Silicon Valley, Greenpeace co-founder say yes to nuclear

[KarlMarx]

This is an encouraging development....

http://news.com.com/Silicon+Valley,...uclear/2100-11395_3-6081896.html?tag=nefd.top

 

[dilloduck]

This is an encouraging development....

http://news.com.com/Silicon+Valley,...uclear/2100-11395_3-6081896.html?tag=nefd.top

"I believe the majority of environmental activists, including those at Greenpeace, have now become so blinded by their extremism that they fail to consider the enormous and obvious benefits of harnessing nuclear power to meet and secure America's growing energy needs," the controversial Moore testified in front of Congress in April 2005. "If America is to meet its ever increasing demands for energy, then the American nuclear industry must be revitalized and allowed to grow."

A little late to acknowledge that you were "blinded by extremism", Mr. Clean.

 

[5stringJeff]

It's about freakin' time. Nuclear energy is the way to go.

 

[KarlMarx]

It's about freakin' time. Nuclear energy is the way to go.

I'm still betting on matter-antimatter!

 

[aeromit]

What's encouraging ... "Greenpeace co-founder say yes to nuclear"

Therre always has something wrong when the greens say yes to nuclear programs. They are supposed to say "no".

cheers

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I hate to pee on the party, but nuclear energy will not be allowed until the NWO is firmly in control. Manipulating the world through oil dependance is one of their main tools.

 

[KarlMarx]

What's encouraging ... "Greenpeace co-founder say yes to nuclear"

There always has something wrong when the greens say yes to nuclear programs. They are supposed to say "no".

cheers

We hear so much from the Left about our dependence on foreign oil for our energy needs. Fine, so that means we must get our oil or energy from domestic sources.

When one suggests drilling in the ANWR (Alaskan National Wildlife Reserve), the Left objects. Regardless of the fact that ANWR has at least 10 billion barrels of oil and regardless of the fact that the drilling would affect only a small fraction of the entire ANWR. Furthermore, the effect will be in ways that can be easily cleaned up after the oil stops flowing and with little effect on wildlife while the oil wells are in operation.

When one suggests offshore drilling, again, the Left objects. Never mind that Cuba, Venezuela and other countries are doing just that off our very own shores.

When one suggests building nuclear power plants, again, the Left objects. It isn't a matter of discussing the problems associated with the technology (nuclear waste, etc). It's just a plain old "no, absolutely not".

The same pattern can be seen when suggesting coal and hydroelectric plants.

There are other technologies, e.g. solar, wind power, ethanol, hydrogen, methane and so forth that seem to have favor with the Left. However, alongside with these technologies come one or both of the following:

1. Reduce our standard of living and go back to the horse and buggy days, or even the stone age, in some cases. Of course, all of this is going to happen while we maintain our ability to compete in the world market place.

2. Increase government involvement in development of these technologies and in the market place in general. In short, just grow the size of government.

A side note seems in order here. Even if we were to become totally energy independent, our economy will still be reliant on resources from foreign sources. I don't want to use the cliche, "global economy", but that's what we now have. In some ways, this may not be a bad thing, after all, I'd rather compete with other countries in an economic sense rather than a military sense.

A second side note. Ever since my childhood, and earlier, the mantra from the Left has been that America comprises less than 5% of the world's population and consumes 33% of its resources, other countries are poor while Americans are fat, dumb and happy and there is something we should do to turn that around. Well folks, exporting jobs to other countries, is a way of distributing wealth to other countries, isn't it? It is solving the problem of world wide poverty and want. After all, the people who work the jobs in China, Indonesia, India and other places are making money and making a better life for themselves. So, why is the Left complaining? Those countries are now consuming more resources instead of us (where do you think all that oil is going? Can you say "China and India" boys and girls?). They are now steadily seeing their standard of living increase. The economies of India and China are now growing at double digit rates. And of course, they are becoming bigger polluters than we are! Parenthetically, this is why America should not sign the Kyoto Protocol, it makes no sense, stunts our economy and leaves big polluters, e.g., China, off of the hook.

Again, why is the Left complaining? I'll tell you why, because this redistribution of wealth was accomplished through CAPITALISM, not SOCIALISM! It further shows how successful freemarket capitalism is and how abject a failure socialism is. No country that embraces socialism does well, while no country that embraces capitalism does poorly. That is the real reason why the Left objects to nuclear energy and the export of jobs to other countries.

 

[LOki]

It's about time these "environmentalists" embrace nuclear power.

They argue about the safety, but I've been in a number of nuclear power plants--they are about the safest work environment ever. They have redundant safety systems for the redundant safety systems. Nowhere else in my experience does a safety culture walk the walk, while they talk the talk, the way it's done in the nuclear power industry.

They argue about the waste while not counting the waste generated by the manufacture of wind turbines, hydro-electric dams, and photovoltaic panels.

They argue about the environment, while advocating the destruction of vast ecosystems they'd put underwater for hydro-electric power; they ignore the destruction of the natural habitat of those denizens of the deserts that they'd pave over with solar collectors, and they willingly sacrifice the lives of potentetially endangered avians to their wind farms over a scant handful of megawatts; not to mention that all of these methods directly alter the energy of the weather, making their concerns over climate to appear hypocritical.

Granted, it is an understatement to say the waste issue from nuclear power is long term, but if we intend be around for the long term, perhaps we just might solve that problem if given the time and energy resources to do so.

 

[LOki]

Ever since my childhood, and earlier, the mantra from the Left has been that America comprises less than 5% of the world's population and consumes 33% of its resources, other countries are poor while Americans are fat, dumb and happy and there is something we should do to turn that around.

What those who make this argument always ignore, is exactly what do we do with those resources? We create value. I'm confident that if our resource consumption was indexed against our GDP, we would appear as the leader in the efficient and responsible use of those resources; compared to say, China, Sweden, or a country really low on resource consumption like Ethiopia or Somalia.

And since this is also about the environment, I wonder how well all those (not resource greedy like the U.S.) other countries who use so little stack up against the U.S. when the pollution they create is indexed against their GDP. I'm confident again, that our unit pollution per unit GDP is much favorable than that anywhere.

 

[KarlMarx]

It's about time these "environmentalists" embrace nuclear power.

They argue about the safety, but I've been in a number of nuclear power plants--they are about the safest work environment ever. They have redundant safety systems for the redundant safety systems. Nowhere else in my experience does a safety culture walk the walk, while they talk the talk, the way it's done in the nuclear power industry.

They argue about the waste while not counting the waste generated by the manufacture of wind turbines, hydro-electric dams, and photovoltaic panels.

They argue about the environment, while advocating the destruction of vast ecosystems they'd put underwater for hydro-electric power; they ignore the destruction of the natural habitat of those denizens of the deserts that they'd pave over with solar collectors, and they willingly sacrifice the lives of potentetially endangered avians to their wind farms over a scant handful of megawatts; not to mention that all of these methods directly alter the energy of the weather, making their concerns over climate to appear hypocritical.

Granted, it is an understatement to say the waste issue from nuclear power is long term, but if we intend be around for the long term, perhaps we just might solve that problem if given the time and energy resources to do so.

I once heard a lecture over 10 years ago that the projected growth in overall energy for the United States was flat. However, the majority of our energy needs would be shifting to ELECTRICAL energy over others. That meant that the need for more efficient means of generating electrical power was needed. I haven't read or done much research to determine if this statement is true, but if anyone could tell me one way or the other.

I believe, that since our economy has become more of an information economy and thus relying on computers and the Internet, that this is, indeed, happening.

If my assumption is correct, then alternate versions of electrical generation, e.g. wind power, solar power etc, may not answer the need for more electrical power in the amounts needed.