Do you care about the energy mix?

lstar337

EssexExile wrote: »

Given the choice I would avoid nuclear like the plague, or radiation sickness. Having said that I'm not sure whether where you buy your energy really affects how it is generated. If more people switch to BG I doubt it means more electricity is generated by gas.

Lol. I live fairly close to a nuclear plant, and a new one is about to be built on the same site.

Guess how many times I have suffered from radiation sickness? :rotfl:

Consumerist

Rightly or wrongly, it's all about price and customer service to me too.

stator

I'd much rather live next to a nuclear power plant than a coal one . Really they are filthy and cause hundreds of thousands of early deaths every year due to the crap they put out.
People even die putting up all these windfarms

EssexExile

lstar337 wrote: »

Lol. I live fairly close to a nuclear plant, and a new one is about to be built on the same site.

Guess how many times I have suffered from radiation sickness? :rotfl:

I'm Alright Jack!

Richie-from-the-Boro

lstar337 wrote: »

Lol. I live fairly close to a nuclear plant, and a new one is about to be built on the same site.

Guess how many times I have suffered from radiation sickness? :rotfl:

- 10 miles
- been there since 1983
- I don't glow in the dark
- and haven't turned green yet

lstar337

Richie-from-the-Boro wrote: »

- 10 miles
- been there since 1983
- I don't glow in the dark
- and haven't turned green yet

Not been to that one.

- 26 miles from Hinkley
- Visited Hinkley on a primary school trip
- Lived in the general area since I was born in 1984
- I have been inside 6 of the 17 UK nuclear sites; Hinkley, Oldbury, Berkeley, Harwell, Winfrith, & Culham.



- I don't glow in the dark either (which oddly I find a little disappointing)
- I also have not turned green

stator wrote: »

I'd much rather live next to a nuclear power plant than a coal one

Smart man!

For those worried about radiation, you should know that the levels of radiation released from burning coal are way beyond what would be allowed for a nuclear plant. http://www.sciencemag.org/content/202/4372/1045.short


Radiation doses put into perspective:


I also live 9 miles from a 200ft wind turbine which is a blot on an otherwise beautiful countryside.

lstar337

EssexExile wrote: »

I'm Alright Jack!

That makes no sense at all in this context.

Your ignorance is not my fault.

EssexExile

Just because you don't have radiation sickness doesn't make nuclear power safe. Look at that map, why do you think most nuclear power stations are on isolated headlands, for the view? In all industries things can & do go wrong. In most it's not a disaster, in this it can be.
For most of my life there has been argument about what to do with nuclear waste, still no decision, it's in the "too hard" tray on someone's desk. Personally I think it's madness to go into something without any idea of the way out.
And don't even think about the real cost, including decommissioning & waste treatment & storage for thousands of years.

lstar337

EssexExile wrote: »

Just because you don't have radiation sickness doesn't make nuclear power safe.

Just because I haven't been hit by a car doesn't make them safe either.

Anything can be dangerous under the right circumstances. Nuclear power operated responsibly is perfectly safe, just as a car driven responsibly is perfectly safe.

EssexExile wrote: »

Look at that map, why do you think most nuclear power stations are on isolated headlands, for the view?

They are mostly positioned next to bodies of water for cooling.

EssexExile wrote: »

In all industries things can & do go wrong.

Better get rid of industrial activities as a whole then.

EssexExile wrote: »

For most of my life there has been argument about what to do with nuclear waste, still no decision, it's in the "too hard" tray on someone's desk. Personally I think it's madness to go into something without any idea of the way out.
And don't even think about the real cost, including decommissioning & waste treatment & storage for thousands of years.

There are options for waste, but most of the expertise that should have been working on it has been moved on because nuclear investment went down the pan.

Good job skirting around the information in my post btw.

System

Richie-from-the-Boro wrote: »

Look those who never use comparison sites never change, they [called stickies] are about 60% of all customers. Those 60% who never change pay higher prices and unfortunately subsidise the 40% of us that do change. Green costs about 30% more than non green to generate, and even more with offshore generation. I prefer my energy 30% cheaper fortunately those like yourself will subsidise me for which I am eternally grateful - thank you mackemps3 - both myself and my family appreciates your financial subsidy of my personal energy costs.

i have changed loads of times and yes i am on the cheapest tariff EON version 9.

I read somewhere a while back about neclear they said it will never run out you wont need a meter and it will be cheap.

So how come do they charge the same for neclear and some firms charge more for it.

And yes i do find it really hard to heat my home, and pay my bills but i still would have anything but neclear