Nuclear power today has the advantage of 30 more years of experience since the 1970's.
However helpful to global warming problem, nuclear waste still needs to be stored is somebody's neighborhood, (and pass through somebody else's to get there). And, nuclear fuel is not in unlimited supply either. (Oh, yeah, and you can use it to make bombs.)
I'm okay with nuclear power as long as the industry doesn't cut corners on safety for the sake of profit. (BTW, in the film, the contractor building the nuke plant had used sub-standard concrete and building materials and faked/altered the x-ray results.)
The REAL long term solution is hydrogen fusion (the way the Sun works). That technology is still decades away. The best part is that it won't produce radioactive waste.
The other "future" solution is higher temperature super-conductor materials. Some huge percentage of energy is lost during transmission due to resistance in the wiring. Current super-conductors require temperatures near liquid nitrogen. If materials can be discovered which do this at easily reachable temperatures, it will re-write the book on power distribution. (Note: this is still an unsolved problem in physics and an area of active research.)
Until the long term solutions arrive, we can invest in more energy efficient cars, light bulbs, appliances, etc. as well as wind and solar. Solar is about 10-15 percentage points of efficiency from becoming more than competitive with standard electricity production. Advances in nano-tech materials are moving the ball every day.
See how the short-sighted, feel-good Libism “solutions” always –always- end up backfiring with unintended consequences. They always end up harming the very people or things they are trying to help. This is what happens when people rely on their emotions (Libism) rather than grounded logic and measured reason. And yet folks like you continue to embrace that backward emotional mess.
If any secret service, FBI or law enforcement personnel read this blog, Randal has already called for the shooting of Bryan DePalma. Now, he is suggesting that Jane Fonda and sitting U.S. Senator John Kerry should have been killed years ago.
This may constitute a threat. A psychological profiler may have fun reading his past posting. You might want to buy a large butterfly net, too.
Randal- Someday when you wind up shooting "liberal college students" from a clock tower, the media is going to find this blog and wonder why no one else saw the warning signs.
Nope. I don't like him, but the worst I ever suggested was that AFTER he leaves office that he be put on trial as a War Criminal (either at the Hague or by the same court that Bush thought gave Saddam Hussein a fair trial).
Even though Bush is big on the death penalty, I'd be okay with a sentence of life imprisonment by the court. (The more like Guantanamo or Abu Ghraib the better.)
Advocating for a fair trial under international law AFTER he is out of office (and Cheney, too) is not a threat. It's justice.
Oh, I thought you did. My bad. Gotta watch them trigger words anyway… ;)
You gonna keep humping my leg to distract from the issue? This thread is about how once again misguided feel-good Libism backfired and has ended up doing more harm than good.
Traitor much? The President of the United States is not the enemy.
(It seems you Hurt Feelings folks can’t be told this enough.)
I notice that the article says nothing about what to do with the radioactive waste from nuclear plants. This was the bedrock of many people who were anti-nuke in the late 70's. To simply ignore that huge problem is irresponsible journalism.
16 Comments:
I'm all for nuclear power. We should build one in Chester instead of a soccer stadium!
Jane Fonda doesn't have a great track record with her "causes". Come on Jane, even France knows what's up with nuclear power.
Much better uses for a riverfront than a nuke facility.
But you're right about the French. They get it when it comes to nukes.
Nuclear power today has the advantage of 30 more years of experience since the 1970's.
However helpful to global warming problem, nuclear waste still needs to be stored is somebody's neighborhood, (and pass through somebody else's to get there). And, nuclear fuel is not in unlimited supply either. (Oh, yeah, and you can use it to make bombs.)
I'm okay with nuclear power as long as the industry doesn't cut corners on safety for the sake of profit. (BTW, in the film, the contractor building the nuke plant had used sub-standard concrete and building materials and faked/altered the x-ray results.)
The REAL long term solution is hydrogen fusion (the way the Sun works). That technology is still decades away. The best part is that it won't produce radioactive waste.
The other "future" solution is higher temperature super-conductor materials. Some huge percentage of energy is lost during transmission due to resistance in the wiring. Current super-conductors require temperatures near liquid nitrogen. If materials can be discovered which do this at easily reachable temperatures, it will re-write the book on power distribution. (Note: this is still an unsolved problem in physics and an area of active research.)
Until the long term solutions arrive, we can invest in more energy efficient cars, light bulbs, appliances, etc. as well as wind and solar. Solar is about 10-15 percentage points of efficiency from becoming more than competitive with standard electricity production. Advances in nano-tech materials are moving the ball every day.
Way to go Dave.
Nice Post. Informative. No invective.
See, it's not so hard.
Your turn, Randal.
leftist fear-mongering
fear of global warming
widespread panic
unintended consequences of… [Liberalism]
It’s all there.
Hollywood...
Gil-
Randal rose to the occasion (and by "rose" I meant up to our low expectations).
Randall, if you have a problem with Jane Fonda, go to the video store and rent Barbarella.
See how the short-sighted, feel-good Libism “solutions” always –always- end up backfiring with unintended consequences. They always end up harming the very people or things they are trying to help. This is what happens when people rely on their emotions (Libism) rather than grounded logic and measured reason. And yet folks like you continue to embrace that backward emotional mess.
Hanoi Jane and Hanoi John both should have been shot for treason years ago.
I wonder if they're going to lead the spitting on our returning troops this time too?
If any secret service, FBI or law enforcement personnel read this blog, Randal has already called for the shooting of Bryan DePalma. Now, he is suggesting that Jane Fonda and sitting U.S. Senator John Kerry should have been killed years ago.
This may constitute a threat. A psychological profiler may have fun reading his past posting. You might want to buy a large butterfly net, too.
Yes, the U.S. government should have shot them for treason back then.
Grow up, Dave. If you can’t win on the internet battlefield get out of the game.
Randal-
Someday when you wind up shooting "liberal college students" from a clock tower, the media is going to find this blog and wonder why no one else saw the warning signs.
Don’t I recall seeing you, David Diano, threaten the life of our President?
Nope. I don't like him, but the worst I ever suggested was that AFTER he leaves office that he be put on trial as a War Criminal (either at the Hague or by the same court that Bush thought gave Saddam Hussein a fair trial).
Even though Bush is big on the death penalty, I'd be okay with a sentence of life imprisonment by the court. (The more like Guantanamo or Abu Ghraib the better.)
Advocating for a fair trial under international law AFTER he is out of office (and Cheney, too) is not a threat. It's justice.
Oh, I thought you did. My bad. Gotta watch them trigger words anyway… ;)
You gonna keep humping my leg to distract from the issue?
This thread is about how once again misguided feel-good Libism backfired and has ended up doing more harm than good.
Traitor much?
The President of the United States is not the enemy.
(It seems you Hurt Feelings folks can’t be told this enough.)
I notice that the article says nothing about what to do with the radioactive waste from nuclear plants.
This was the bedrock of many people who were anti-nuke in the late 70's.
To simply ignore that huge problem is irresponsible journalism.
Post a Comment
<< Home