Slashdot Mirror
Could the US Phase Out Nuclear Power?
mdsolar writes "In the wake of the Fukushima nuclear disaster in Japan, [German Chancellor] Merkel announced that her country would close all of its 17 existing reactors by 2022. Other nations, including Japan, Italy, and Switzerland, have announced plans to pare back nuclear power, but none have gone as far as Germany, the world's fourth-largest economy. Merkel vows to replace nuclear power with alternatives that do not increase greenhouse gases or shackle the economic growth. Could the US do the same? An increasing number of reports suggest it is not beyond the realm of possibility, and Germany could provide a road map."
... from foaming-at-the-mouth, pro-nuclear Slashdotters.
We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
There really isn't any necessary.
The phrase "never again" means "never again".
Germany is on the world's permanent "shut up" list.
TWR... probably not Technical Work Request or Tom Walkenshaw Racing... Tower Water Return - that sounds about right. Still no idea what that is as far as nuclear power goes, I thought that was mainly for milk pasteurization.
My brother, a massive conservative (the Rush Limbaugh is always right and Fox News is the only real news kind - the rest are all liberal media), would say never, and he thinks solar and wind are a waste of time - after all, solar only really works half the year in half the country and most of the time the wind turbines seem to be shut off anyway. Wind power also only runs when it's windy, so you need a way of storing the energy (I suggested flywheels and he pshawed me without explaining before continuing his rant against wind). Geothermal depends entirely on digging massive holes (uneconomical in many places) and hydro depends on damming up rivers (scientists say this affects the earth rotation, too), and you can only do so much of that. He also says wind power actually costs more to create than its return in energy cost (I don't know if that is true, but that is what Fox news probably told him).
Just thought I'd mention what the far right thinks... I think he's poorly informed, but he thinks I am - as in global warming is a liberal lie (earth temperatures cycle and we are in the warm part is the Fox News angle) and I'm a sucker for believing it - he also thinks the ozone hole was a natural phenomenon that repeats periodically and not caused by CFCs - CFCs may be able to do damage to ozone, but they drift into space before they make much of an impact - and yes, I'm serious - that is what conservative science thinks. Of course, knowing that, then why did Bush rush bans CFC asthma inhalers so he can say he made a move on a treaty (and this was the ONLY move he made on that treaty)? Asthmatics in return get crappy patented HFA inhalers that don't work and 3/4 of them contain asthma inducing compounds (i.e. alcohol, which many asthmatics react to) because they were rush studied on healthy adults, not asthmatics. That over something that contributed less than 1% of CFCs - incidentally, the space shuttle alone generates 25%, but was exempt from the treaty.
You sir are ignorant and opinionated about something you clearly know little about.
You fit in on /. perfectly.
Who says they're safer? You? Government regulators and Wall Street?
Shut the fuck up.