Some how i think greenpeace are wrong

[Craig.]

I've watched the video and I can see one vital flaw. No sane, self respecting family would go for a day out on the beach on the shores of the Bristol Channel.

Except all the Brummies who goto Weston Super-mare every summer. Oh wait, you said sane and self respecting

[Katahu]

Even if the whole world were to stop making nuclear power plants and tear down current ones, where do you think we're going to get our source of energy?

You can't use windmills. The greenies will think those are a threat to birds.

You can't use wavegenerators. They will think the ocean will be negatively affected on the shores.

You can't use solar-powered cars. I don't think they'll get far whenever there's overcast or a dark cloudy day.

Even battery-powered cars won't be of use because there wouldn't be any power plants to provide the resources to recharge because they've been torn down.

A lot of people in this world aren't willing [let alone capable] to use a bike to travel to work that is 2 hours away in the middle of rough weather. I may use a bike, but my work is only 5 minutes away by bike.

Wait a minute... bike are made of metals that require a factory to build and the factories won't have enough energy to make one. So, there won't be any bikes then. We'll have to use horses and carriges. But wait, what about those who are allergic to horses.

You can't even have coal factories because the greenies will say they're polluting the atmosphere [which is why we switched to Nuclear in the first place].

You know, they demand to much. Even though nuclear power will only reduce CO2 emission by about 10%, that little 10% can go a long way.

[C]

Except all the Brummies who goto Weston Super-mare every summer. Oh wait, you said sane and self respecting

Lol!

[-sam-]

I think we shouldn

[H]

Even if the whole world were to stop making nuclear power plants and tear down current ones, where do you think we're going to get our source of energy?
You can't use windmills. The greenies will think those are a threat to birds.
You can't use wavegenerators. They will think the ocean will be negatively affected on the shores.
You can't use solar-powered cars. I don't think they'll get far whenever there's overcast or a dark cloudy day.
Even battery-powered cars won't be of use because there wouldn't be any power plants to provide the resources to recharge because they've been torn down.
A lot of people in this world aren't willing [let alone capable] to use a bike to travel to work that is 2 hours away in the middle of rough weather. I may use a bike, but my work is only 5 minutes away by bike.
Wait a minute... bike are made of metals that require a factory to build and the factories won't have enough energy to make one. So, there won't be any bikes then. We'll have to use horses and carriges. But wait, what about those who are allergic to horses.
You can't even have coal factories because the greenies will say they're polluting the atmosphere [which is why we switched to Nuclear in the first place].
You know, they demand too much. Even though nuclear power will only reduce CO2 emission by about 10%, that little 10% can go a long way.

In the case of horses, you'd have to ride bareback: forged fasteners (ergo, coal usage) are used for saddles and carriages (the stagecoaches were made in New Hampshire by Downing and Abbot, the Concord Coach Company, by the way). However, we may still have a complaint about animal abuse. Then the health officials may complain about the unauthorized street fertilizing. However, if Edison's warning about AC (which does have some merit) had been observed, we may have eventually had lower voltage, individual (home) DC power plants. To me, although initially more costly, that would have been preferable. The reality is that most electronic equipment (radios, tvs, computers, etc.) have an internal power supply and the AC is rectified into DC, anyway.

[Chris_F]

The next step (wich would be impossible without the previous) will be Fusion Energy.

Fusion, right.  Then the greenies will bemoan the loss of hydrogen.  Imagine the horrors of a planet with no water!  At least a chemical reaction doesn't change the atoms in to something else.  A fusion reaction takes vital hydrogen (anyone else enjoy being a hydrocarbon based life form?) and turns it in to almost useless helium.

Yes this argument is bogus and alarmist to a paranoid degree.  But don't put it past the greenies to use it, and don't put it past the relatively naieve public to eat it hook line and sinker.

[Craig.]

LOL
Fusion energy is definatly a step the energy companies need to take. But much like the oil companies taking a long time to create proper fuel cell cars these companies wont do so in a wide sense because of their profits.

[bbstackerf]

I think it's a misconception that the oil companies would stifle anything which would get batter gas mileage. For one thing, such a device could probably be engineered to give just enough extra mileage that their cars would dominate the market for huge profits.

For another, if such a device were availabe and profits decreased to a point unaceptable, the big oil companies would simply move resources to another industry. Like the big tabacco companies here. I have no doubt that some day smoking will be banned altogether. The tabaco companies know this and are moving their focus accordingly. Unfortunately one of those avenues is concentrating on over seas sales where laws and public awareness are not so great.

Keni

[H]

LOL
Fusion energy is definatly a step the energy companies need to take. But much like the oil companies taking a long time to create proper fuel cell cars these companies wont do so in a wide sense because of their profits.

Companies have been deceptively combing things right along: con fusion.