# Anti-Fossil Fuel, Anti-Nuke People: What's the Solution to Our Energy Problem **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 1, 2011, 11:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-fossil-fuel-anti-nuke-people-whats-the-solution-to-our-energy-problem/576882 "2011-04-01T23:31:27Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2011, 2:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-fossil-fuel-anti-nuke-people-whats-the-solution-to-our-energy-problem/576882/41 "2011-04-03T14:35:53Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > In my post I gave a cite from the DOE that stated that increasing wind to 20% in ten years is very doable and that adding in increases in other renewables (such as solar, geothermal, and biomass) getting to a 30% renewable electricity generation share was not at all unrealistic. That could in ten years displace the dirtiest 60% of our coal electricity generation. Great, 30%. What does the other 70%? Even under optimistic predictions, you’re saying you’re only going to handle 30% of the problem. > [@](#): > > Do you think it is at all realistic to increase nuclear’s share from its current 20% to 47% in the same ten years in order to displace the same number of coal plants? How about even to a 30% share? That would mean building an additional 52 nuclear plants in the United States (if each plant was as big as the average current one and none retire) in the next ten years. This is a false dilemma. It doesn’t have to be nuclear or renewables, it could, and should, be both. Nuclear advocates aren’t saying that we should ignore renewables and only do nuclear. Let’s double our nuclear output and double our renewable output. Let’s do absolutely everything we can to get away from fossil fuels. I don’t know the engineering challenges to building that many nuke plants so fast, but I do think if we charged coal for the real cost it has to society (carbon and pollution taxes), nuclear would suddenly become far more economically appealing, spurring the growth of the industry. And if fucking environmentalists can actually live up to their professed concern with global warming, and get the fuck out of the way, nuclear plants could be built a whole lot faster. ---
**Author:** ![BrotherCadfael](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@BrotherCadfael](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrotherCadfael)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2011, 2:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-fossil-fuel-anti-nuke-people-whats-the-solution-to-our-energy-problem/576882/42 "2011-04-03T14:39:33Z")
> [@gonzomax](#): > > Conservation is a real good start. Conservation is a source of energy in the same sense that starvation is a form of agriculture. Yes, we shouldn’t waste energy whenever we can avoid doing so, but conservation is NOT the solution. ---
**Author:** ![matt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a6a055/32.png) [@matt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/matt)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2011, 2:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-fossil-fuel-anti-nuke-people-whats-the-solution-to-our-energy-problem/576882/43 "2011-04-03T14:41:05Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > **matt** , sorry but your exercise in post #25 is just silly. Powering United States, let alone the world, on wind power, or solar, from the US alone, is not a meaningful metric. And, as I have pointed out in the other thread, that 11% of the countries land area that would theoretically power the entire United States by wind, that presumably would be in the corridor of [best wind resource](http://rredc.nrel.gov/wind/pubs/atlas/maps/chap2/2-10m.html), would be able to be used for agricultural or industrial uses while it was also being used for wind power generation, as could solar. I wasn’t literally talking about powering the world using USA land! I was just using it as an illustration of the sorts of land areas required, for the predominantly USA readership of this board. Thanks for the DOE study. It’s exactly the sort of thing I want to know, although it’s pretty much a bullet-pointed presentation piece rather than an analysis. The primary findings were interesting - “cost to integrate wind modest, raw materials available, transmission a challenge”. I was surprised transmission was an issue at 20% penetration, and I would have _loved_ to see some detail on the capacity to actually turn raw materials into wind turbines. (Incidentally, in post #25 I calculated 11% of USA land required to meet a power demand of 3.3 terawatts, or 1% per 300 gigawatts. Your cited DOE study calculated 15 million acres to supply “about 300 gigawatts” which is 0.66% of the USA land area - the same sort of ballpark although the study doesn’t show its calculation.) > [@DSeid](#): > > of course, as you rightly point out, the issue is more than the United States. You want “a proper study” of providing major power from solar? How about using the [Sahara to produce electricity to import to Europe](http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jun/16/solar-power-europe-africa)? Back when Libiya was considered stable, twenty companies “including Siemens, Deutsche Bank, and the energy companies RWE and E.on” were exploring exploiting that resource since “if just 0.3% of the light falling on the Sahara and Middle Eastern deserts was captured, it could provide all of Europe’s energy needs.” That is not a study. That is a _newspaper article,_ and a pretty equivocal one at that. “But although none of the companies is keen to go into detail yet about their involvement, they stress that the project is a chance for them to drive forward the fight against climate change and in doing so to position themselves at the top of the green technology industry.” That sounds like a vague agglomeration of good intentions to me. I did Google Desertec though and it appears a serious project, but as to whether it has any real backing isn’t clear yet. We can hope. Spain is in the rather happy position of having a fair baseload capacity with nuclear, and also a big chunk of hydro. Hydro can be switched on or off really rapidly allowing it to balance fluctuations in the wind production. If they have pumped storage, even better. I’d love to see a breakdown of how it all works and what it all costs, but so far no luck. Your businessweek cite states that solar and wind are heavily subsidised in Spain but didn’t give any details. > [@DSeid](#): > > As to your comment in post #26 - There are many players in the wind turbine manufacturing business. Capacity is now ample and is fairly easily ramped up. The industry has banked on a prediction of consistent demand for years to come. Ample how? How many gigawatts installed capacity per year, and what can that be ramped up to? I’m not criticising or knocking the industry: I really want to know if we can build truly enormous windfarms worldwide without hitting a wall. Likewise solar. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2011, 2:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-fossil-fuel-anti-nuke-people-whats-the-solution-to-our-energy-problem/576882/44 "2011-04-03T14:41:56Z")
> [@SenorBeef](#): > > I don’t know the engineering challenges to building that many nuke plants so fast … Clearly. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2011, 2:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-fossil-fuel-anti-nuke-people-whats-the-solution-to-our-energy-problem/576882/45 "2011-04-03T14:45:26Z")
**matt** [this DOE/NREL data book](http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy10osti/48178.pdf) (pdf) has many of the numbers you are interested in. ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2011, 2:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-fossil-fuel-anti-nuke-people-whats-the-solution-to-our-energy-problem/576882/46 "2011-04-03T14:54:21Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > Clearly. Also irrelevant. Saying “nuclear can’t double in 10 years, therefore let’s not do it” doesn’t make sense. Whatever nuclear we can build, we build. It’s not going to stop production on solar panels or wind turbines, it’s not like we can only do one. So we build nuclear plants as fast as it’s possible to do, and we build renewables too. Nothing you said argues against nuclear power. Regardless of how long it takes, we should start now and do as much as we can. I do know, however, that the long average build times of recent nuclear plants are more due to litigation issues than engineering ones. We haven’t forgotten how to build stuff, we just have to deal with hysterical ninnies ruining shit. If we got serious about addressing our future energy needs and global warming, we’d streamline the building process and offer some degree of legislative protection. Factor this in with carbon/pollution taxes that show the true cost of fossil fuel power generation to our society, and suddenly everyone will be rushing to build nuke plants. ---
**Author:** ![matt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a6a055/32.png) [@matt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/matt)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2011, 2:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-fossil-fuel-anti-nuke-people-whats-the-solution-to-our-energy-problem/576882/47 "2011-04-03T14:55:26Z")
While trying to find out a bit more about the Spanish renewables experience, I found this document. [sa เข้า สู่ ระบบ คาสิโนออนไลน์ เว็บตรง อันดับ 1 ฝาก-ถอน โอนไว](http://www.aspo-spain.org/aspo7/presentations/Prieto-SolarWind-ASPO7.pdf) Page 48 is interesting: \*\*"Building up 3TW of wind power up to 2020 will cover 30% of the world electricity consumption in 2007 and will demand a 27% annual cumulative growth throughout The period. The 1.5 million times 2 MW wind generators required Will imply: • 2 times the present world steel production of 2006 • Almost half of the world extraction of coal • 30 times the world production of glass fiber • The world concrete production • Almost half of the copper world production"\*\* That’s a LOT of resources, but OTOH 3 TW is a LOT of power. I’d like to see a comparison with 3TW worth of, say, Westinghouse AP1000s and 3TW worth of concentrated solar. On edit: Thanks DSeid, I’ll give it a look. ---
**Author:** ![Le\_Jacquelope](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e0b2c6/32.png) [@Le\_Jacquelope](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Le_Jacquelope)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2011, 3:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-fossil-fuel-anti-nuke-people-whats-the-solution-to-our-energy-problem/576882/48 "2011-04-03T15:16:55Z")
> [@randomface](#): > > Many of them have no alternative, they just don’t like reality, although some will put forth alternatives. None of them would allow society to continue as is. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: > **[Solar energy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_energy)** > > Solar energy is the radiant energy from the Sun's light and heat, which can be harnessed using a range of technologies such as solar electricity, solar thermal energy (including solar water heating) and solar architecture. It is an essential source of renewable energy, and its technologies are broadly characterized as either passive solar or active solar depending on how they capture and distribute solar energy or convert it into solar power. Active solar techniques include the use of ph In 201... > [@](#): > > The total solar energy absorbed by Earth’s atmosphere, oceans and land masses is approximately 3,850,000 exajoules (EJ) per year.[6] In 2002, this was more energy in one hour than the world used in one year.[11][12] Photosynthesis captures approximately 3,000 EJ per year in biomass.[8] The amount of solar energy reaching the surface of the planet is so vast that in one year it is about twice as much as will ever be obtained from all of the Earth’s non-renewable resources of coal, oil, natural gas, and mined uranium combined. Can any of you pro-nuclear and pro-fossil fuel people explain to us liberals what 3850000 exajoules is in terms of every power source humans have ever deployed? Here’s a clue: it comes out to 3850000/57 Essentially, solar power can provide so many times more than what your nuclear and coal power plants that this entire thread is a _non-starter._ The only reason why we aren’t supplanting fossil fuel and nuclear power plants with solar is the fossil fuel and nuclear industries are fighting against it tooth and nail with propaganda like what is being posted here. The other reason why solar energy has so many opponents is that if everyone HAD solar on their roofs, there would be little profit for the big centralized energy corporations except maybe at night. Oh no wait [their profits](http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-to-use-solar-energy-at-night) won’t even [be safe at night](http://www.forbes.com/2008/07/30/nocera-solar-power-biz-energy-cz_jf_0731solar.html) if the energy companies don’t continue to fight innovation! ---
**Author:** ![levdrakon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/49beb7/32.png) [@levdrakon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/levdrakon)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2011, 3:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-fossil-fuel-anti-nuke-people-whats-the-solution-to-our-energy-problem/576882/49 "2011-04-03T15:23:30Z")
> [@SenorBeef](#): > > Also irrelevant. Saying “nuclear can’t double in 10 years, therefore let’s not do it” doesn’t make sense. Whatever nuclear we can build, we build. It’s not going to stop production on solar panels or wind turbines, it’s not like we can only do one. So we build nuclear plants as fast as it’s possible to do, and we build renewables too. We are building nuke plants as fast as possible. That’s why it’s so easy to see the impossibility of nuke ever safely and economically producing more that its current token, trophy power. I[n Finland, Nuclear Renaissance Runs Into Trouble](http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/29/business/energy-environment/29nuke.html) > [@](#): > > The massive power plant under construction on muddy terrain on this Finnish island was supposed to be the showpiece of a nuclear renaissance. The most powerful reactor ever built, its modular design was supposed to make it faster and cheaper to build. And it was supposed to be safer, too. > > But things have not gone as planned. > > After four years of construction and thousands of defects and deficiencies, the reactor’s 3 billion euro price tag, about $4.2 billion, has climbed at least 50 percent. And while the reactor was originally meant to be completed this summer [2009], Areva, the French company building it, and the utility that ordered it, are no longer willing to make certain predictions on when it will go online. > > But early experience suggests these new reactors will be no easier or cheaper to build than the ones of a generation ago, when cost overruns — and then accidents at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl — ended the last nuclear construction boom. > > In Flamanville, France, a clone of the Finnish reactor now under construction is also behind schedule and overbudget. > > In the United States, Florida and Georgia have changed state laws to raise electricity rates so that consumers will foot some of the bill for new nuclear plants in advance, before construction even begins. > > For nuclear power to have a high impact on reducing greenhouse gases, an average of 12 reactors would have to be built worldwide each year until 2030, according to the Nuclear Energy Agency at the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Right now, there are not even enough reactors under construction to replace those that are reaching the end of their lives. > > And of the 45 reactors being built around the world, 22 have encountered construction delays, according to an analysis prepared this year for the German government by Mycle Schneider, an energy analyst and a critic of the nuclear industry. He added that nine do not have official start-up dates. ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2011, 3:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-fossil-fuel-anti-nuke-people-whats-the-solution-to-our-energy-problem/576882/50 "2011-04-03T15:24:33Z")
> [@Le\_Jacquelope](#): > > :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: > [Solar energy - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_energy) > > Can any of you pro-nuclear and pro-fossil fuel people explain to us liberals what 3850000 exajoules is in terms of every power source humans have ever deployed? > > Here’s a clue: it comes out to 3850000/57 > > Essentially, solar power can provide so many times more than what your nuclear and coal power plants that this entire thread is a _non-starter._ The only reason why we aren’t supplanting fossil fuel and nuclear power plants with solar is the fossil fuel and nuclear industries are fighting against it tooth and nail with propaganda like what is being posted here. > > The other reason why solar energy has so many opponents is that if everyone HAD solar on their roofs, there would be little profit for the big centralized energy corporations except maybe at night. > > Oh no wait [their profits](http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-to-use-solar-energy-at-night) won’t even [be safe at night](http://www.forbes.com/2008/07/30/nocera-solar-power-biz-energy-cz_jf_0731solar.html) if the energy companies don’t continue to fight innovation! Right, because harnessing the entire power of the sunlight that hits the entire earth is a trivial matter and it’s only the man that keeps it from happening. Oh, sure, The Man, the big international corporations, are the ones making the windmills and the solar panels, but they want to limit their own profit and make sure they kill solar panels and that no one buys them. Tell me, are the death squads that kill anyone who invents a car that gets 200 mpg the same ones that make solar panel advocates dissapear in the middle of the night? Tell me though - why is it that the solar panel manufactures, who could make trillions of dollars if it were that easy, refuse to make those trillions because they don’t want to harm the profits of the utility companies? Do you think that’s how big business works? “I could print my own money, but it would be at the cost of the profits of another company, so I won’t do it, because while we are so unethical that we purposely suppress a utopian solar power revolution, we’re not so evil that we’d steal business from a competitor” Seriously - how can you even think what you think? It’s not even remotely logically consistent even if you assume the worst intentions from big business. It just doesn’t make sense from any angle. ---
**Author:** ![levdrakon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/49beb7/32.png) [@levdrakon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/levdrakon)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2011, 3:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-fossil-fuel-anti-nuke-people-whats-the-solution-to-our-energy-problem/576882/51 "2011-04-03T15:31:34Z")
> [@SenorBeef](#): > > Tell me, are the death squads that kill anyone who invents a car that gets 200 mpg the same ones that make solar panel advocates dissapear in the middle of the night? Now \*that’s \*a straw man. Impressive, most impressive. ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2011, 3:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-fossil-fuel-anti-nuke-people-whats-the-solution-to-our-energy-problem/576882/52 "2011-04-03T15:35:30Z")
No, it’s an analogy. People say that ford knows how to make a 250 mpg engine, but they keep it a secret because making it would hurt big oil. But this assume that all big corporations are on the same side, that they’re all some sort of evil conspiring entity. That ford would voluntarily turn down trillions of dollars and becoming the biggest car manufacturer in the world because they’d be worried that exxon mobil wouldn’t stay profitable. It makes no sense - even if you assume both corporations are pure evil, they’re still competing with each other for that money. They’re not going to suppress something that makes themselves money to benefit the other guy. Similarly, the solar panels and wind mills are made by big evil corporations. Le Jackelope would have us believe that these big corporations purposely shoot themselves in the foot and don’t sell all of the magical solar panels they could because they’re worried about the profits of the utility companies. Why, exactly, do they have this concern for a completely different business? Is the super evil corporation that would screw the entire world for a buck just too nice to cut into a competitor’s market share for profits? Why would all the big companies that make solar and wind power - the big evil corporations - suppress their own profit they make by selling these panels and turbines - to help the profitability of the utility companies? When you have to engage in this sort of nonsensical conspiratorial thinking, you should consider introspection, because there’s about a 99% chance you’ve made a fundamental error somewhere. ---
**Author:** ![levdrakon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/49beb7/32.png) [@levdrakon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/levdrakon)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2011, 3:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-fossil-fuel-anti-nuke-people-whats-the-solution-to-our-energy-problem/576882/53 "2011-04-03T15:51:04Z")
> [@SenorBeef](#): > > No, it’s an analogy. > > People say that ford knows how to make a 250 mpg engine, but they keep it a secret because making it would hurt big oil. But this assume that all big corporations are on the same side, that they’re all some sort of evil conspiring entity. That ford would voluntarily turn down trillions of dollars and becoming the biggest car manufacturer in the world because they’d be worried that exxon mobil wouldn’t stay profitable. It makes no sense - even if you assume both corporations are pure evil, they’re still competing with each other for that money. They’re not going to suppress something that makes themselves money to benefit the other guy. No, it’s a straw man, and an audacious one at that. I’ve never heard this 250 mpg conspiracy theory, and I have a feeling if you find a cite about it for me, it’s going to be from a tinfoil conspiracy website or something. You’re making up a ridiculous conspiracy theory and then falsely claiming “see, that’s what anti-nukers think!” That’s really the best pro-nuke tactic you’ve got? ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2011, 3:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-fossil-fuel-anti-nuke-people-whats-the-solution-to-our-energy-problem/576882/54 "2011-04-03T15:55:47Z")
> [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](#): > > And we are not? Are we not developing solar, wind, and geothermal power? We ship our technology abroad so it will be more profitable. If we came up with new wind turbines, the info would be shipped to China or Indonesia where they would be manufactured and sold back to us. China and India are cranking out college graduates and engineers. We are jacking tuition rates up to preclude our people from going to college. The trends are clear. we will become a second class country to make more money for the people on top. Patriotism is food for those on the bottom.The people on top do not swallow it. ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2011, 3:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-fossil-fuel-anti-nuke-people-whats-the-solution-to-our-energy-problem/576882/55 "2011-04-03T15:56:31Z")
> [@levdrakon](#): > > No, it’s a straw man, and an audacious one at that. > > I’ve never heard this 250 mpg conspiracy theory, and I have a feeling if you find a cite about it for me, it’s going to be from a tinfoil conspiracy website or something. > > You’re making up a ridiculous conspiracy theory and then falsely claiming “see, that’s what anti-nukers think!” > > That’s really the best pro-nuke tactic you’ve got? My analogy is irrelevant. My points stand without it. Even if you refute my analogy (which you didn’t), you did not refute the point I was making when I tried to explain it with the analogy. Ok, no analogies: The big corporations that make solar panels and wind turbines would not purposely shoot themselves in the foot and fail to sell as many of those things as they could, and generate as much profit as they could, because they were concerned about the potential impacts on the profits of an entirely seperate bunch of corporations if they did. I’m not addressing all anti-nukers with this statement, just in particular Le Jackelope’s ramblings about how we’d be awash in all the clean energy we wanted if only the big evil corporations weren’t suppressing it. If some company came out with 90% efficient solar panels tomorrow that could be made for a quarter per square foot, then they’d sell a trillion dollars worth and you’d find them everywhere. They wouldn’t suppress this technology and not sell their market-dominating products because they’d be concerned about the profitability of utility companies and power plants. Which means that the reason we aren’t running the world several times over on solar panels has to do with economics and efficiencies and all that practical real world stuff, and not an evil conspiracy by a corporation against their own self interests. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2011, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-fossil-fuel-anti-nuke-people-whats-the-solution-to-our-energy-problem/576882/56 "2011-04-03T17:21:45Z")
> [@BrotherCadfael](#): > > Conservation is a source of energy in the same sense that starvation is a form of agriculture. > > Yes, we shouldn’t waste energy whenever we can avoid doing so, but conservation is NOT the solution. Bull. It has been estimated that we waste 40 percent of our energy. Conservation is a great way to cut energy dependence. Lots of people live off the grid. the only think they are starved from is heating and cooling bills. We can not all afford to go that far, but every step helps. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2011, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-fossil-fuel-anti-nuke-people-whats-the-solution-to-our-energy-problem/576882/57 "2011-04-03T17:28:57Z")
> [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](#): > > Are you kidding me? The ChiComs don’t give a crap about pollution-they are using coal and oil at massive rates. Yes they are into solar, wind, and all that but so are we. Its not that we are archaic and clinging to old technologies while the rest of the world is moving on much of France uses massive amounts of nuclear power. QIN you are such a good believer. You are young and who knows what your future thought changes will be? But if you stay right where you are, I would suggest the next name change for you should be XTWILLBEME. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2011, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-fossil-fuel-anti-nuke-people-whats-the-solution-to-our-energy-problem/576882/58 "2011-04-03T17:32:23Z")
> [@SenorBeef](#): > > … > > People say that ford knows how to make a 250 mpg engine, but they keep it a secret because making it would hurt big oil… > [@levdrakon](#): > > No, it’s a straw man, and an audacious one at that. > > I’ve never heard this 250 mpg conspiracy theory, and I have a feeling if you find a cite about it for me, it’s going to be from a tinfoil conspiracy website or something. There is no 250 mpg conspiracy. It’s a conspiracy to cover up [the car that runs on water](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water-fuelled_car). ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2011, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-fossil-fuel-anti-nuke-people-whats-the-solution-to-our-energy-problem/576882/59 "2011-04-03T18:55:06Z")
> [@SenorBeef](#): > > Also irrelevant. Saying “nuclear can’t double in 10 years, therefore let’s not do it” doesn’t make sense. Whatever nuclear we can build, we build. … I do know, however, that the long average build times of recent nuclear plants are more due to litigation issues than engineering ones… I actually do not disagree with you much here. I’d love to see an adequate monetization of carbon and let the market compete. It is however necessary to point out the naivete of thinking that nuculear power is _the_ answer; it will take a significant build out just to keep up with what ages out. If we want to make a significant impact in decreasing CO2 the next decade “new nuke” is unicorns. And despite what “you know”, the reason for long build times and excess costs has less to do with litigation than with the other risks of a major construction project in which everything has to be just so. See **lev** link - the issue for Areva was not litigation, it was cracked concrete and misplaced steel beams. The result is twice as much to build it as expected and still not done. No protestors and no court cases. Just construction issues. Price the carbon adequately and you will get some new nuclear but I would bet that more new generation capacity would be from renewables, and that even replacing aging plants would be iffy. ---
**Author:** ![MemoryLeak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/6f9a4e/32.png) [@MemoryLeak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MemoryLeak)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2011, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-fossil-fuel-anti-nuke-people-whats-the-solution-to-our-energy-problem/576882/60 "2011-04-03T18:55:32Z")
> [@j66](#): > > I will try using less and generating some green. > > I have a very efficient car & don’t drive for entertainment; I have almost all high efficiency bulbs; I heat my house like it’s the 1970’s; my water pipes are insulated; I hand wash my dishes; I don’t buy a lot of new stuff. We’re putting in a personal solar installation. > > (I am amazed at the amount of energy people use for little or no reason. ) Just dropping in to say that for a family (and probably just a couple of people), it’s unlikely you can beat the efficiency of a dishwasher by hand washing ([decent article](http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/01/built-in-dishwasher-vs-hand-washing-which-greener.php)). [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-fossil-fuel-anti-nuke-people-whats-the-solution-to-our-energy-problem/576882.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anti-fossil-fuel-anti-nuke-people-whats-the-solution-to-our-energy-problem/576882.md?page=4)