No Nukes. It does not make economic sense. Plenty of other options out there that are safer, greener and more self reliant. Well for my country anyway.
Printable View
No Nukes. It does not make economic sense. Plenty of other options out there that are safer, greener and more self reliant. Well for my country anyway.
An interesting take Ben. See, though, you are seeing things through the European prism. Taking a train to get anywhere in North America isn't really practical if you start going any real distance. It would be nice if AMTRAK and VIA here in Canada had a train like the TGV, but the business model isn't being made to construct the lines here. We fly or drive, and we tend to think of the train 3rd. It just isn't really doable when you have nations stretching 4 to 7 time zones....Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
As for progress being made by less energy consumption; I am going to say right now technology is the way we have our cake and eat it too.
I am all for green energy, I am all for nuclear energy and I am all for developing Fusion, Hydrogen and Solar. Wind to me is a bird Cuisnart and a toy. I think over time, we will develop all this stuff. And I bet when the dust settles on all the debate, we wont be giving up our cars or our freedoms.
The modern car has given the common man freedom. Freedom to travel, to associate with whom he pleases on his trip to work. The freedom to change plans, and the freedom to just hop in and go for relatively affordable prices. I can drive my own car 500 miles a lot cheaper than I can fly or take a train and that includes the payment of it and gas and insurance. To hear people say, well we use too many resources, we must stop, and cars have to go ignores the fact that cars are the economic product that pretty much drive the Western economy. How you fill that void with computers and Ipods I don't know because neither has gotten me to work. What is more, a truck (one like I now again drive) has to bring all these products. The infrastructure to move all this product is the same one the cars travel on.
No...our energy issues are two fold. ONE, petroleum is the product that drives the economy and our transportation and some of our electricity needs, and TWO, Electrical products are causing a greater demand for more power. Add in a growing population and this fetish we are starting to have for electric cars and scooters, and you can make things as energy efficient as you want (appliances that use less power? Go for it!) but the numbers are still causing demand for power.
It all comes back to short term and long term solutions. In the short term, Gas and Coal, plus Nuclear will be the way most of the west should go. This fear of the nuclear powerplant in Europe is I predict going to be shoved aside when the hard realities of this ramp in demand for power. So the mid to long term will be probably more nuclear, and newer and safer designs that are more efficient. IN the long term? I still think Fusion will get here, but likely not in what is my life time.
The world gets to Fusion, well, it is a different world then isn't it?
No...I think wanting to keep what we have as a society, and encouraging the rest of the world to develop an economic model and democratic model similar to the west is the best we can hope for. The wasted human capacity that is tired up in conflicts in the Middle East and elsewhere, and the grinding poverty of Africa and parts of South American and Asia must be addressed, but it wont be addressed by government subsidies and people sitting around in Brussels, Geneva or New York all ordering Caviar as they discuss it. It will be powered by petroleum and likely nuclear, and the economic systems that have helped us can help them if a handle is gotten on the corruption.
We can live in a better world, and nuclear power is the bridge energy wise to the future.....but too many people are scared of the hard facts, and choose to use emotional fears.
I find it interesting that I have, in all my posts to you, tried to be courteous and polite.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Riebe
Yet you call my posts cretinous and adolescent without being able to address any of them directly. You also try to call me a hypocrite and moron by association again without having the guts to call me that directly.
Try and gain some self-confidence and tackle what you don't like about my posts without making cowardly snide comments. Apart from your issue with authority the only other thing thats clear about your posts is that you are never able to have the courage to state your case and stick with it, preferring to descend to insults.
If you find a poster is offering no benefit to the forum and is behaving in an unpleasant manner which detracts from enjoying the forum, then do what I did. Since I have put Bob on my ignore list, I find the "IQ" of the forum has gone up slightly and my enjoyment of it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dylan H
I really enjoy debating on here and understanding other peoples views but when there is no value, effort or originality from a member whatsoever, it's just not worth it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Riebe
Will you give up already, every single post of yours is Democrats this Obama that, ok, we get it, now shutupayerface!
If Obama walked on water, Bob would say he can't swim.
Yeah, all this concern is so unwarranted about nuke plants.
So what?
The stupid FDA is banning the import of certain food items:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42215049...ety/?gt1=43001
The tap water in Tokyo is now been deemed unsafe for drinking for infants, something about twice as much radioactivity as should be permitted................
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42206728...-asia-pacific/Quote:
The officials told reporters that a water treatment center in downtown Tokyo that supplies much of the city's tap water found that some water contained 210 becquerels per liter of iodine 131.
They said the limit for consumption of iodine 131 for infants is 100 becquerels per liter. They recommended that babies not be given tap water, although they said the water is not an immediate health risk for adults.
no big deal.
Just babies. All this fussing over nothing is just upsetting people anyway
Sorry to have interrupted Dunnel and crew in their bashing of Riebe, his father, Bush and his father, and american in general, and on and on...........you may now continue....
Indeed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Riebe
The Bush administration pushed for that energy bill in exchange for support from the U.S. corn farmers.
Sugar cane-based ethanol can be produced and imported into the U.S. from Brazil far more cheaply than distilling it locally from corn. Brazil has a surplus of sugar cane and the ethanol yield from sugar cane distillation is higher than from corn.
At about the same time as that bill was proposed, the U.S. levied import duties on sugar cane and ethanol products from Brazil :mark: .
Show me the thread where my posts directed at others comments I was the original initiator and not responding because the other ignored the post topic to have a fit and attack me about my method of writing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dylan H
I find ignoring a thread topic to go off on a fit about the style used by other writers to be exactly as wrote it. Tony gets the same attacks I and others do.
I will respond in kind, which is a bit of a failing on my part.
It is amazing that attacking other posters is supposed to be a violation yet it seems to be ignored to the point that one of the administrators seems to be infatuated with Dem. political views to the point that he has joined in.
Trashing conservatives by some continually does not get a response from him.
Oh well, as I said, que sera-sera.
This has what to do with the thread topic?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave B