Nuclear > Wind

Concerning the reliability of NEICon addresses the reliability of NEI and says that NEI is biased because it says on its about page that "our mission is to foster the beneficial use of nuclear technology". However, it's not true that supporting a certain cause = bias. Moreover;NEI has 350 members from 17 countries [41], agrees to voluntarily measure and publicly report its greenhouse gas [GHG] emissions each year, and owns the only source of long-term trend data on the 'wide variety of questions that are needed to measure and fully understand the different facets of public opinion about nuclear energy' [42].But even disregarding all of this, con's hypothesis doesn't give an answer to this question: It would cost 50x as much to stop any Climate change than to adapt to it [43]. Considering this, what would be the point in spinning the truth to push a source of energy such as nuclear, when it would be significantly more profitable to introduce Green Taxes, Wind subsidies, etc. and drive the poor into the ground? Concerning Germany's energy policyGermany is one of the biggest users of wind energy in the world [44], so much so that its wind energy consumption is equal to the 183/196 lowest countries' consumption [44, 45]. If there is any type of energy causing a problem for Germany, it certainly isn't nuclear, as nuclear energy has progressed in the past few decades so much that there have been no disasters caused by nuclear power in Germany post-1990 [46].Concerning the amount of deaths Wind and Nuclear causeCon dismisses the reliability of the source on the basis that the post includes the line "I wrote this back in 2008", however he has clearly not read the source comprehensively, as the source takes note of it and adds the figures for 2011 as well [9]. Despite global wind consumption ~doubling, the amount of deaths wind causes has stayed the same (so have the death count for nuclear) on a per terawatt basis. If Con wants to continue to dismiss this source as outdated, perhaps he would like to provide an example of a development in wind energy in the past 3.5 years that dramatically decreases the death count.Concerning Wind energy costsCon questions the reliability of the site www.togetheragainstwind.com, as according to him, there is no author provided and the piece isn't dated, however: The website is owned by Chris Heaton-Harris MP, a current Conservative member of Parliament [47]. The website [48] aims to put forward a successful campaign leading into the 2015 General Election. The page on the cost of Wind energy is linked on the front page, with the page dated '2014' at the bottom [47]. Con also raises concerns on the fact that I haven't mentioned specifically the hidden costs of wind, so I will mention them now: The National Air Transport Service [NATS] have been funding a major programme combatting Wind Turbines' adverse effect on the radar systems that keep commercial aviation on course, the first phase of which has costed £14 million [49]. Subsidies [Chris Heaton-Harris MP] The cost of needing to have ower stations on standby for when the wind stops blowing [50] & the additional fuel that wind imposes on primary plants [20]. Operations and maintenance costs [20] The cost of transmission [20] The cost of transmission losses [20] Concerning job creation by Wind/Nuclear I have proven beyond reasonable doubt that NEI is a trustworthy source, ergo it remains true that Nuclear creates 10x the amount of jobs directly that wind does. Con concedes that including effects on job creation indirectly and directly, wind has a net negative effect on job creation, as for every job created in renewable energy (wind energy is the worst of all renewable for job creation by far), ~ 3.7 are destroyed. Con has not demonstrated that his statistic on the amount of jobs a wind farm will create over its entire lifetime is incosistent with the facts I have shown proving nuclear to be significantly better than wind in net & gross effect on job creation. Concerning Nuclear energy and Methane Con's third contention has no sub point C, despite his claims. Con's third contention isn't even related to the effect nuclear energy has on the environment. There were zero mentions of Methane in the debate before Con's last round (Ctrl-F is useful here). Con has not given any source linking Nuclear to Methane, let alone a significant amount of it. Concerning WTS Con grasps at straws and emphasizes the word 'certain' in the line in an article I linked to saying "The study by a panel of independent experts found that the irritation caused by the noise around wind farms can effect certain individuals". This practically takes nothing away from my argument, as Con has dropped my arguments on: The scientific proof of WTS [14, 40] The scale of WTS [36-9] Con grasps at straws again to say that the article claims that scientists dismissed the idea of WTS, which is a very weak argument when he has not even addressed on WTS being confirmed by Canadian Research [14], and WTS being recorded in Denmark [40].Con also does this again, but this time it's the government claiming this. However, this move would be in their best interests, considering that at this time, the Red & Blue tories were very much trying to sell the idea of renewable energy to people.Before the last election, David Cameron signed a contract with a list of promises if he got elected [51], one of them being to be the greenest government earlier, with him later u-turning on this promise, calling for the removal of 'Green crap' [52]. On the contract, the Conservative party proudly said that if they failed to deliver the promises, to kick them out in 5 years time. Needless to say this contract is now deleted from their website.Concerning the unreliability of Wind energyCon seems to have misunderstood the point I was making here. The point is that Wind energy's potential for energy creation varies wildly throughout the year depending on the season, as the BBC figures show.Concerning "weather" Con says: "nuclear power plants are also susceptible to mother natures wrath. The Fukushima disaster was caused by a tsunami. I beleive majority of you will agree with me if I say a nuclear power plant being destroyed is more dangerous than a few fires."*believe It would appear not, as the death count of Nuclear vs Wind, which I have referenced earlier in this argument, shows. Concerning fuel povertyI have proven that nuclear is significantly superior to wind energy when it comes to: Job creation Cost-efficiency Therefore, wind is a significantly bigger driver of fuel poverty deaths than nuclear energy is. 22 Statistics & Facts used by me and dropped by Con completely The amount of steel & concrete Wind energy uses on a per megawatt basis [3] Wind creates a plurality of the Green sector in Britain [5] The Green sector destroys 3.7 jobs for every one it creates [6] Wind Turbines can make people death [12] It would take 2,077 wind turbines to create the same amount of energy as one nuclear power plant [13] In the past three years in Britain, £70 million of Tax payers' money has been given to Wind farms to turn their Wind Turbines off [15] Wind Turbine fires were found in July of this year to be 10x as common as previously thought [16] Wind Turbines have a life-span of 20 years [17] Reports from UCL & the University of Edinburgh showing there being 117 fires globally p.a. & 200,000 turbines worldwide [18] 200,000/(117*20)=~85.4 [19] From 2012-3, there were 31,000 extra winter deaths in England & Wales [22] Mark Z. Jacobson's junk science [23] The history of nuclear weapons/war between USA & the Soviet Union [25] Government in Western nations would monitor and test any food/water that could be unsafe [26] The levels of radiation at Chernobyl are the same levels of radiation you'd be exposed to on a commercial jet [27] Fast-breeder reactors would dramatically decrease the amount of high-level reactors [28,29] The average person living within 50 miles of a nuclear power plant is exposed to the same amount of radiation as they are from their smoke alarm [30] CFC claims use data from 2001 on a 1950s reactor, and are unreliable [31] Using nuclear fusion, nuclear is renewable [28, 32] Even the disaster at Fukishima posed no threat to water [35] Scale of reception to WTS [36-39] WTS recorded in Denmark [40] Thank you. Sources[41] http://www.nei.org...[42] http://www.nei.org...[43] http://topher.com.au...[44] http://www.eia.gov...[45] http://www.infoplease.com...[46] http://en.wikipedia.org...[47] http://www.togetheragainstwind.com...[48] http://www.togetheragainstwind.com...[49] http://nats.aero...[50] http://www.windbyte.co.uk...[51] http://anotherangryvoice.blogspot.co.uk...[52] http://www.theguardian.com...