AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › The greenies destroyed the world by protesting nuclear power
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The greenies destroyed the world by protesting nuclear power

post #1 of 44
5/9/10 at 5:30pm
Thread Starter 
  • e1618978
  • will burn in the Fiery Pit of Hell.
A typical 1000 MW coal power plant uses 4 million tons of coal a year. That coal includes 5.2 tons of U-238, 74 lbs of U-235 and 12.8 tons of Thorium, all radioactive. Most of that radioactivity ends up in the oceans, as well as 10 million tons of CO2, and 70k tons of other pollutants. We would be much better off with nuclear power plants, and dumping nuclear waste into the oceans in leaky barrels.

There are aprox 3000 of these coal fired power plants worldwide, generating 15000 tons of water soluble uranium. The oceans already have 4.6 billion tons of uranium in them, so it would take 30,000 years to double the amount of uranium in the oceans from 3 parts per billion to 6 ppb - or even longer if we went to Nuclear power and dumped the waste in the oceans. As I see it there is absolutely no need for Yucca Mountain.

And we have oil spills wrecking the coastline, instead of clean nuclear plants. Very few people have died due to radiation poisoning due to nuclear power plants, many more die from the pollution from coal plants and the dangerous parts of oil drilling.

The hippies protesting nuclear power plants in the 60s and 70s are the real cause of the oil spill in the gulf, the environment would be much cleaner if we had just built tons of nuclear power plants.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #2 of 44
5/9/10 at 5:37pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post

The hippies protesting nuclear power plants in the 60s and 70s are the real cause of the oil spill in the gulf, the environment would be much cleaner if we had just built tons of nuclear power plants.

Recall it was Hanoi activist, Jane Fonda, who traveled to North Vietnam in 1972 and posed with Hanoi gun emplacements - it was also Hanoi Jane who made the fictional anti-nuclear film "The China Syndrome" in 1979 that prevented our nuclear energy development. Why she was not shot for being a traitor is a mystery. She should have been burned at the stake.
Reply
Reply
post #3 of 44
5/10/10 at 8:25am
Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post

A typical 1000 MW coal power plant uses 4 million tons of coal a year. That coal includes 5.2 tons of U-238, 74 lbs of U-235 and 12.8 tons of Thorium, all radioactive. Most of that radioactivity ends up in the oceans, as well as 10 million tons of CO2, and 70k tons of other pollutants. We would be much better off with nuclear power plants, and dumping nuclear waste into the oceans in leaky barrels.

There are aprox 3000 of these coal fired power plants worldwide, generating 15000 tons of water soluble uranium. The oceans already have 4.6 billion tons of uranium in them, so it would take 30,000 years to double the amount of uranium in the oceans from 3 parts per billion to 6 ppb - or even longer if we went to Nuclear power and dumped the waste in the oceans. As I see it there is absolutely no need for Yucca Mountain.

And we have oil spills wrecking the coastline, instead of clean nuclear plants. Very few people have died due to radiation poisoning due to nuclear power plants, many more die from the pollution from coal plants and the dangerous parts of oil drilling.

The hippies protesting nuclear power plants in the 60s and 70s are the real cause of the oil spill in the gulf, the environment would be much cleaner if we had just built tons of nuclear power plants.

Unfortunately the threat of a nuclear disaster is even greater than our beloved oil spill in the gulf which will make the ocean much better. Human toll of a plant malfunction. I propose we built plants in Iran, Texas, and Venezuela so they can pump oil with clean electricity.

How do you propose grinding up the waste so it is not concentrated at the dump site?
I guess spreading it with airplanes across vast ocean areas would be cool, what do you think?
yes I want oil genocide.
Reply
yes I want oil genocide.
Reply
post #4 of 44
5/10/10 at 8:47am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wormhole View Post

Unfortunately the threat of a nuclear disaster is even greater than our beloved oil spill in the gulf which will make the ocean much better. Human toll of a plant malfunction. I propose we built plants in Iran, Texas, and Venezuela so they can pump oil with clean electricity.

How do you propose grinding up the waste so it is not concentrated at the dump site?
I guess spreading it with airplanes across vast ocean areas would be cool, what do you think?

The fact that you would try to use Chernobyl as your point of protest shows how little you care about the reality of Nuclear Power plant safety today. That plant was an abomination of safety from day one.
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #5 of 44
5/10/10 at 9:03am
Nuclear power sucks. Get rid of it now.

"If your enemies cannot find a flaw in your reasoning, they will find it in your reputation".

~ William Hazlitt

Reply

"If your enemies cannot find a flaw in your reasoning, they will find it in your reputation".

~ William Hazlitt

Reply
post #6 of 44
5/10/10 at 9:06am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Nuclear power sucks. Get rid of it now.

Nuclear suck.
Oil sucks.
Coal sucks.

Let's get rid of them all now and just sit around in our homes, in the dark, in the cold (or heat) while we slowly starve to death.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #7 of 44
5/10/10 at 9:26am
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Nuclear suck.
Oil sucks.
Coal sucks.

Let's get rid of them all now and just sit around in our homes, in the dark, in the cold (or heat) while we slowly starve to death.


We could have far more solar and wind etc power than we will get from nuclear power by the time these plants are built. The extra money would also spur more advances in engineering. But of course you are have to come out with a Fox News kind of baby line. Telling.

"If your enemies cannot find a flaw in your reasoning, they will find it in your reputation".

~ William Hazlitt

Reply

"If your enemies cannot find a flaw in your reasoning, they will find it in your reputation".

~ William Hazlitt

Reply
post #8 of 44
5/10/10 at 9:28am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

We could have far more solar and wind etc power than we will get from nuclear power by the time these plants are built. The extra money would also spur more advances in engineering.

Of course.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

But of course you are have to come out with a Fox News kind of baby line. Telling.



I think and speak for myself TYVM and I probably don't fit into your little boxes and labels.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #9 of 44
5/10/10 at 10:08am
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Of course.



I think and speak for myself TYVM and I probably don't fit into your little boxes and labels.

I have Hands on ignore but just one question for the haters of Coal, oil and nuclear energy. With what power will they create all those panels, turbines, and other gadgets of amazement if they simply cut nuclear and coal and oil as electricity sources right now. I am sure that our hydro electric and other sources will simply pick up the slack with no problems while they implement the new and improved energy sources ASAP.

I know, reality sucks, I want my superclean and green power with no side effects. Let me know when batteries stop being a tremendous source of waste, when solar panels are created with no by products and when turbines and metal alloys are created with nothing but wind and rainbows. What they are looking for is all the benefits of electricity, and no draw backs. THAT DOES NOT EXIST.
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #10 of 44
5/10/10 at 10:19am
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoahJ View Post

I have Hands on ignore but just one question for the haters of Coal, oil and nuclear energy. With what power will they create all those panels, turbines, and other gadgets of amazement if they simply cut nuclear and coal and oil as electricity sources right now. I am sure that our hydro electric and other sources will simply pick up the slack with no problems while they implement the new and improved energy sources ASAP.

I know, reality sucks, I want my superclean and green power with no side effects. Let me know when batteries stop being a tremendous source of waste, when solar panels are created with no by products and when turbines and metal alloys are created with nothing but wind and rainbows. What they are looking for is all the benefits of electricity, and no draw backs. THAT DOES NOT EXIST.

What's especially vexing (reality vs. dreams and all that) is why things like solar and wind (the two main alternatives remaining) haven't achieved traction even given government subsidization?

The pat answer is that there's an evil conspiracy to squash these alternative energy sources.

The reality has to do with both economics and physics. Dreams can't escape the fact that coal, oil and nuclear materials contain the highest density of energy per cubic inch or the fact that the economics of these energy sources beat the others hands down.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #11 of 44
5/10/10 at 2:01pm
When our nation had a plentiful supply of oil (and coal) to burn, there was little incentive to develop a replacement. Our infrastructure developed and evolved alongside this plentiful and available source, so by the time this domestic source started to dwindle, and resources became more difficult (and thus expensive) to extract, rather than re-invest in developing alternatives domestically, we started to get into imperialist ventures throughout the world, targeting nations plentiful in what we now lack, with brute force. Why? It's far easier, quicker (in theory) and appealed to a large section of the public's (distorted/perverted) "sense" of patriotism. (!)

Forget the name-calling, the childish bickering and infantile squabbling that infests the discussion. The only real blame can be assigned to human nature itself. After all, if things are going fine now, why spend all that effort looking after future generations when *we* are not going to even be here? No matter where you are, what system is in place ... from marxism on one extreme, to jungle-law "mafiocracy"-style capitalism on the other extreme, politicians donot look to the future.. it's not a vote catcher.

Lack of foresight, institutionalized greed, inertia/laziness and bloodyminded adherence to tradition tend to rule in the seats of power, regardless of what country or political persuasion of the party/dictator/monarch etc. in office. Sadly, even if the Green Party, by force of a miracle, somehow managed a get a majority of candidates elected to Congress and the Senate, or even the White House, the system, directed by the foibles of human nature itself, would prevent them from making the changes we require to insure that future generations inherited the kind of world we would all like to live in. Despite their earth-friendly name, they are as corruptible as anyone else.
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #12 of 44
5/10/10 at 3:08pm
  • BR
  • Justified Arrogance
My fellow lefties need to get on board and learn the science of nuclear power. It is safe, clean, and efficient. They hurt our cause when they make blatantly ignorant statements about the "dangers" of nuclear power. They look doubly ignorant when they bring up Chernobyl. *sigh*

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #13 of 44
5/10/10 at 3:24pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

My fellow lefties need to get on board and learn the science of nuclear power. It is safe, clean, and efficient. They hurt our cause when they make blatantly ignorant statements about the "dangers" of nuclear power. They look doubly ignorant when they bring up Chernobyl. *sigh*

Regardless of the much greater safety of modern nuclear power technology, how is it going to be possible to successfully commission, and build just *one* new nuclear power plant on the mainland US, given the public's (almost) universal hostility towards nuclear power generation in their neighborhood... let alone the dozens that will have to be planned and constructed in order to make an appreciable difference on the infrastructure's dependence on fossil fuels? Nuclear power is a vote-loser on either side of the political spectrum.
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #14 of 44
5/10/10 at 3:44pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

My fellow lefties need to get on board and learn the science of nuclear power. It is safe, clean, and efficient. They hurt our cause when they make blatantly ignorant statements about the "dangers" of nuclear power. They look doubly ignorant when they bring up Chernobyl. *sigh*

Are you saying that the dangers from terrorist attacks succeeding in a major contamination are negligible whether on the stored waste or the plant itself?

"Terrorists targeting the high-density storage systems used at nuclear power plants throughout the nation could cause contamination problems "significantly worse than those from Chernobyl," the study found.

Strapped for long-term storage options, the nation's 103 nuclear power plants routinely pack four to five times the number of spent fuel rods into water-cooled tanks than the tanks were designed to hold, the authors reported. This high-density configuration is safe when cooled by water, but would likely cause a fire -- with catastrophic results -- if the cooling water leaked. The tanks could be ruptured by a hijacked jet or sabotage, the study contends.
The consequences of such a fire would be the release of a radiation plume that would contaminate eight to 70 times more land than the area affected by the 1986 accident in Chernobyl. The cost of such a disaster would run into the hundreds of billions of dollars, the researchers reported."
~ http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0214073629.htm

"If your enemies cannot find a flaw in your reasoning, they will find it in your reputation".

~ William Hazlitt

Reply

"If your enemies cannot find a flaw in your reasoning, they will find it in your reputation".

~ William Hazlitt

Reply
post #15 of 44
5/10/10 at 6:14pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoahJ View Post

The fact that you would try to use Chernobyl as your point of protest shows how little you care about the reality of Nuclear Power plant safety today. That plant was an abomination of safety from day one.

All of the new plants are just as save as the BP oil rig.
Remember we haven't built one in a long time.... practice makes perfect.

What are the chances that Chernobyl will never happen again?
1 in 1000?
What do you think?
yes I want oil genocide.
Reply
yes I want oil genocide.
Reply
post #16 of 44
5/10/10 at 7:24pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wormhole View Post

All of the new plants are just as save as the BP oil rig.
Remember we haven't built one in a long time.... practice makes perfect.

What are the chances that Chernobyl will never happen again?
1 in 1000?
What do you think?

I think that the likelihood of Chernobyl happening again is more like 1 in 1,000,000.

I found this argument that people were having on debate.org.
http://www.debate.org/debates/A-Cher...ited-States/1/

Kind of interesting. Not sure how scientific it is.

Anyhow, BR has much more vested time in Nuclear reactor safety than I do. I am sure with what little I know, that the problems of issues at the reactor are minimal if any. Most of them have to do with storage of the wastes after use. That would be what I would focus my concern on...
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #17 of 44
5/10/10 at 8:14pm
The storage facilities are already built. But the ignorant populace is afraid of storing it, transporting it, etc.

Nuclear waste is "dangerous" because it is radioactive. In laymans terms, that means it is giving off energy. So let's go ahead and store it... And do a little research on how we can use it's energy... In time (years? Decades? Centuries?) we'll figure out a way to harness that energy, and we'll have a big stockpile of fuel waiting to be used.

France = the worlds largest generator of nuclear energy. How many meltdowns (or other major accidents) has their nuclear program had in the last 40 years?
Why insist on using the sub-standard operation of Chernobel as an assumption of what all nuclear plants are like?

Let's use Three Mile Island as an example of how NON-dangerous a meltdown can be. Sure it could have been prevented, but accidents do happen... It was quickly and properly contained with the only long-term damage confined to our national energy policy.
From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, "Look at that!" -...
Reply
From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, "Look at that!" -...
Reply
post #18 of 44
5/10/10 at 9:45pm
  • BR
  • Justified Arrogance
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

Regardless of the much greater safety of modern nuclear power technology, how is it going to be possible to successfully commission, and build just *one* new nuclear power plant on the mainland US, given the public's (almost) universal hostility towards nuclear power generation in their neighborhood... let alone the dozens that will have to be planned and constructed in order to make an appreciable difference on the infrastructure's dependence on fossil fuels? Nuclear power is a vote-loser on either side of the political spectrum.

The fear is based on ignorance. We need to educate our populace so first they understand how it is literally impossible to have a Chernobyl event based on modern technology. Modern reactors are now built such that as reactions get out of control, a natural negative feedback loop occurs that contains it and brings the reaction back to safe levels without any outside interference.

If we, as lefties, expect to successfully denounce many of the right's policies because they are built on fear and ignorance, we cannot do the same here. Please, for the love of Horus, learn a bit about modern nuclear reactor technology and stop arguing from a baseless position.

Yes, it is unfortunate that we haven't built a plant in ages. We'll need to bring in experts from countries that have continued their nuclear programs to help us out. Let that not be something that prevents us from building more plants. Let that instead be a lesson that we cannot let fear and ignorance put us behind the science and technology curve. Let us learn that we cannot ever be complacent and need to continue to improve upon our physical and intellectual infrastructure.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #19 of 44
5/11/10 at 8:35am
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

The fear is based on ignorance. We need to educate our populace so first they understand how it is literally impossible to have a Chernobyl event based on modern technology. Modern reactors are now built such that as reactions get out of control, a natural negative feedback loop occurs that contains it and brings the reaction back to safe levels without any outside interference.

If we, as lefties, expect to successfully denounce many of the right's policies because they are built on fear and ignorance, we cannot do the same here. Please, for the love of Horus, learn a bit about modern nuclear reactor technology and stop arguing from a baseless position.

Yes, it is unfortunate that we haven't built a plant in ages. We'll need to bring in experts from countries that have continued their nuclear programs to help us out. Let that not be something that prevents us from building more plants. Let that instead be a lesson that we cannot let fear and ignorance put us behind the science and technology curve. Let us learn that we cannot ever be complacent and need to continue to improve upon our physical and intellectual infrastructure.


I believe it would be better to develop small scale nuclear power ala nuke subs and airplane carriers, I think we've built a few of those. A small reactor can run a district or a town and will not need long transmission lines which are another potential problem. Copper isn't getting any cheaper either. Combined with other sources small reactors can supply communities with the power they need and can be owned by same. We would be looking at a nice sturdy energy supply.
yes I want oil genocide.
Reply
yes I want oil genocide.
Reply
post #20 of 44
5/11/10 at 1:35pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wormhole View Post

I believe it would be better to develop small scale nuclear power ala nuke subs and airplane carriers, I think we've built a few of those. A small reactor can run a district or a town and will not need long transmission lines which are another potential problem. Copper isn't getting any cheaper either. Combined with other sources small reactors can supply communities with the power they need and can be owned by same. We would be looking at a nice sturdy energy supply.

The ideal, of course, is to encourage micro-scale power generation, and help alleviate the strain on the grid, by reducing demand on centralized, large scale power generation.

13,000 times more energy than we consume arrives on the Earth's surface from the Sun... and its all for free, yet how much investment has there been in developing ultra-mass-produced (hence extremely cheap) PV technology, compared to the $trillions we waste on empire-building and slaughter in the middle east to insure a steady supply of a substance which is not only putting the planet (and our health) at risk, in multiple ways, but also has a very finite lifetime? Utterly pitiful.

One square yard of PV panel can yield up to 150 watts (during periods of high insolation).. a 200 square foot roof area (very modest size) is thus capable of yielding >3000 watts. If an "average" home at draws about 15 amps of current (or approx 1600 watts, averaging out the variable demand)...common sense should tell us the rest. If we were serious about energy, where's the all-out effort into developing the most efficient PV panels, and battery/capacitor storage devices to take up the slack during the nighttime and cloudy days? If we were serious about energy, which is the foundation of our industrialized society.... especially here in the Southwestern US, with 300+ days of bright sunshine annually.... then we should be taking advantage of not just solar, but ALL sources, especially those which are essentially free, once the initial investment is made. The sun and the wind will still be there 2,000,000,000+ years into the future, unlike fossil fuels. Just like many corporations only have the next quarterly statement in mind, politicians only think as far forward as the next election campaign.

Re. modern safe(r) nuclear technology: There is some potential hope® in the wings: If it's possible to convince a majority of Americans that (a) the Earth is only 6000 years old, (b) we are being regularly visited by extraterrestrials, and (c) the laws of nature can be arbitrarily suspended when it is politically expedient, then it should be a breeze to convince the public (given the will and wherewithal, of course), that they have nothing to fear from a modern, well-regulated nuke on their doorstep.
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #21 of 44
5/11/10 at 1:41pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

The ideal, of course, is to encourage micro-scale power generation, and help alleviate the strain on the grid, by reducing demand on centralized, large scale power generation.

13,000 times more energy than we consume arrives on the Earth's surface from the Sun... and its all for free, yet how much investment has there been in developing ultra-mass-produced (hence extremely cheap) PV technology, compared to the $trillions we waste on empire-building and slaughter in the middle east to insure a steady supply of a substance which is not only putting the planet (and our health) at risk, in multiple ways, but also has a very finite lifetime? Utterly pitiful.

One square yard of PV panel can yield up to 150 watts (during periods of high insolation).. a 200 square foot roof area (very modest size) is thus capable of yielding >3000 watts. If an "average" home at draws about 15 amps of current (or approx 1600 watts, averaging out the variable demand)...common sense should tell us the rest. If we were serious about energy, where's the all-out effort into developing the most efficient PV panels, and battery/capacitor storage devices to take up the slack during the nighttime and cloudy days? If we were serious about energy, which is the foundation of our industrialized society.... especially here in the Southwestern US, with 300+ days of bright sunshine annually.... then we should be taking advantage of not just solar, but ALL sources, especially those which are essentially free, once the initial investment is made. The sun and the wind will still be there 2,000,000,000+ years into the future, unlike fossil fuels. Just like many corporations only have the next quarterly statement in mind, politicians only think as far forward as the next election campaign.

Re. modern safe(r) nuclear technology: There is some potential hope® in the wings: If it's possible to convince a majority of Americans that (a) the Earth is only 6000 years old, (b) we are being regularly visited by extraterrestrials, and (c) the laws of nature can be arbitrarily suspended when it is politically expedient, then it should be a breeze to convince the public (given the will and wherewithal, of course), that they have nothing to fear from a modern, well-regulated nuke on their doorstep.

Well written, until the last paragraph...
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #22 of 44
5/11/10 at 1:57pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

There is some potential hope® in the wings: If it's possible to convince a majority of Americans that (a) the Earth is only 6000 years old, (b) we are being regularly visited by extraterrestrials, and (c) the laws of nature can be arbitrarily suspended when it is politically expedient, then it should be a breeze to convince the public (given the will and wherewithal, of course), that they have nothing to fear from a modern, well-regulated nuke on their doorstep.

Can we add:

(d) the laws of economics can be arbitrarily suspended when it is politically expedient and by legislative fiat

?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #23 of 44
5/11/10 at 3:35pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1qEGP2GiO4E

"If your enemies cannot find a flaw in your reasoning, they will find it in your reputation".

~ William Hazlitt

Reply

"If your enemies cannot find a flaw in your reasoning, they will find it in your reputation".

~ William Hazlitt

Reply
post #24 of 44
5/11/10 at 3:58pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

The ideal, of course, is to encourage micro-scale power generation, and help alleviate the strain on the grid, by reducing demand on centralized, large scale power generation.

13,000 times more energy than we consume arrives on the Earth's surface from the Sun... and its all for free, yet how much investment has there been in developing ultra-mass-produced (hence extremely cheap) PV technology, compared to the $trillions we waste on empire-building and slaughter in the middle east to insure a steady supply of a substance which is not only putting the planet (and our health) at risk, in multiple ways, but also has a very finite lifetime? Utterly pitiful.

One square yard of PV panel can yield up to 150 watts (during periods of high insolation).. a 200 square foot roof area (very modest size) is thus capable of yielding >3000 watts. If an "average" home at draws about 15 amps of current (or approx 1600 watts, averaging out the variable demand)...common sense should tell us the rest. If we were serious about energy, where's the all-out effort into developing the most efficient PV panels, and battery/capacitor storage devices to take up the slack during the nighttime and cloudy days? If we were serious about energy, which is the foundation of our industrialized society.... especially here in the Southwestern US, with 300+ days of bright sunshine annually.... then we should be taking advantage of not just solar, but ALL sources, especially those which are essentially free, once the initial investment is made. The sun and the wind will still be there 2,000,000,000+ years into the future, unlike fossil fuels. Just like many corporations only have the next quarterly statement in mind, politicians only think as far forward as the next election campaign.

Re. modern safe(r) nuclear technology: There is some potential hope® in the wings: If it's possible to convince a majority of Americans that (a) the Earth is only 6000 years old, (b) we are being regularly visited by extraterrestrials, and (c) the laws of nature can be arbitrarily suspended when it is politically expedient, then it should be a breeze to convince the public (given the will and wherewithal, of course), that they have nothing to fear from a modern, well-regulated nuke on their doorstep.

i am producing an avg of 98 KWH per day with all of my panels combined (6 homes). The house I live in has the first system I installed and has generated 26,000KWH since 2005. I made use of the government and E company incentives and tax breaks and I only paid 1/3 of the full price for the systems.
I make so much energy that I have to waste some otherwise I have to give it away. I am lobbying the gov. to change the law so producers get paid full price like in Germany. I would put up even more panels if the law changes. Currently Electric Cos have too much power over government.
Decentralization of Energy production is the future.
yes I want oil genocide.
Reply
yes I want oil genocide.
Reply
post #25 of 44
5/11/10 at 6:36pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wormhole View Post

i am producing an avg of 98 KWH per day with all of my panels combined (6 homes). The house I live in has the first system I installed and has generated 26,000KWH since 2005. I made use of the government and E company incentives and tax breaks and I only paid 1/3 of the full price for the systems.
I make so much energy that I have to waste some otherwise I have to give it away. I am lobbying the gov. to change the law so producers get paid full price like in Germany. I would put up even more panels if the law changes.

Bravo!

Quote:
Currently Electric Cos have too much power over government.
Decentralization of Energy production is the future.

Absolutely and absolutely.
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #26 of 44
5/11/10 at 9:40pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Can we add:

(d) the laws of economics can be arbitrarily suspended when it is politically expedient and by legislative fiat?

What laws of economics? Judging from the fiascos of the last few years, in which the bastions of capitalism had to turn to taxpayer-funded public welfare.... socialism of the order of $Trillions merely to survive, combined with the endless rogues' gallery of corporate criminals who have become the public face of big business.. perhaps "suspension of the laws of economics" might be a good thing.

On the other hand, what *are* the laws of economics, if indeed there are any? And since when did making money out of thin air qualify as sound economic practice?
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #27 of 44
5/11/10 at 9:58pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoahJ View Post

Well written, until the last paragraph...

Nothing that wrong with the last paragraph....
(a) approximately half the US population does believe that the Earth is <10,000 years old, and most specifically, the "6,000 year" figure which keeps cropping up. All the evidence in the relevant mainstream sciences supports the position that the Earth is "billions of years" old.
(b) approximately half the US population also believe that Earth has been, or still is being visited by aliens from other worlds. There is zero tangible evidence in mainstream science that would support this theory.. although one must concede that in this case "absence of evidence does not imply evidence of absence).
(c) The laws of nature, such as the law of conservation of momentum, or Newton's Laws of Motion, or the laws of thermodynamics, for examples, are long established, and remain consistent and inviolate. No amount of political expediency, garbage science on the part of government agencies, or wishful thinking, on the part of corrupt politicians, knee-padded mainstream media conglomerates, nor gullible wrong-headedness on the part of the public, are capable of changing that fact. A breach of the laws of nature constitutes a "miracle". Sorry, but I do not include "miracles" in my world view any more than I expect the Sun to rise in the West, or gravity to act upwards.
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #28 of 44
5/12/10 at 5:34am
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

What laws of economics? Judging from the fiascos of the last few years, in which the bastions of capitalism had to turn to taxpayer-funded public welfare.... socialism of the order of $Trillions merely to survive, combined with the endless rogues' gallery of corporate criminals who have become the public face of big business.. perhaps "suspension of the laws of economics" might be a good thing.

On the other hand, what *are* the laws of economics, if indeed there are any?

<sigh>

It's not all that hard. There are a few books you could read.

\


Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

And since when did making money out of thin air qualify as sound economic practice?

You'll have to ask the Fed. They are the only ones I know of that actually make money out of thin air.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #29 of 44
5/12/10 at 6:16am
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Can we add:

(d) the laws of economics can be arbitrarily suspended when it is politically expedient and by legislative fiat

?

Or that

(e) the laws of economics can be totally ignored when it pertains to the complete and utter historical failure of supply-side heavy economic policy?

(f) the disastrous human effects of poor regulation can be completely ignored by those who push for "free trade"?
Reply
Reply
post #30 of 44
5/12/10 at 6:18am
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

There are a few books you could read.

And there are many you could read as well that don't fall in line with *your* way of thinking.
Reply
Reply
post #31 of 44
5/12/10 at 6:38am
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

And there are many you could read as well that don't fall in line with *your* way of thinking.



Indeed there are. And, you might be surprised to know there are many you could read as well that don't fall in line with *your* way of thinking.

But I wasn't really talking about my opinion. I was referring to the common and widely accepted (among nearly 100% of economists and those who study and understand economics) understanding how things work. Things like the laws of supply and demand. The ideas around trade, division of labor, specialization. The concept of comparative advantage. The concept of marginal utility. Etc. There are quite a number of fairly basic things that have very little to do with *my* "way of thinking" and have everything to do with a couple hundred years of economic thought, reasoning, study, evidence, examples, etc. These things are are often ignored for the purposes of political expedience or assumed they can simply be overcome by legislative fiat. They cannot. They have not. The won't ever be.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #32 of 44
5/12/10 at 6:39am
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Or that

(e) the laws of economics can be totally ignored when it pertains to the complete and utter historical failure of supply-side heavy economic policy?

(f) the disastrous human effects of poor regulation can be completely ignored by those who push for "free trade"?

OK. Whatever. Are you talking to me? Not sure where I mentioned supply-side economics*, but whatever. And then your second item appears to a a sort of random, incoherent jumble of thoughts and ideas. Get back to me when you have a coherent question.

*Do you even know what supply-side economics is beyond the caricature you've created in your head? Are you prepared to enumerate all of the historical failures of it? Why it failed and how it failed?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #33 of 44
5/12/10 at 9:55am
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Or that
the disastrous human effects of poor regulation can be completely ignored by those who push for "free trade"?

Free trade? "Free?? My a$$! "Free Trade" is a popular Orwellian doublespeak term for "coerced and restrained trade operated exclusively through debt medium of exchange in the interest of international finance".
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #34 of 44
5/12/10 at 10:08am
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

Free trade? "Free?? My a$$! "Free Trade" is a popular Orwellian doublespeak term for "coerced and restrained trade operated exclusively through debt medium of exchange in the interest of international finance".

Just so that I'm clear here. Are you opposed to actual free trade or trade that is passed off as "free" by both politicians and many (but not all) corporate representatives? For example, something like the "North American Free Trade Agreement" is really not a free trade agreement. It is far from it. It is a managed trade agreement, which is not at all the same thing. But it is called a free trade agreement.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #35 of 44
5/12/10 at 10:14am
EEStor. Storing power.

Electric car with 250 mile range going from empty to fully charged in as little as 3-6 minutes with an EEStor battery.

Barite, much, much cheaper than lithium, much easier to mine and is found all over the world in much bigger supplies, especially in North America and instead of a thousand recharges it can be recharged millions of times.
~ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EUKGpqdad0E


Oh but wait there's clean nuclear -

"Canadian nuclear safety regulators say they have underestimated the seriousness of a design feature at the country’s electricity-producing reactors that would cause them to experience dangerous power pulses during a major accident.
If reactors are not shut down quickly, their ability to keep radioactivity from escaping would be put to the test, according to an internal commission document."
~ http://www.nuclearcounterfeit.com/?p=1083

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1lBtjnQfuy4

"If your enemies cannot find a flaw in your reasoning, they will find it in your reputation".

~ William Hazlitt

Reply

"If your enemies cannot find a flaw in your reasoning, they will find it in your reputation".

~ William Hazlitt

Reply
post #36 of 44
5/12/10 at 10:58am
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Just so that I'm clear here. Are you opposed to actual free trade or trade that is passed off as "free" by both politicians and many (but not all) corporate representatives? For example, something like the "North American Free Trade Agreement" is really not a free trade agreement. It is far from it. It is a managed trade agreement, which is not at all the same thing. But it is called a free trade agreement.

I am all for actual free trade, the fair exchange of goods and services, untrammeled by power, favoritism/privilege/duplicity, coercion, extortion, fraud/misrepresentation and other criminal practices, on the part of government or private individuals, or both working in tandem. Sounds utopian.. perhaps... but there's plenty of "free trade" going on. Just look at the huge majority of small business (in the US and all over the world) which operates within the rules (or else!!), whereas the "biggest" boys,regardless of nationality get away with anything.... just because they can. Thats the way the system has evolved, and how human nature works. Sad but true.

"Free trade" is not synonymous with "fair trade", any more than "capitalism" is synonymous with "free enterprise".
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #37 of 44
5/12/10 at 11:01am
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

You'll have to ask the Fed. They are the only ones I know of that actually make money out of thin air.

That's another issue for another thread.
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #38 of 44
5/12/10 at 11:18am
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

I am all for actual free trade, the fair exchange of goods and services, untrammeled by power, favoritism/privilege/duplicity, coercion, extortion, fraud/misrepresentation and other criminal practices, on the part of government or private individuals, or both working in tandem. Sounds utopian.. perhaps... but there's plenty of "free trade" going on. Just look at the huge majority of small business (in the US and all over the world) which operates within the rules (or else!!), whereas the "biggest" boys,regardless of nationality get away with anything.... just because they can. Thats the way the system has evolved, and how human nature works. Sad but true.

I agree with what you say here. I think you need to be a bit careful about conflating free trade and fair trade. I only say this because some people try to use "fair" trade as a wedge to drive another agenda that typically involves some top down planning on trade. If by fair you simply mean that anyone is allowed to voluntarily exchange with another absent coercion and fraud and unmolested by various government rules (usually designed to protect special interest), then I would agree. But that's how I would define real free trade anyway. My point is that "fair" can be a loaded word that might have multiple layers of meanings.


Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

"Free trade" is not synonymous with "fair trade", any more than "capitalism" is synonymous with "free enterprise".

I also agree with this. The use of these terms is often muddied and blurry. The term "capitalism" in particular can refer to a range of things from true free enterprise or free market capitalism to "crony capitalism," "state capitalism," "corporate socialism" or even "corporatism"/fascism. Most people, when railing against the free market or capitalism, when you dig deeper into what they object to, don't even realize what they're complaining about is really those latter things (i.e., "crony capitalism," "state capitalism," "corporate socialism" or even "corporatism"/fascism) rather than true free market/free enterprise capitalism.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #39 of 44
5/12/10 at 11:19am
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

That's another issue for another thread.

I haven't read it yet. It's on my list though.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #40 of 44
5/12/10 at 6:25pm
Has no one else heard of 'backyard nuclear reactors?'

Code:

http://www.hyperionpowergeneration.com/about.html
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › The greenies destroyed the world by protesting nuclear power