Marijuana.com

S2

We could extricate ourselves from middle east dependance, produce vast quanities of hydrogen and electricity and significantly cut back on carbon emmissions within 10 years if we stopped this irrational fear of nuclear power and started building nuke plants and stopped building fossil fuel burning plants. Solar, wind, hydro-- will never displace fossil fuel. Why the hell dont we??

 

Mamabudz

Perhaps the glowing results from 3 Mile Island and Chernobyl are just too imbedded in the Social psyche?

On the other hand I heard some interesting news about hydro-electric power the other day ...Wave Power

Hiz Highness

You know why. Look at the administration. Look at the ever growing size of the defense budget. Look at the corporate power brokers in America.

That's why.

-HH

S2

The administration?????? Jeez HH, talk about a one trick pony.

I plum forgot about all those nuke plants that Clinton pushed for. Er, no, thats not quite correct. The Clinton Administration halted development of the advanced liquid metal reactor (ALMR), also called the Integral Fast Reactor (IFR) terminated research on the gas turbine modular helium reactor (GT-MHR)and ended funding for improved versions of today's light water reactors (LWRs).

(this isnt a blame clinton post its a Hwo the hell can you assert that the Bush administration is a reason nuclear energy isnt being developed to its full potential)

Frankly, the best thing that could happen is for the Bush administration to be absolutely anti nuclear-- the HH's of the world will immediatly conclude that we MUST go nuclear right NOW because of Bush's obviously nefarious motives for opposing it.

Stephen Dolley, research director of the anti-proliferation Nuclear Control Institute, admitted, ``The Bush Administration is showing the strongest support nuclear power has had in the White House in 20 years.''

President Bush's energy policy week includes promises to speed up relicensing for safe and efficient nuclear reactors and take a number of other steps to encourage production of nuclear power. The report accurately refers to it as a "clean and unlimited source of energy".

Cheney: "We want, as a matter of national policy, to encourage continued advancements in the Nuclear Power industry -- improved safety and efficiency in nuclear plants, safe disposal of nuclear waste and more importantly,.technology that reduces the amount of toxicity of waste going forward,"

I agree that there remains a stigma from the TMI days, mostly based on ignorance. Thing is, TMI was not a big deal with respect to human exposure and the advances in Nuke Plants in the past 25 years since the accident have resulted in technology that we couldn't imagine back then.

Even the "greens" are starting to realize that the result of their irrational opposition to Nukes is HUGE increases in Carbon emmissions and widely distributed storage of waste in dozens of unsecure locations.

While the environmentalists battle the Feds in Yucca flats, technology has been developed that can take that waste and reprocess it into new fuel-- Europe and China are kicking our ass in Nuke development and have very little waste, -- they reprocess it. Spent Fuel has about 95% of its power generation capacity-- it no longer makes sense to bury it.

Defense budget???? What on earth does that have to do with this?

Corporate power brokers? huh?

Hiz Highness

Is that all I listed, or are you selectively picking my words apart so you can pontificate?

They get lots of funding for fighting over seas. If we extract them from the middle east and ween our country off of oil how will they justify their insatiable greed for our tax money?

Yep. Corporate power brokers.

. . . or do geologists don't believe that money buys influence?

-HH

 

S2

No but we know specious and baseless claims when we see them

Hiz Highness

If you think the idea of corporate influence in government policy is specious, you're living in a fantasy world.

-HH

S2

Yes I am fully aware of and accept the reality of corporate political influence- your assertion of it being a barrier to Nuclear energy is whats specious. The biggest and the baddest would be building and supplying nuke plants-- just which corporate moguls are putting up barriers? The wind turbine mfrs.? For every Oil company you cite, I can counter with a GE or Halliburton.

Hiz Highness

So why are you saying things like " Corporate power brokers? huh?" if you know what I'm talking about? You're awfully quick to dismiss and ridicule, even when you agree with what's written. What are you so defensive about?

Is it really? Well, I guess we're not building lots of nuclear plants because we're all stupid, and the corporations don't want to make any money by monopolizing the new energy market. Yep. That must be it.

Corporate moguls don't put up barriers. They buy influence. But you knew that, didn't you?

Oh . . . wait . . . I get it. You want to blame this all on environmentalists and "liberals", don't you? Sorry. I thought you were actually interested in finding an answer to your question, not just establishing another platform to launch attacks at "lefties" from.

My bad.

-HH

Cassius

For those who immediately jumped on HH's case, I'd like to point out something.

I don't think HH meant that the Bush administration is particularly responsible. I think he meant "look at the way the current administration is going, and it is just how previous administration have been, the structure and politics of the federal government is what's to blame" or something like that.

He said the administration, but I think he meant administrations in general. Correct me if I'm wrong, HH, if you actually think that Bush's administration in particular is responsible (not just contributing).

__________________

{ Cassius, Your Humble Narrator }
{ Posting Guidelines | Erowid Drug Information Resource | instantfilehosting.com }