0
0 On Sun 5 Feb at: 07:54
SHS wrote:
In the sea off Brighton. Another one for the campaigners........
0
0 On Sun 5 Feb at: 10:03
Bazooka Joe wrote:
Dis"arse"terous news
0
0 On Sun 5 Feb at: 11:05
ADT wrote:
*Shrugs shoulders*
0
3 On Sun 5 Feb at: 11:10
Rosebud wrote:
I agree Bazooka. Haven't these people HEARD of nuclear energy.If you could site a new nuclear power station in a convenient place such as Shoreham or Newhaven, you wouldn't need these hideous monsters reaching up into the sky. Not only do they kill birds but they also make a tremendous din that can be heard for miles. They are a complete eyesore and they produce virtually no electricity !! I would have NO hesitation in laying the foundation stone of a power station on one of the above sites. It's clean, efficient and cheap ! And so what if the waste is a problem. We're human beings for God's sake. We're resourceful. If they do build the turbines I for one will be moving to Japan.
2
1 On Sun 5 Feb at: 11:24
jonnyboy wrote:
Rosebud, did you know your user name is gay slang for a rectal prolapse! That'll be from talking through your butt!
2
1 On Sun 5 Feb at: 11:29
Turbine lover wrote:
I'd happily pay your air fare to Japan Rosebud. Close the door on your way out.
0
6 On Sun 5 Feb at: 11:36
Rosebud wrote:
Thank you jonnyboy (straight slang for condom dispensing machine), you made me laugh out loud ! And by the way Rosebud is my real name. Hope you're happy now !
2
2 On Sun 5 Feb at: 11:42
Teachers Pet wrote:
Japan Rosebud?
Perhaps you could advise them on the clean up of their recent nuclear disaster and get some first hand knowledge of the devastation when these things go wrong!
0
0 On Sun 5 Feb at: 22:33
Observer wrote:
I reckon it would be a good idea to make musical turbines.
0
0 On Sun 5 Feb at: 22:33
Observer wrote:
I reckon it would be a good idea to make musical turbines.
0
0 On Sun 5 Feb at: 22:33
Observer wrote:
I reckon it would be a good idea to make musical turbines.
0
0 On Sun 5 Feb at: 22:33
Observer wrote:
I reckon it would be a good idea to make musical turbines.
0
2 On Sun 5 Feb at: 22:43
Observer wrote:
Sorry about that I tend to stutter a lot.
2
0 On Mon 6 Feb at: 10:06
Cliffite wrote:
After watching Age of Stupid, seeing posh old farts campaigning to stop development of wind turbines really made my bloody boil. You'll be dead soon, stop being selfish and let the willing and able make a positive, renewable change for the future without nuclear power.
1
0 On Mon 6 Feb at: 11:48
Southover Queen wrote:
Hear, hear Cliffite. Not helped by complete idiots like UKIP advocating continuing to rape the earth rather than modify our consumption of fossil fuels, in the fracking thread. If ever I needed a reason not to vote UKIP*, that post sums it up nicely.
*Oddly enough, I wasn't searching that hard...
0
3 On Mon 6 Feb at: 12:51
Bazooka Joe wrote:
I do wish people would wise up about the true cost of wind turbines as they seem to glaze over when words such as "sustainability", "carbon footprint" and "eco-friendly" are used.
What about raping the Earth for materials used in the manufacture of turbines, the transportation costs and maintenance?
No surprise, but my vote goes to nuclear power.
1
0 On Mon 6 Feb at: 12:53
Cliffite wrote:
Pretty sure the overall cost is a lot lower than dealing with nuclear waste and the building of a nuclear power plant :-/
0
2 On Mon 6 Feb at: 12:57
Bazooka Joe wrote:
If you are talking about sustainability and value for money - nuclear is by far the most efficient source.
In terms of health risks from nuclear fuel - I would imagine more people have been injured/died during the manufacture and transportation of turbines!
0
0 On Mon 6 Feb at: 14:26
bastian wrote:
I like windmills...wind mills good..more please.
the only reason off shore wind farms have been avoided is because they interfere with radar..but as we all spy on each other from space it doesn't matter.
0
0 On Mon 6 Feb at: 15:24
Consumer wrote:
Does anyone know if an advantage to wind turbines will be lower electricity bills?