columbiaaccidentinvestigation wrote:
On Oct 11, 3:53 pm, Peter Franks wrote:
John M. wrote:
On Oct 11, 4:55 pm, Peter Franks wrote:
wrote:
On Oct 10, 7:27 pm, Peter Franks wrote:
Roger Coppock wrote:
September was 4th warmest in the last 129 years on NASA's global land
record. ...
Things would be SO much better now if we had just continued with our
nuclear initiatives 30+ years ago.
Just think: reduced CO2 emissions, less dependency on petroleum fuels,
less dependency on foreign energy sources, cheaper energy, less
newsgroups, no Al Gore, etc., etc., etc.
Join with me, Roger: GO NUCLEAR!
You are insane. Nuclear power is so expensive that it is never paid
off by the selling of electricity and must be government subsidized.
CO2 is a normal chemical in the environment and causes absolutely no
warming, despite the psychotic beliefs of the fanatics who enjoy the
doomsday prophecies of our use of fuel.
Brilliant greenie weenie enviromentalists that would exchange
completely harmless CO2 for plutonium and nuclear waste and the
inevitable accidents with prolific nuclear power.
Accidents can and will happen, regardless of the technology. You can
either accept this, or go with the status quo and live in fear.
Nuclear (LWR) is a step to better nuclear options (e.g. LFTR) that have
virtually none of the negative consequences you try to paint.
Yes, I may be insane, but that doesn't change the fact that nuclear is
THE transitory solution.
If you were to look into official statistics concerning how much
energy could be saved at the various, putative, ranked, levels of
expenditure on conservation, and then compare them with the costs
involving nuclear generation of the same quantity of energy, you would
find your claim about THE solution to be exceedingly thin.
Governments prefer generation to conservation because rich people
benefit from generation, while only poor people benefit from
conservation.
Conservation is to conserve; there is NO progression from conservation.

We need a solution for new energy sources. Conservation will not get us
there in any way, shape or form.

Nuclear IS the answer. It WAS the answer 30+ years ago, but because of
idiotic policy and fear, we currently have nothing.

Enlightened people prefer generation because it is an active source.
Ignorant people prefer conservation because it is NON ACTION.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

na, that is a bit of a myopic point of view, as you never mention
nuclear waste, storage long term and short term, and you also avoid
transportation of nuclear waste to such sites from the energy
production site.

I also don't mention building codes, how close outlets should be, and
myriad other issues.

Nuclear is messy, and carries a lot of baggage to be sure. A lot of the
issues have work-arounds or solutions, some don't. As an overall
solution, it is the best option that we have.

You, on the other hand, have added nothing to this conversation. You
have an alternative?