bananas
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Mar-24-11 08:47 PM
Original message |
Nuclear energy is dirty, dangerous, expensive, and unnecessary. |
|
It's time to start phasing out nuclear energy and phasing in renewables.
|
cliffordu
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Mar-24-11 08:48 PM
Response to Original message |
|
And, MAYBE, learn to conserve as a nation.....
|
diane in sf
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Mar-24-11 10:59 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
10. Let's be efficient and do way more with less energy and materials. |
girl gone mad
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Mar-24-11 11:18 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
12. Efficiency and conservation |
|
Edited on Thu Mar-24-11 11:18 PM by girl gone mad
seem almost like forbidden topics in growth-based economic models.
|
robcon
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Mar-24-11 08:51 PM
Response to Original message |
2. We can hope for technological advances in renewables. |
|
Until then, their contribution to energy needs will be minor.
We should continue to work towards technological advances in nuclear, as well.
|
bananas
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Mar-24-11 09:21 PM
Response to Reply #2 |
5. Renewables are ready now, and advances continue. |
|
Nuclear has a negative learning curve, as the technology advances, it gets more expensive. That's why South Africa gave up on the advanced Pebble Bed Modular Reactor.
|
BrookBrew
(369 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Mar-24-11 10:51 PM
Response to Reply #5 |
9. Have you ever been there. You can send data faster by bird than internet |
|
they have no infrastructure to support the technology. It is far cheaper to burn dead animals.
Not like they are all renewable.
|
madokie
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Mar-24-11 08:51 PM
Response to Original message |
|
and its not something I just woke up thinking yesterday either. Radiation kills just as sure as a bullet only sometimes slower and a more painful death
|
ixion
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Mar-24-11 09:14 PM
Response to Original message |
|
and further, it's time to move on from burning fossil fuels.
|
bananas
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Mar-24-11 10:07 PM
Response to Reply #4 |
kristopher
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Mar-24-11 10:47 PM
Response to Original message |
7. You know, I've heard that before. |
BrookBrew
(369 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Mar-24-11 10:49 PM
Response to Original message |
8. Just as soon as base load is covered by something other than dead animals |
|
or split atoms then yay, this is real. Until then, it like saying we should end poverty and disease. Sure sounds good, but will not run the HVAC in my home.
|
diane in sf
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Mar-24-11 11:02 PM
Response to Reply #8 |
11. It's mostly dead plants and wide use of the wind and solar tech we have now would cover the baseload |
BrookBrew
(369 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Mar-25-11 09:21 AM
Response to Reply #11 |
15. I am 100% for agri based renewables.. |
|
the problem is base load. The base load can not fluctuate below a set level or stuff starts blacking out.
Wind and solar are great for on demand load.
The real issue is there is no real way to store large amounts of energy for later use.
|
marions ghost
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Mar-24-11 11:18 PM
Response to Original message |
|
will say how stupid we were to let it get THIS far.
People can't conceive of 10,000 or 20,000 year storage of anything. But we have a lot of that junk on hand already. Bet they wish they hadn't stored it at Fukushima.
We need to stop these nukes that are in the works.
|
midnight
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Mar-25-11 12:15 AM
Response to Original message |
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Fri May 03rd 2024, 03:40 PM
Response to Original message |