Quote:
Originally Posted by Birdzeye
1. No. I'm concerned about the fact that the nuclear waste material will remain dangerously radioactive for thousands of years. However, since I can't offer much in the way of alternatives, I won't actively oppose it. I hope that R&D will find a way to alleviate my concern about the nuclear waste.
2. This doesn't make sense. Using natural gas will produce more CO2.
3. Yes, provided that the design minimizes any hazard to bird life.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheStripey1
1. Sure if they knew how to deal with the waste, so since they don't, the answer is no.
2. depends on where they are... if they are in your state, sure... no problem
3. sure... why not?
You're not for all these things? Why not?
Do you have another planet stashed somewhere that you plan on living on when this one is no longer inhabitable?
|
1. Yucca Mountain, or store it below the plants like the French do.
2. Gas leaks out of the ground anyway, and if unburned, is 20 times more harmful as a greenhouse gas that the CO2 given off when burned.
3. Vertical turbines don’t harm birds, since they see them as solid objects and simply fly around them.