Slashdot Mirror
McCain Backs Nuclear Power
bagsc writes "Senator John McCain set out another branch of his energy policy agenda today, with a key point: 45 new nuclear power plants by 2030." So it finally appears that this discussion is back on the table. I'm curious how Nevada feels about this, as well as the Obama campaign. All it took was $4/gallon gas I guess. When it hits $5, I figure one of the campaigns will start to promote Perpetual Motion.
Hey jackass, where are you going to store all the nuclear waster? In your backyard? Let's sing you up. Do some research. The US cannot drill it's way out of high oil and gas prices. We produce 3% of the worlds oil and consume 24%. Do the math. We do not have the oil reserves. The Feds have constantly be handing out oil permits to the oil companies to drill on Federal lands. There are approximately 68 million acres of land that is licensed for drilling but the oil companies have not drilled on! There are over 7,000 permits for drilling today and yet no more drilling. You might want to ask big oil why they aren't drilling on the land available to them today but keep saying they need more permits. Jackass.
I'm in the UK and pay £1.35/litre for diesel
That's $11.97/gallon
The US don't know they've got it made.
My NHS mileage allowance only just covers work fuel bills (forget wear and tear, business class insurance, etc. and I only bought the car coz it's need for work). At the current rate of increase in diesel prices I'll be subsidising the NHS in under 8 weeks. And I'm not the only one!
Calling it silly paranoia does not make it so. It's not paranoia, it's justifiable fear. For instance, had 9/11 attackers decided to concentrate on the holding areas of nuclear power stations, a good chunk of the eastern US could have been made uninhabitable for the next 5000 years. When I hear people say "trust me, all those things that went or nearly wrong in the past can never go wrong in the future" it doesn't give me a warm glow anything like as profound as that caused by nuclear waste.
http://rareformnewmedia.com/
Well if enjoying s feeling of superiority is more important than winning the argument... great move!
DRM-free indie games for the PC and Mac: Positech Games
Another voter in the la la land for change. There is no solution on Obama's mind is there? Oh wait, I forgot that we have change. A change for the future, because the future is ahead of us... For a brighter future, full of change. /roll eyes/
Name one reason why increasing supply while removing reliance on foreign sources won't solve the price? Have you taken economics? Meanwhile, I'd like to see us move entirely away from coal burning power sources and to something far more efficient like nuclear. It will be a great power source until something better comes along. Unless, of course, Obama simply wants to raise taxes on a select few companies. Yeah, windfall taxes are a great solution.
Where's my sock? There it is...
It's a perpetual myth that energy costs are rising because of lack of energy, when in fact energy costs are rising because the Dollar is being massively devalued on domestic and international markets.
This is what happens when you have a fiat currency that's backed by nothing, and created out of debt. Every time the market "corrects" it leads to runaway inflation and rising costs because the dollar loses value as more and more worthless money gets pumped into the market to bail out near insolvent corporations and banks after the recent sub-prime scandal.
Don't blame lack of abundant energy, blame this fiasco of an economy run by a sadistic elitist banking cartel (the Federal Reserve) that has placed the American people and much of the world into a neo-serfdom.
I would welcome having a nuclear plant in my neighborhood or, if my property were a few dozen acres bigger to accomodate it, even in my back yard.
... say lightning ... to the number of deaths related to radiation at nuclear plants *EVER*. According to here (http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap03/nat_hazard.html) an average of 2000 people die per year due to lightning. Cherynobl? 57.
Radiation is essentially zero, safety is as great, and potential fringe benefits (could easily provide municipal steam/heat to a moderate community) make it an easy choice.
Let's compare the people killed *per year* by
And it only cost 300,000+ people being permanently resettled elsewhere with millions more living in slightly elevated radiation zones. Food and livestock in areas of the UK, Germany, Austria, Italy, Sweden, Finland, Lithuania and (don't forget!) Poland have restrictions because of contamination. This is 20 years after the disaster! Lets put one in your backyard!
Here come da fudge!
This is a pretty clumsy attempt at a partisan attack. For one thing the text itself points out that half the Dems were in support of the reactor. For another, the Democrats controlled both House and Senate between 1992-94, so it's not surprising that's who's featured in the coverage of that time.
Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.