Could some more people vote in this poll about nuclear energy please?

[garybeck]

Before you vote, consider this:

Every hour, enough solar radiation hits the earth to power the entire planet for a year.

here is the poll:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=103950&mesg_id=103950

I have to say I'm surprised that over 50% of DUers, at least those who lurk on the Energy/Environment forum, think that nuclear power is vital to our survival. For reference. when I started this thread it was something like 57% think nuclear is needed, 8% undecided, and 35% think nuclear is unnecessary.

Here's another "Factoid:"

[EFerrari]

1. Done.

[bbgrunt]

2. done. The results in that poll, while a small nonrandom sample, are somewhat appalling.

[silverojo]

3. Voted, kicked, and recommended

WTF are these people thinking?!?!?

[hankthecrank]

4. Voted K&R n/t

[hankthecrank]

5. Kick n/t

[hankthecrank]

6. Kicked

Nuclear no good comes from it and the evil just keeps on giving

[hankthecrank]

7. Kicked again

[TheWraith]

8. You're telling one lie in that message, and one incredibly deceptive "fact."

No, the NTS and Nellis could absolutely not deliver that much energy. In fact, to even just meet US needs, you would need an area 218 miles squared, which is a little less than half of all of Nevada. A lot more than that when you figure in access roads, maintainence shops, room for future growth, etcetera. Not to mention--none of the solar power people have yet provided one convincing explanation for how we're supposed to store power for the 20 hours a day when the solar cells aren't producing. We don't have the capacity to just bottle gigawatts of energy.

Second, that factoid about solar energy in an hour is true, but deceptive in the extreme. We could never catch more than a small fragment of that energy without seriously disrupting the Earth's ecology, since almost all of that energy goes into keeping the planet warm, and feeding the plant life.

[FloridaJudy]

10. There's absolutely no reason for *not* having a solar hot water heater

on top of every building in America. It can be done quite cheaply: friends in Israel have had it done for about $50 a house. Even in winter the savings are considerable. While that won't solve America's energy problem, it's a start.

I don't assume that solar energy means collecting energy in some huge solar array and distributing it through the grid. There are ways to collect and store that energy for local use that wouldn't be that complicated. In some European countries it's common to store heat produced during the day-time in bricks that keep the houses warm at night. Just building more energy-efficient buildings - and it can be done - would reduce our dependence on fossil/nuclear fuel.

And don't forget wind power. The Dutch have successfully used that to create arable land for centuries.

I just think we need to apply our brains to figure out ways to make our homes and cities more efficient, rather than going for the quick, potentially dangerous fix.

[TheWraith]

20. None of those things solves the problem of electrical generation.

All the solar water heaters and brick houses you can build are still a small fraction of a percent of our energy demand.

[nofurylike]

9. done. kick and rec. thank you, garybeck. so true! n/t

[calteacherguy]

11. Done. "I am convinced....

I am convinced that nuclear power is a necessary tool for surviving peak-fossil and climate change."

Along with solar and other renewables, of course. But the problem can be solved with renewables alone.

[garybeck]

13. huh? is that a typo?

your two statements are contradictory. If it can be solved with renewables alone, why do we need nuclear?

[calteacherguy]

17. Yes, typo. Should be "cannot"

Especially not with rising populaton growth.

[garybeck]

18. Have you actually looked at the numbers? Or

are you just going on intution?

[Strelnikov_]

12. ..

[garybeck]

14. Thanks every one for setting the record straight!

when I posted this on GD, the poll showed a majority of respondents favor nuclear.

Now, just by getting more people from the GD forum to knock some sense into things, the results are flipped and most people realize that nuclear energy is not needed. (and indeed the science, math, and economics supports this).

thanks all. I feel much better now!

[muriel_volestrangler]

19. I cannot believe you think a few votes in a DU poll show anything

The vast majority of DU hasn't voted in the poll at all. And with a self-selected poll, the results are therefore meaningless.

[Bill McBlueState]

15. Has this been done before?

Asking DUers to DU a poll on DU? What does this accomplish?

[Dogmudgeon]

16. When you can't win fair and square -- cheat

Didn't something like this happen in 2000? The SCOTUS-rigged election of George Bush, maybe?

Then there were the gamed elections of 2002 and 2004. The Republicans knew they couldn't win, so they cheated, too.

Here's a "cool" link about election justice: http://www.solarbus.org/election/index.shtml

Why, it's garybeck's own website!

garybeck says he believes in election justice!

:rofl:

I guess that was THEN, and this is NOW. The ends justifying the means, and all that.

--p!