This is an encouraging development....
http://news.com.com/Silicon+Valley,...uclear/2100-11395_3-6081896.html?tag=nefd.top
http://news.com.com/Silicon+Valley,...uclear/2100-11395_3-6081896.html?tag=nefd.top
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
KarlMarx said:This is an encouraging development....
http://news.com.com/Silicon+Valley,...uclear/2100-11395_3-6081896.html?tag=nefd.top
I'm still betting on matter-antimatter!5stringJeff said:It's about freakin' time. Nuclear energy is the way to go.
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.aeromit said: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
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.KarlMarx said: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.
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.LOki said: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.