Updates! Updates! Updates!
More re-writes have arrived.
Principles of fission
Paying for it
The blog of the Freedom For Fission website, keeping track of the latest nuclear news, website developments and inane opposition arguments.
Previous posts
-
►
2007
(48)
-
►
July
(13)
- How passive does passive have to be?
- Is nuclear the most independent energy source?
- Everyone's favourite whipping boy takes one more l...
- Time to get tactical
- The search goes on
- Define "unsafe"
- BBC loves homeopathy
- Homeopathic godzilla
- Japanese earthquake causes coolant water leak
- I was wrong
- Latest updates
- Thermal physics and fusion
- Almost a good idea
-
►
July
(13)
Nuclear links
- Freedom For Fission
- 1 Nuclear Place
- This Week in Nuclear
- World Nuclear Association blog
- NEI Nuclear Notes
- Nuclear is our Future
- Nuclear is our Future discussion forum
- NRC Watch
- Depleted Cranium
- Thorium Energy
- Energy from Thorium discussion forum
- iNuclear
- Positive Energy
- Atomic Insights
- We Support Lee
- Bionuclear Bunny
- Budi Sudarsono
- A Musing Environment
- Nuclear Dreams
- Nuclear Green
Labels
- about the site (20)
- accidents (10)
- africa (1)
- asia (12)
- australia (2)
- debate (8)
- environmentalists (23)
- europe (8)
- fuel cycle (17)
- fun stuff (10)
- fusion (3)
- health and safety (21)
- international agencies (2)
- media watch (21)
- non-nuclear (7)
- north america (10)
- nuclear image (6)
- nuclear renaissance (30)
- nuclear tourism (5)
- politics (33)
- reactors (10)
- regulation (7)
- subsidies (10)
- terrorism (9)
- the blogosphere (22)
- uk (44)
- weapons (8)
| Nuclear Advocacy Webring Ring Owner: Nuclear is Our Future Site: Nuclear is Our Future |
||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
| Get Your Free Web Ring by Bravenet.com |
||||
1 comments:
In Paying for it, when you're using a mechanism to measure water, gas or electricity, it's a "meter" , and the verb is the same. Even in Britain.
The other point you might like to address on that page is the alleged vulnerability of nuclear power to the worst (or unluckiest) operator. The argument is: If we go ahead with building loads of nuclear power plants, we have put a huge investment into this particular power generation mode, but if just one of them goes wrong catastrophically, they might all be forced closed.
Empirically this is false; no such effect resulted from Chernobyl or any other nuclear plant problem (although all other plant issues have been extremely minor). Nevertheless it is an argument I have seen.
Post a Comment