You’re a disingenuous twat. That article is brand new. I can’t wait until any of the information in the article you just linked to changes, because I’m going to come back here, link to the latest breaking news, and make sure everyone here can see what an alarmist, lying, piece of shit you are.
The irony of your post is pretty much off the charts, levdrakon.
-XT
It’s over 9000
The problem isn’t building nuclear power plants. The problem is we haven’t been building new plants to replace the old ones. Think my '68 Chevy II will pass a smog test or protect me in a collision? Well, that’s when those power plants were built.
On the matter of building nuclear power plants over subduction zones…:smack::smack::smack:
Actually, while i agree with much of your argument, it does appear that non-hydro renewable energy does account for about 7% of US energy production.
I’ve uploaded a chart to my webspace showing production and consumption figures for 2009.
As you can see, it lists non-hydro renewables as 7% of production and 5.4% of consumption for 2009. That’s in addition to 3.6% and 2.8% for hydro. It lists nuclear as 11.3% of production and 8.8% of consumption.
The full report from which i took this graph can be downloaded from the U.S. Department of Energy here (10Mb PDF).
Ok…that makes sense. Biomass accounts for most of that…hydro is less than 3%. And wind and solar are so low they are almost off the chart. Thanks for the cite though…makes perfect sense to me now.
-XT
I thought it was horseshit? Turns out to be a lot of pigshit and cowshit.
No, turns out that it was an attempt at deception, and that the only way those figures work is because biomass accounts for most of that 7%…which is probably why levdrakon didn’t post a link to back up his assertions.
-XT
Well, the thing is that levdrakon, in arguing for the significance of renewable energy resources, has mentioned wind and solar on multiple occasions as viable alternatives to conventional and nuclear power, but has not once in this thread mentioned biomass.
Yet, as my linked chart shows, biomass accounts for almost 80 percent of all non-hydro renewable energy production in the United States, while wind and solar combined account for about 14% of non-hydro renewable energy production, and a grand total of 1% of all US energy production.
Equating “renewable energy” only with solar and wind, as levdrakon has been doing, and then using the 7% renewable as your figure, when 85% of that 7% comes from sources that are not solar and not wind, is a little dishonest, i think. It’s like trying to make an argument for the superior performance of imported cars in America by taking the total number of imports but basing your performance numbers only on the figures for Ferraris and Lamborghinis.
Them internets people, they can be tricky.
Meanwhile, back in the real world …
Exploding the nuke-nutter anti-wind"land area" myth:
Wind is a money maker:
How much does your local nuke plant pay you for the privilege of taking your money and irradiating you and your children?
I think arguing with pr0 nuke true believers is about as productive as arguing with the people who knock on the door wanting to tell you about their religion. It can be entertaining, but don’t think for a minute they are going to abandon their faith. For any reason.
Funny thing is, i don’t consider myself a “true believer” in anything like a religious sense. As i said, i actually used to be ardently anti-nuke, and on most political issues i still tend to support the same sorts of ideals that many anti-nuke people support. My wife is quite strongly anti-nuke, and i completely understand the concern that people have about nuclear power in general, as well as about the specific ways in which it is implemented and the short cuts taken in the name of profit.
My own change of mind on the nuclear issue came after considerable reading as well as considerable soul-searching. As i said earlier, i would truly be happy if we could get all the energy we need from wind and solar, but i simply am not convinced that this is possible, given the constraints of the technology and the ever-growing power demands of our modern society. I support every effort to increase renewable energy generation, and if i could afford my own house right now the first thing i’d do is whack some solar panels on my roof so the sunny San Diego weather could help fill my energy requirements.
As for the whole issue of faith and religion, i submit that anti-nuke folks like you are no less susceptible to irrationality and hidebound stubbornness in the face of logic than pro-nuke people are. This thread is Exhibit A.
What’s so hilarious, is that before this disaster, I could care less about nuclear power. If they got the plant under control today, I would go back to not giving a shit.
So you admit that you’ve always cared? I had a feeling.
The only time I care about nuclear power is when shit goes wrong, and it effects my bottom line.
It brings about your bottom line? Now I’m confused.
No doubt. Who cares?
You can still die in a car crash. But it doesn’t give one-tenth of your neighbors cancer over the next 50 years.
As for building nukes on the ring of fire with 9.5 quakes and 120 foot tsunamis and only preparing for a hundredth of that, to quote the great philosopher Einstein, “Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I’m not sure about the former.”
A real issue is that the Japanese still have a shitload of other reactors and fuel rods, all in the same situation. Low, close to ocean, with no plan for what to do if a tsunamis hits them.
Counting on no more tsunamis probably isn’t a very good emergency plan.