Posted on 05/15/2005 9:37:28 AM PDT by Nasty McPhilthy
Well here it is folks, hot off the presses. The "brilliant" men who have cost us so many billions of dollars in unnecessary paper work, half-built, shutdown facilities, and regulations and put us so many years behind in nuclear technology, have now suddenly changed their minds. They have come to believe what some of us non-PhD.s have known for twenty-five years, Nuclear Energy is the best and only viable alternative to the carbon economy. Well DUH! Check this out in the New York Times [full story] of all places:
“Old Foes Soften to New Reactors By FELICITY BARRINGER Published: May 15, 2005 WASHINGTON, May 14 - Several of the nation's most prominent environmentalists have gone public with the message that nuclear power, long taboo among environmental advocates, should be reconsidered as a remedy for global warming.
Their numbers are still small, but they represent growing cracks in what had been a virtually solid wall of opposition to nuclear power among most mainstream environmental groups. In the past few months, articles in publications like Technology Review, published by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and Wired magazine have openly espoused nuclear power, angering other environmental advocates...”
So, now, all of the engineers who were capable of building nuclear power stations are now retired or nearing retirement, thanks entirely to the Liberals and their moronic anti-nuke campaigns of the '70s and ‘80s. So brilliant are they. So farsighted they were. These are the people who think they are qualified to run the country. Heck, they couldn't even get this one right, and it was one of the most logical and obvious facts in the whole energy paradigm. They wouldn't listen to conservatives, nope too damn smart (arrogant) for that. This is just another example of why liberals should never be trusted with the reins of government. They’re too emotionally driven. They don’t stop to think what the long-term consequences might be.
Three Mile Island happens, and poof Chicken Liberal starts running around yelling “The sky is falling, the sky is falling!” “Stop building, stop building, China Syndrome, China Syndrome!” A few of us knew they were wrong (A big clue for all you Liberals out there, it was a movie. Just because Jame Fonda, Michael Douglas, and Jack Lemmon run around acting like idiots for an hour and a half, doesn't make it true). A few of us saw what was happening and predicted the ultimate consequences. But no, don’t take time to really examine your actions, just run off and start protesting. Just run up and handcuff yourself to the gates and try to shut down the reactors. Yep, if it sounds good, it must be true. And now were supposed to believe them about global warming and how it is being caused by “greenhouse gasses.” We’re supposed to spend tens of billions of dollars in the next couple of decades because of a theory espoused by the same guys who forced us to use carbon based fuels for heating our homes because nuclear energy was “evil” (You know, they still haven't explained to me how an inanimate object like a gun or nuclear reactor can be evil).
The topper in all of this is that we are probably going to have to import nuclear engineers from Europe to design all of these new power plants, and scientists from India and China to make up for all of those that America has failed to produce, thanks in a large part to the Liberal educators and their progressive education techniques that have left America’s school kids sorely lacking in education. Can you say "out-sourcing," Democrats?
Yes, America owes so much to Liberals, and someday I’d like to see them all get what’s coming to them.
Actually, I think there is a tax of 0.1 cents per kwh on nuclear power, and that tax is used to pay for waste disposal. On the other hand, the waste from burning coal is just released into the air where it kills 24,000 U.S. citizens each year.
The liberal media will grant the title of "environmentalist" to anyone without them having to produce credentials or facts of any kind as long as they are attacking the right.
Are you certain you can brain wash a liberal? First they must have a brain and remembering the great unwashed of the 60's, I still have my doubts about the washing requirement.
It's (EGAD!!) the French who have it right and the Germans who have it hopelessly wrong.
Environmentalists, I've seen them called here in the past by a very appropriate name, are Watermelons, green on the outside and red on the inside.
BTW be sure to thank Jane Fondue for helping the Watermelon Anti-Nuke cause with her trash film China-Syndrome.
Excellent point, cripplecreek. Shows their hypocrisy.
Char :)
>>The "last resort" would be the energy sources proposed by the leftists I conversed with last night -- wind and solar. They actually believe that these sources can meet a modern society's energy needs.
It never ceases to amaze me, how many attempt to expound on energy policy, who do not have the vaguest hazy hint of clue on basic Thermodynamics nor Economics.
From Fact Sheet on the Accident at Three Mile Island
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/3mile-isle.html
The average exposure to everyone in the area was equal to 1/6th of a routine chest x-ray. The Maximum dose someone would have gotten staying NEXT TO the site for the entire time was equal to the natural background radiation for 1 year.
"Health Effects"
"Detailed studies of the radiological consequences of the accident have been conducted by the NRC, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Health, Education and Welfare (now Health and Human Services), the Department of Energy, and the State of Pennsylvania. Several independent studies have also been conducted. Estimates are that the average dose to about 2 million people in the area was only about 1 millirem. To put this into context, exposure from a full set of chest x-rays is about 6 millirem. Compared to the natural radioactive background dose of about 100-125 millirem per year for the area, the collective dose to the community from the accident was very small. The maximum dose to a person at the site boundary would have been less than 100 millirem."
"In the months following the accident, although questions were raised about possible adverse effects from radiation on human, animal, and plant life in the TMI area, none could be directly correlated to the accident. Thousands of environmental samples of air, water, milk, vegetation, soil, and foodstuffs were collected by various groups monitoring the area. Very low levels of radionuclides could be attributed to releases from the accident. However, comprehensive investigations and assessments by several well-respected organizations have concluded that in spite of serious damage to the reactor, most of the radiation was contained and that the actual release had negligible effects on the physical health of individuals or the environment."
Never let the facts get in the way of a good environmental jihad...
"I was in a drinking establishment near Berkeley last night and..."
Nice. I wish I could have seen their faces.
As the "conversation" continued, they were looking at eachother for group reinforcement of their common bias far more than they were looking at me. Most of them were avoiding eye contact with me, except of course when shouting and attacking -- after which, the screamer would immediately look at the other members of his hive for mutually self-congratulatory smiles of approval. Any one of them would have been to destroy in a formal public debate. One guy's eyes were simply popping out of his head. He looked maniacal, like he needed a valium IV started right freaking now.
"would have been to destroy" should read "would have been easy to destroy"
Hey, Bonaparte - its been a while!
Link to a report from Oak Ridge Natl Labs on radioactivity relative to coal power plants.
An interesting note - the radioactive elements released and captured in the ash from coal burning powerplants (three fractions, processed) has 1.5X MORE energy potential than the coal burned!
http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html
Despite that, it barely adds to the background level, but over a long period of time - decades to centuries of coal burning - it could become a factor...
Good to hear from you, m! And thanks for the link. It's pathetic how little factual evidence is brought to the energy table by the left. They're very lucky that there is so much resistance to their pet initiatives like Kyoto. If all that were implemented, they would be sooooo unhappy with the impoverishment they would have to endure -- no more sipping of lattes, shopping sprees at their gourmet ghettos or regular pick-ups of their carefully sorted recyclable refuse -- the trucks would be unable to bring anything to them or take anything away. They would get an unexpected crash course in 18th century living -- especially when they required the benefit of modern hospital care.
Coal and Nuclear go hand in hand.
Coal ash has a high level of radioactive isotopes. This is due to the removal of the hydrocarbons (by burning) and the resultant high concentration of metals.
There has been talk, that if Coal use increased, it could then be cost effective to process the ash for the radioactive isotopes that could then be used to fuel the reactors.
And, may I add, very effectively reduce our dependency on oil-hydrocarbons.
That's a pretty specific number, where did you find it? EPA?
thx
heh?
I'll have to look into that- if so, Yucca Mt is just about paid for...
Thanks for the info.
I don't remember where I read it. That's why I said "I think."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.