Time to go nuclear

Parent Cafe
1

<p>In a good way. Cheaper clean power for electric cars. Everything else is crap.</p>

<p><a href=“http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2004171188_ethanol08.html[/url]”>http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2004171188_ethanol08.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

2

<p>I thought you were mad about something - was wondering who you were about to go nuclear on :rolleyes:</p>

3

<p>Keep 'em guessing you know.</p>

4

<p>I thought it was another thread about Ballmer ;)</p>

5

<p>I’d put him in charge of the Washington Ferry System. He is well suited to running an operation based on 19th century technology that just needs some swift kicks in the pants. He can throw some deck chairs around too.</p>

6

<p>“was wondering who you were about to go nuclear on”</p>

<p>LOL–Too much rain. SAD has set in</p>

7

<p>I thought the thread title was the name of Bush’s memoirs.</p>

<p>He will mis-pronounce the word nuclear forever just to drive us all crazy.</p>

8

<p>But seriously</p>

<p><a href=“http://chronicle.com/blogs/architecture/1630/biodiesel-the-devil-in-the-details[/url]”>http://chronicle.com/blogs/architecture/1630/biodiesel-the-devil-in-the-details&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

9

<p>^ ^ </p>

<p>Other problem.</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/07/050705231841.htm[/url]”>http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/07/050705231841.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

10

<p>Solar, wind, wave and combonations of other new technologies are the way. I am not leaving my children with one more drop of nuclear waste on this planet. President Bush stated “if you are interested in green power then you should be promoting nuclear power.” Unbelieveable. Corn ethanol is not the answer and we all know it.</p>

11

<p>“Corn ethanol is not the answer and we all know it.”</p>

<p>Not to mention unintended consequences.</p>

<p>“U.S. appetite for ethanol fuels rise in Mexican corn prices”</p>

<p><a href=“http://knowledge.wpcarey.asu.edu/article.cfm?articleid=1416[/url]”>http://knowledge.wpcarey.asu.edu/article.cfm?articleid=1416&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

12

<p>Great, now the Mexicans can’t afford to eat.</p>

13

<p>re article in post #9 – let’s not bother the politicians with facts in an election year, particularly when Archer-Midland Daniels caucuses first.</p>

14

<p>1sokkermom, every time I hear him pronounce that word, I cringe! When Obama did the Top 10 Reasons to Elect Obama President, one was along the lines of, “I will pronounce the word ‘nuclear’ correctly.” It made my day!</p>

15

<p>Nuclear waste is more likely to be safely stored than making serious power from wind etc etc. Besides now people hate the windmills and oppose wave catchers. The earth has been radioactive since the beginning of time. It’s not that scary. In 50 years we can send it into space cheaply enough we won’t need to keep it here. Or we’'l find ways to reuse the trash.</p>

16

<p>Oh, Barrons, your beliefs are seriously breaking my heart.</p>

17

<p>Most of Europe (who all the liberals love to emulate except on this) and lots of Asia is heavy into nuclear power. It’s the future. What are you afraid of? Nuclear–oooh scary, is that it? Our systems today are far more sophisticated than 30 years ago. Think about computers back the and now. Your PC has more power than a big university computer did in 1977.</p>

18

<p>Sax your suggestions sound so simple and green. Please expound upon how we can replace ALL of our current power consumption needs with what you propose quickly and painlessly. I don’t really like camping.</p>

19

<p>sax, frankly, barrons is so far coming across as much more credible than you.</p>

<p>Other than alarmist environmentalist histrionics about how radioactive waste is a present and horrible danger, what kind of hard evidence do yo have, exactly, to back up your assertions that radioactive waste is a terrible thing? As barrons points out, the Earth has been radioactive for a long time (in fact, there used to be natural nuclear reactors on certain beaches in Europe), in the future we may be able to dispose of dangerous waste extra-terrestrially, waste can be reused, and counter to all the alarmist propaganda, there are very effective ways to seal radioactive waste for its natural lifetime (Yucca mountain, despite some slips, has been compared with other repositories favorably), and most objections to such storage methods spring form simple ignorant and selfish NIMBYism.</p>

<p>But hey, we could continue sinking money into forms of energy not likely to be supporter by the market in the near future, based merely on wishful thinking, or we could be realistic and accept that nuclear power is an excellent option.</p>

20

<p>Here is your primer on nuclear waste.
<a href=“http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/radwaste.html[/url]”>http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/radwaste.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>At this time there are no permanent facilities for disposal of high level radioactive waste…</p>

<p>It is not buried in Yuma, folks.</p>

<p>Our energy needs will be met in the future by a continued variety of systems. Nuclear power is the quick and easy fix but leaves deadly radioactive waste as its bi product. Fact.</p>

<p>I’d prefer my $$ be spent on research into renewable energy.
The latest research on thin solar sheets is really exciting.
<a href=“http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSTP33777420071206?pageNumber=1&virtualBrandChannel=0[/url]”>http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSTP33777420071206?pageNumber=1&virtualBrandChannel=0&lt;/a&gt;
We are smart enough to develop these energy resources. We just cannot get the gov’t to fully fund them.</p>