Pick your green, GreenPeace and Green Party oppose nuclear power as do many other "environmentalist" groups. The irrational fear of nuclear power has real world consequences, obstructing plant construction means fallback to convenient alternative, the burning of fossil fuels.
not upset at all, other smarter countries, more than just China, are indeed growing the number of nuclear power plants, and doing R&D into the thorium cycle which is a future path to develop while uranium used. the United States will backcome a backwater if it cannot stop floundering about the issue of energy sufficient to drive progress. There are other ways, requiring trillion dollar plus investment, than nuclear to do it, but the half-hearted attempts with solar panels and wind will not be it
I've noticed an increased propensity for nuclear armed countries to invade and kill citizens of non-nuclear ones. seems like incentive for proliferation to me
but energy use drives progress and quality/length of life. we need a plan of producing increasing amounts of energy that is carbon neutral and with no lingering waste products (which advanced reactors can do).
not in a smart reactor design, wastes that decay in decades rather than tens of thousands of years can be produced. We have to get off the stupid 1950s reactor designs and onto the proper ones that as a bonus cannot melt down even if power fails to cooling system
for centuries, as that's how much supply we have. bet those anti-nuke greenies are very happy. one pound of natural uranium supplies the energy of 16,000 pounds of coal, and our "spent fuel" is actually a gold mine of energy to get six or more times the yield again while at the same time transforming it to short lived wastes. Used in breeder, one pound thorium has the energy of 300 lbs. uranium or 4,800,000 pounds of coal! there's a real solution to driving technology, civilization and quality of life forward. not burning a fire like hominids did a 400,000 years ago.
nuclear reactors produce 55% of the power where I live, that's a solution that can make a huge difference. one ton of natural uranium can produce the energy of 16,000 tons of coal.
keep going, the LED lights save 40% of that 1.6% or 0.64%. So 0.64 of 140 million short tons of oil * 7.3 barrels per ton is 65 million barrels of oil equivalent saved for the whole world. the U.S. alone consumes 19 million barrels of oil per day, so why bother?
actually, by the site's own claims 22% of energy is used for lighting, and 8% of the 22% for outdoor lighting.....1.6% is not much to be worried about saving a portion of, sorry.
where do you live? I can drive hour out into the country and see the Milky Way, even near houses with lights on. more a matter of lack of street lamps and clean air (doesn't work near large cities)
In 1962 we took an existing space program and technology and made a new goal of reaching another world. We then reached that goal. We have in 2013 a bigger existing space program and even more technology. There is no reason we couldn't reach another world in less than a decade, for a price that is a tenth or less of a purposeless war or maintaining a nuclear weapons arsenal of obscene and uselessly huge size.
We *supported* Saddam while he made the WMD and supported his war with Iran. He was our paid man doing our dirty work with funding and resources we provided. Those were OUR weapons doing OUR work!
"It is becoming increasingly clear that George Bush, operating largely behind the scenes throughout the 1980s, initiated and supported much of the financing, intelligence, and military help that built Saddam's Iraq into the power it became",[5] and "Reagan/Bush administrations permitted—and frequently encouraged—the flow of money, agricultural credits, dual-use technology, chemicals, and weapons to Iraq." -- Ted Koppel, Nightline, 1992
Yes, that Constitution says only Congress can declare war. Congress need only de-fund any military action by the president, or outright outlaw them with sufficient numbers to override veto.
so the pictures of hundreds of bullet ridden and fire burned and cluster bombed (psst, made in USA) children from decades years past, of all the conflicts we DIDN'T care about nor get involved in did nothing for you?
Irrelevant. They also have killed many more of themselves with guns and bombs, what's the difference? dead is dead. there are terrorists on both sides of this fight. it's not our problem, and there are plenty of other places in the world with genocide and murder by tyrants, but you don't care about those because they're not in the daily news. So yes, I'm as fine with the Syrians gassing themselves as I am about situation in Burma or Rowanda or North Korea, of which we aren't going to do a damned thing
dream on, anyone can make chemical weapons, impossible to stop them from being made. terrorists exist on both sides of the fight in Syria, no matter who wins or loses terrorists will have access to the chemical weapons there. There is no purpose or reason for the U.S. to intervene other than evil ones
Slashdot Mirror
Pick your green, GreenPeace and Green Party oppose nuclear power as do many other "environmentalist" groups. The irrational fear of nuclear power has real world consequences, obstructing plant construction means fallback to convenient alternative, the burning of fossil fuels.
not upset at all, other smarter countries, more than just China, are indeed growing the number of nuclear power plants, and doing R&D into the thorium cycle which is a future path to develop while uranium used. the United States will backcome a backwater if it cannot stop floundering about the issue of energy sufficient to drive progress. There are other ways, requiring trillion dollar plus investment, than nuclear to do it, but the half-hearted attempts with solar panels and wind will not be it
no, their fear of nuclear power causes fallback to the convenient alternative, fossil fuels.
only energy yield. if we talk about poisoning people and deaths, coal becomes far more dangerous than U.S. reactors.
I've noticed an increased propensity for nuclear armed countries to invade and kill citizens of non-nuclear ones. seems like incentive for proliferation to me
perfect, you can help bring them for tagging, by trying desperately to swim
but energy use drives progress and quality/length of life. we need a plan of producing increasing amounts of energy that is carbon neutral and with no lingering waste products (which advanced reactors can do).
one pound uranium == 16,000 tons coals. one pound thorium == 300 pound uranium == 4,800,000
clear to me what the smart way forward is.
there are alternative ways of cooling
not in a smart reactor design, wastes that decay in decades rather than tens of thousands of years can be produced. We have to get off the stupid 1950s reactor designs and onto the proper ones that as a bonus cannot melt down even if power fails to cooling system
for centuries, as that's how much supply we have. bet those anti-nuke greenies are very happy. one pound of natural uranium supplies the energy of 16,000 pounds of coal, and our "spent fuel" is actually a gold mine of energy to get six or more times the yield again while at the same time transforming it to short lived wastes. Used in breeder, one pound thorium has the energy of 300 lbs. uranium or 4,800,000 pounds of coal! there's a real solution to driving technology, civilization and quality of life forward. not burning a fire like hominids did a 400,000 years ago.
nuclear reactors produce 55% of the power where I live, that's a solution that can make a huge difference. one ton of natural uranium can produce the energy of 16,000 tons of coal.
keep going, the LED lights save 40% of that 1.6% or 0.64%. So 0.64 of 140 million short tons of oil * 7.3 barrels per ton is 65 million barrels of oil equivalent saved for the whole world. the U.S. alone consumes 19 million barrels of oil per day, so why bother?
actually, by the site's own claims 22% of energy is used for lighting, and 8% of the 22% for outdoor lighting.....1.6% is not much to be worried about saving a portion of, sorry.
where do you live? I can drive hour out into the country and see the Milky Way, even near houses with lights on. more a matter of lack of street lamps and clean air (doesn't work near large cities)
funded it
In 1962 we took an existing space program and technology and made a new goal of reaching another world. We then reached that goal. We have in 2013 a bigger existing space program and even more technology. There is no reason we couldn't reach another world in less than a decade, for a price that is a tenth or less of a purposeless war or maintaining a nuclear weapons arsenal of obscene and uselessly huge size.
that does bring to mind the dingy fluorescent lighting as the government mandated and approved standard for the home
not tepid, billions of dollars and many interesting deals to benefit Bush family and cronies made
No! you must be young.
We *supported* Saddam while he made the WMD and supported his war with Iran. He was our paid man doing our dirty work with funding and resources we provided. Those were OUR weapons doing OUR work!
"It is becoming increasingly clear that George Bush, operating largely behind the scenes throughout the 1980s, initiated and supported much of the financing, intelligence, and military help that built Saddam's Iraq into the power it became",[5] and "Reagan/Bush administrations permitted—and frequently encouraged—the flow of money, agricultural credits, dual-use technology, chemicals, and weapons to Iraq." -- Ted Koppel, Nightline, 1992
Yes, that Constitution says only Congress can declare war. Congress need only de-fund any military action by the president, or outright outlaw them with sufficient numbers to override veto.
so the pictures of hundreds of bullet ridden and fire burned and cluster bombed (psst, made in USA) children from decades years past, of all the conflicts we DIDN'T care about nor get involved in did nothing for you?
what is so special about this case?
courts presided over by judges who were former corporate lawyers....hmmmmmm
really, no major politician players pushing that with huge defense contractor interests?
Irrelevant. They also have killed many more of themselves with guns and bombs, what's the difference? dead is dead. there are terrorists on both sides of this fight. it's not our problem, and there are plenty of other places in the world with genocide and murder by tyrants, but you don't care about those because they're not in the daily news. So yes, I'm as fine with the Syrians gassing themselves as I am about situation in Burma or Rowanda or North Korea, of which we aren't going to do a damned thing
dream on, anyone can make chemical weapons, impossible to stop them from being made. terrorists exist on both sides of the fight in Syria, no matter who wins or loses terrorists will have access to the chemical weapons there. There is no purpose or reason for the U.S. to intervene other than evil ones