort out some of the problems with thorium ,then I would support the option . Having just listened to a ” Big Idea” lecture which postulated that if we grow our population to the billions projected that we would have to reduce our emissions by 193 % http://dicksmithpopulation.com/wilberforce-award/ I am even persuaded that we might have to go nuclear even though it is far from ideal and is bloody dangerous long term – but if we do, it has to be part of a solution , not THE solution .
No point in arguing further, I leave you guys to your own little virtual deluded universe where its ok for us to have unattended nuclear plants if the social fabric ever breaks down , where terrorists or even a foreign power with some conventional missiles could take out some reactors , where decommissioning is a mere bagatelle running into the billions , where corrupt incompetent unstable governments acquiring plants that they don’t have the ability to run is ok and where you insist there’s no problem with storage and processing , Oh I also forgot to mention the costs of clean up, its usually the public who bears this, but I know that its now companies who may be responsible. I wonder what the premiums will be following Fukushima ? will insurance companies want to take on the risk ? we will see…..
Quote Comment
September 19th, 2011 at 9:24 am
dave said:
That you come up with such a diatribe without even bothering to actually look at reality is also predictable.
dave said:
Well you are clearly an idiot.
dave said:
One of which is a ban on nuclear power (most of the subsidy to coal is lack of a carbon price and the government paying for the health problems their particulate matter causes).
dave said:
Nuclear is usually cheaper than gas and once you internalise all costs becomes the cheapest source of power.
It also happens to be cheaper than wind and solar (and safer too).
dave said:
Whatever you may think you saw (most likely films produced by companies which weren’t in the nuclear industry) the nuclear industry promised no such thing (when they first started building nuclear power plants they didn’t really know what they’d cost to run and so all figures from that era have very high error bars).
Although nuclear has done pretty well at fulfilling its promise in France so there’s at least one clean energy success story amongst failures like Germany, Spain and Denmark.
dave said:
I wouldn’t have any problem with a small nuclear reactor underneath me (actually I’d quite like one).
dave said:
Most of the area around Chernobyl is perfectly safe to live in as is all of the area around Fukushima and Three Mile Island.
Besides, any disaster in which you’d have to worry about a nuclear power plant is one in which even the worst that power plant could do would be a triviality (as was recently seen in Japan).
dave said:
No, if their homes are structurally sound then they should go back to them (the permanent evacuation and fearmongering after Chernobyl actually caused more public health problems than the accident itself).
dave said:
I’d be very surprised if they actually are considering it.
dave said:
Except for the fact that it is possible to prove that a molten salt reactor won’t do that.
The designers of the Titanic and Space Shuttle didn’t think quite as highly of their designs as you seem to think they did (and there’s no way the designer of the Titanic would have called any ship unsinkable).
dave said:
Did you ever consider that a bunch of people with scientific and engineering education and a decent grasp of basic mathematics who have been interested in the topic for many years might have already look at the other ideas (many of which aren’t even all that new either) and rubbish them for very good reasons, like say, them not actually being able to do anything?
dave said:
Except for the fact that we’ve got the correct answer (I guess that’s the great divide between science and everything else, actually caring about whether the answer you get is correct instead of merely making you feel good about yourself).
dave said:
The argument to moderation is a logical fallacy, it is quite possible for the truth to be at an extreme.
dave said:
The problem is that at our current technology level we are pretty much limited to nuclear with a bit of hydro and geothermal where the geology makes them suitable (nowhere near enough places).
If we had decent space infrastructure then space solar might be a decent option but we don’t have what we’d need for it, we also don’t yet have fusion (though that’s nuclear anyway and Greenpeace already oppose it but the public seems to like it, at least so far).
Carbon capture if they can actually get it to work properly might do although you then get many of the rest of the problems of fossil fuels and some of the methods used to store the CO₂ appear very risky indeed and have the possibility of hurting the general public (as opposed to nuclear waste where the only people who have any risk of being hurt are the workers who handle it) though a Lake Nyos type event.
The intermittent renewables like wind and ground based solar require energy storage to be useful and at the scales we’d need to run our civilisation on them that is an unsolved problem.
dave said:
Nuclear even with the current dangerous aspects is still safer than pretty much anything else so I don’t see any reason to make nuclear getter better a requirement for using it (although we should still try to come up with better designs, just that we’re going to have to use what we’ve got now if we’re to avoid disaster).
dave said:
It’s also horribly expensive even when done at the best sites.
dave said:
It wasn’t just Fukushima though, other nuclear power plants along with fossil fuel and hydro dams were off-line as well.
Not to mention that big Tsunami hitting a lot of factories.
Besides, if we put all our eggs in the renewables basket then we lose power whenever the wind dies down which happens a lot more often than the every couple of decades nuclear accident.
dave said:
Smaller nuclear reactors are possible and we could make them in various different types (e.g. PWR, BWR, MSR, PBR, etc) but when it comes down to it too much diversity can actually make things harder for the grid operator (not usually considered a good thing) and have a negative impact on the reliability of a power grid as it’d take more time to sort things out after an outage.
dave said:
I suspect you wouldn’t and that you are only saying that in the hopes that whatever undecided see it think you are neutral when you’re not.
Wouldn’t be the first time.
Oh and the problems with thorium are pretty much solved if you use molten salt reactors (and aren’t all that big even without them).
dave said:
Reducing our emissions by greater than 100% is not possible (and would appear to indicate a lack of understanding of basic arithmetic).
Oh and we’ve already got a population in the billions.
dave said:
You can say you don’t want to be the solution but it just isn’t going to be possible with current technology and what we can reasonably foresee getting (at least well enough to be able to rely on it becoming available) to solve global warming without getting at least 80% of our energy from nuclear fission.
dave said:
No, you don’t seem to care about what is true enough.
dave said:
You seem to think it’s OK to plan for the social fabric breaking down, almost as if you really do want exactly that (more likely it’s just as argument that appears like it’ll work on a few gullible people).
dave said:
No worse than hydro (and the exaggerated fears of radiation are likely to make that somewhat less likely).
Besides, any terrorist who tried to attack a nuclear power plant would end up killed by plant security (many ex-military people and typically armed with sub-machine guns).
dave said:
How much do wind farms have set aside for decommissioning?
Oh wait, they just leave their mess there (given that they use more steel and concrete than nuclear I’d be surprised if their decommissioning costs would be less if they were required to pay it).
dave said:
It’s no worse than if they got a gas plant.
dave said:
Well there are political problems with idiots like you opposing actually dealing with the waste.
dave said:
As it is with basically any other industrial accident. Do you want to do away with the chemical industry?
dave said:
In all likelihood no higher than they were before hand (you’ve got to understand the insurance companies base their premiums on calculations as to what the risks actually are (as best they can find out) not what the public thinks they are) except for TEPCO who probably will see their insurance costs rise (and if they were that bad with their very closely monitored nuclear power plants, imagine what they’d be like with fossil fuels and renewables which aren’t really monitored very strictly).
Quote Comment