Food for thought from Paul Krugman

Southern Man said:
1. Nuclear power is cheap and clean. The politics that are involved and the lawsuits by the environmental whackos are what costs the industry real money.
2. Nuclear waste? You forget that Carter prohibited reprocessing of spent fuel, that dummy. His executive order was later rescinded by Reagan, but not after commercial reprocessers had been bankrupted. New technologies being developed “which will burn all long-lived actinides”. http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf69.html
3. Solar and wind energy is great, but will never produce the large amounts of energy that are required to run the American economy. And this industry is heavily subsidized while the environmental whackos ignore the environmental impacts.
4. Natural gas can provide energy for transportation for about 300 years- plenty of time for technology to develop battery technology and a nuclear-based electrical system. If we don’t burn it a lot will leak out of the ground anyway, and the greenhouse impact of unburned gas is huge compared to CO2.
Click to expand...

^what he said^
 
Southern Man said:
1. Nuclear power is cheap and clean. The politics that are involved and the lawsuits by the environmental whackos are what costs the industry real money.
2. Nuclear waste? You forget that Carter prohibited reprocessing of spent fuel, that dummy. His executive order was later rescinded by Reagan, but not after commercial reprocessers had been bankrupted. New technologies being developed “which will burn all long-lived actinides”. http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf69.html
3. Solar and wind energy is great, but will never produce the large amounts of energy that are required to run the American economy. And this industry is heavily subsidized while the environmental whackos ignore the environmental impacts.
4. Natural gas can provide energy for transportation for about 300 years- plenty of time for technology to develop battery technology and a nuclear-based electrical system. If we don’t burn it a lot will leak out of the ground anyway, and the greenhouse impact of unburned gas is huge compared to CO2.
Click to expand...


Nuclear power requires large amounts of cold water to cool the core, a resource that will be increasingly hard to find as global warming progresses. How do you cool the core in a permanent drought?
 
zoombwaz said:
Nuclear power requires large amounts of cold water to cool the core, a resource that will be increasingly hard to find as global warming progresses. How do you cool the core in a permanent drought?
Click to expand...
Any power generation facility that uses a Rankine cycle requires water to cool the process, not just nuclear. Cogeneration and trigeneration would reduce the water use. If liberals weren't so pansy-assed the plants could be cited close enough to population centers to make this feasible and more common.

Regardless, since nuclear power doesn't produce CO2 you should be championing it as the best solution for global warming, and your drought issue becomes moot. :)
 
Actual workable solutions to the energy crisis are not wanted by the fascists in charge. They simply want to put the american economy and those who live in it on a path to destruction.
 
AssHatZombie said:
Actual workable solutions to the energy crisis are not wanted by the fascists in charge. They simply want to put the american economy and those who live in it on a path to destruction.
Click to expand...
That certainly fits the theory that I came up with yesterday: they hate America and want to destroy it.
 
When I started out in my profession the liberals were rightly concerned about pollutants such as soot and smog and heavy metals and such. After we figured out how to clean all that up they kept reducing their tolerance for these pollutants, making it harder and harder to comply but we figured out how anyway. Many times the effluent from waste water plants is cleaner than the river we dump it into and the gas we put out of power plants is cleaner than the ambient air. They can't justify reducing pollutants further so they finally told us that CO2 is a pollutant. We have a way of reducing that that they don't like so they complain that we're using too much water to cool the process. I'm waiting them to tell us that we shouldn't be using the Rankine cycle at all.
 
I used to work with sewage sludge recycling and there was this tenured professor at Cornell that wrote all kinds of articles decrying heavy metal contamination of farm soils. I then illustrated that many of the so-called pollutants were in fact active ingredients in vitamins and mineral tablets that folks bought at the drug store and took daily. He jumped all over that and rightly said that lead or cadmium had no nutritive values. The plants that I worked with had excellent pre-treatment programs with contributing industries so our products had low levels- well below federal standards. He then insisted that we should be below detectable levels. I then got sample results from typical farm soils and showed that they had more lead and cadmium that was in our product. Then he claimed that the stuff would build up over time, and came to a public meeting one day where I was presenting and told this emotional story about how orchards had been contaminated, over time, with some kind of lead based pesticide. Unbeknownst to him I had anticipated his argument and had done a regression analysis with a simple summary chart that the public could understand and proved that, unlike a pesticide with lead as an active ingredient we had so much inert material in the product that we would add to the soil mass and in fact reduce the metal concentration over time. I told him that if he wanted to remediate these orchards the he should work with us and get the owners to start using our product. That fucker sat down and didn't say a word for the rest of the meeting. Just to add insult to injury after the meeting I caught up with him and introduced myself and invited him to the bar that we were headed for a beer! By the look on his face I thought he was going to have a fucking heart attack. LOL
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top