Weather Banter - View Single Post - September was 4th warmest in the last 129 years on NASA's global landrecord.

Peter Franks

wrote:
On Oct 11, 8:12 pm, columbiaaccidentinvestigation
wrote:
On Oct 11, 3:53 pm, Peter Franks wrote:

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. Now somebody like you who thinks one thing "is" a
solution, but does not offer up solutions to problems associated with
the byproducts of nuclear power, has nothing to offer on this issue
except capital letters REPEATING the same idiotic opinions

Then the greenie weenies better look around to see who they are in bed
with. The right wingers who buy the bull**** science of climate
scaremongering are all for nuclear power. If McCain gets into office,
these 'liberals' better watch out as the enforcement and programs of
the right wing are ruthlessly imposed upon the lower and middle
classes.

The cost of building nuclear plants is prohibitive. The only means to
pay for them is government subsidy and deficit spending. So what sense
does this make?
The cost of electricity must be increased beyond imagination, or the
'private' companies must be supported by the government which is a
fiasco. Maybe the rich people will offer to pay much higher taxes so
that the average person will not have to pay 10 times or greater
electricity bills.

I guess Franks will be the one that allows the reactor to built at the
end of his street while he donates at least 3/4 of his income to
support it. It is always nice to see such interest and pledges of
support for the solution to the non-problem of AGW. Still waiting for
all this CO2 to cause the temperatures to exceed 1934, 1998, 1926 etc.

I have no problem living near nuclear, nor paying for it. It makes a
lot more sense than the 'alternative' nonsense sources being discussed
elsewhere.

Either propose a workable alternative, or accept the reality of nuclear.