Replies

Nuclear power is NOT the anwer. Investigate where the fissinable ores are, and what would it entail to extract fissionable ores for the energy needs of this nation (or any other for that matter). Who could possibly object to such methods?

Given the entire spectrum of known fissionable material ore, there is approximately 100 years in the ground. What do we do with the shit left over? Who would object to that?

More nuclear power will NOT solve our problems. There is plenty of coal to meet our forseable needs for the next 20 years or so. Who would object to extracting the coal?

There is some energy needs that can be met by hydroelectric power. Who would object to damming rivers for that purpose.

THere are areas where wind-farms can be established: who would object to that?

There are other solutions, but they're trivial. The problem is that of globably sustained economic growth. When will the people cry for relief? Who will give it to them.

The problem is that NO MONEY WHATSOEVER is expended on ANY alternatives. We are firmly where we are at until somebody objects. I say we just ignore the prospect of Ethanol alone (until the people cry for relief). And then what? I believe that a pre-emptive strike on world economic markets may be prudent. If they don't like it, what are they going to do: invade us? And then what?

If the price of global oil dropped, what would that do the the U.S. economy for all those things the U.S. needed to make its own Ethanol? And then what?

"Nuclear power without continual tampering by Luddite EnvironMentalists, CONgressional fumbling, etc., is the answer!!!"

Certainly is at least part of it! I favor attacking the problem from many angles at once. The more solutions, the less our economy will be subject to attack (economic or terrorist) on any one supply. So yes to nukes, yes to ethanol, yes to biodiesel, yes to hybrid tech, give anything a shot.

Specifically relating to ethanol: we're already paying people $ to not grow corn, so you'll have a time convincing me we can get any less efficient than that. I've read the study claiming net-loss from ethanol, and I think it's flawed (that'd be a long post).

What my original post on this thread was about is the fact that in any energy thread on FR there are some who jump in immediately with no, can't be done, what about this, what about that, if it doesn't power my Hemi it's no use, and similar comments.

Some have their favorite energy source and disparage all others; others just trash anything. This is, IMO, silly, and helps contribute to the false perception that conservatives are regressive. We know it's the greenie Left that's regressive, since they want to ban nearly everything, but Luddite comments here or in conversations allow the left to paint us as regressive and themselves as progressive.