If only we'd figure this one out....we're wasting precious time and resources on lots of chickens--t ways to produce energy that simply don't scale up. All the while, we've been doing it right for fifty years by harnessing the power of the atom.
You want reliable? Go nuclear. You want green? Go nuclear. You want to be less dependent on foreign sources of energy? Go nuclear. You want to REALLY be able to take your private transportation fleet electric? Go nuclear.
But no--not here. Not as long as Harry Reid is content to take $800M a year to build out Yucca Mountain while all the while refusing to allow any waste to be stored there (oh, and by the way, what we call waste the French call "fuel"--because they reprocess). We'll continue to pour good money after bad buying up millions of acres of land to dot with windmills and solar panels, instead of citing new reactors on the already approved sites throughout the country.
Our blindness to the benefit here is simply inexplicable.
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
5 comments:
CW, I think you are missing the point of the Greens though. The Green movement really has nothing to do with the environment and everything to do with a redistribution of wealth. This is why they have abandoned the 'science' behind their movement and are now spreading the word based on emotion. Green/environmentalism is a new religion. You either have faith or you don't and if you question, you are dismissed.
Back to the topic, nuclear power offers exactly what the 'old' environmentalists wanted before the transition. Clean safe power available to all for pennies. Heck, the Navy makes reactors that almost run themselves with some of the smartest operators on the planet who could easily help DOE with the civilian transition. The problem is that this cheap energy would remove the smoke and mirrors from the current Green movement.
Environmentalism/Green movement has nothing to do with the environment and everything to do with dollars.
I agree. Sadly, I dont suspect a major change in our environment or power strategies...no matter how many Hollywood documentaries or Al Gore speeches. Why? This level of change is too hard for most to absorb...what you propose reaches deep into the economic and political foundations of this nation. Even sadder, I suspect it will take a catastrophic event to shake up the American conscience to the level needed to create an embracing of nuclear energy as a primary source. Ponder this question: If nuke energy were readily available for consumer consumption, what would it take for us to switch over from current energy sourcs to it? The status quo seems to need a catalytic breakthough on this...I only hope it happens before its too late. Thanks for sharing.
You mean nuculer.
No, it's nucular.
Jimmy Carter pronounced it the same and he was suppossedly a nuclear guy (you know it just kills CW he is ex Navy). The fact is Carter has never given any indication he knows the difference between a proton and a pronoun.
Post a Comment