yeah they said 50 years before it will be a real thing that we can use. i was watching that same show.

Find me some sources other than the Pentagon about exposure to radioactivity such as DU being safe if you're so certain that nukes are great.

Also, find me credible and conclusive evidence against climate change (ie, not an ExxonMobil funded special interest group) if you feel the need to scoff at it.

Also, the cost of wind power in the short and long term and long term is more financially feasible than coal will be in a few years, nuclear is, and natural gas will ever be, and last time I checked has not been responsible for deaths, nuclear meltdowns, and mountaintop removal.

they will come around. my dad used to laugh at me when i would talk about global warming but now he finnaly gets it thank god!!

btw nice #'s they just keep getting better!!

Thanks. The last tank was just great because it was so hot out and I got really lucky and got to draft a truck at about 55 for almost my entire return trip. I don't think that my next tank it going to be very good. I spent alot of time last night driving around in an industrial park because my friend gave me really terrible instructions to a storage unit where a bunch of people were jamming. Hopefully I can bring the numbers back up in the next week. I'm going to be doing alot of driving because I have a few jobs coming up.

Wind, Solar, and the like are all a big waste of money. They're not efficient enough and you're paying up the *** for something that doesn't yield results.

Luckily I live in the TVA (Tennessee Valley Authority) district and all of our power comes from hydroelectric dams. They're great electricity, but unfortunately only certain areas can use hydro.

Nuclear is a great option. America will have to get over that stigma, because nuclear is the most feasible option for all parties.

I don't consider cost to be an issue when discussing the fate of the world. You use hydro in your area. The use of dams has directly led to the extinction of many species of animals, destroys river systems, displaces indigenous people, and alters the natural cycle of flooding that replenishes the topsoil in the surrounding ecosystems. Conservation is easier than ever. It doesn't even cost any more to conserve, and instead only takes a quick look at what you're buying and smart use of electricity. MY electricity bill is extremely low and I am definitely not living like Ted Kaczynski. If we put the rock that keeps us alive ahead of our own gluttony, maybe we'll get somewhere. At that point, it will be very easy to run off of solar and wind. There are alot of roofs in Amerikkka, and if there's a large enough market, the price of solar panels will drop substantially. We can very easily live off of solar and wind. If as a civilization, we collectively put just a little effort into it, I think that we can be running entirely on renewable resources within a few years. Instead people ***** about how they don't have enough power while watching TV for 6 hours per day in a massive air conditioned house with all of their lights on.

Then just face it, Nuclear is the only way to go. Stop being so damn picky :p




I don't get into the Global Warming debate on the internet anymore. I learned long ago the only thing is does is piss people off. And in the end we wont change our minds on what we believe, will we? Of course not

Bubba Bob -

I know it won't change your mind, but here's the Rocky Mountain Institute position on Nuclear energy :

https://www.rmi.org/sitepages/pid185.php
I'll say it once and I'll say it 1000 times. Solve the waste problem and I think Nuclear is workable. However, there is also the national security argument. A nuclear power plant is a great big fat target for terrorists, foreign or domestic. Your best way to solve that problem is to have a decentralized power grid. Solar power, aka solar roofs, are perfect for decentralized power generation. The "bad guys" would have to take out every roof of every house in a city in order to accomplish the same goal as taking out one (nuclear or non-nuclear) power plant.

CarloSW2

Nuclear plants tend to be very, very hard targets due to the measures put in place to minimize the damage from a meltdown. For instance, I doubt they could've successfully plowed an airliner into a plant because of the sheer magnitude of concrete on the outside. I've read some speculation about being about to destroy the plant's cooling capacity while simultaneously taking out the operations center/s so they couldn't avoid a meltdown, but that would require a very large level or coordination and infiltration.

No disrepsect to you or the Rocky Mountian Institute, but that link completly goes against the World Nuclear Association, and, well, virtually everything else Ive ever read. Ill give it the benefit of the doubt though, and do some research on it.