XT will use the cites from the people who are most involved, who have the most to gain by covering up and obfuscating ,and offer it as proof. It is typical for hi
The end of nuclear energy will result in lots of people losing their jobs in the field. They are not the people I look to for unbiased viewpoint.
The nuclear power industry will survive as an export industry for awhile yet. Maybe. I just wish people would shut up about building them in the states. Then I wish they’d shut up about building them all over the world, because the US is probably the only place safe enough for them. Well, maybe France too, but that’s it.
Bolding mine.
And?
[QUOTE=gonzomax]
XT will use the cites from the people who are most involved, who have the most to gain by covering up and obfuscating ,and offer it as proof
[/QUOTE]
Yeah, it’s got to suck for you that I actually read your cites and then quote back the parts that contradict whatever point you thought you were making.
No, you seem to want to focus on the ‘unbiased’ views of anti-nuclear groups to give you a clear assessment of how things are. 
I’m unsure if by the above you think I’m associated with the nuclear power industry at all, but if so let me assure you that if you took away all the nuclear power plants world wide tomorrow the only way that would effect me is in the same way it would effect you…rolling black and brownouts because suddenly 20% o our electrical production just went away. Other than that I’d be fine and dandy and simply dreading the increased costs for power and probable large increase of my taxes to pay for butt loads of magic ponies to take up the slack.
-XT
That is exactly my problem with nuke. They’ve had ample time and ample billions of dollars to give us the magic ponies they keep promising, but it’s right up there with flying cars. Investors know they’d produce more electricity burning 10 billion dollar bills than they’ll ever get “affordable, safe, clean” electricity from the nuke industry.
If you want to throw billions, and then trillions on a clean infinite power source you should be throwing those billions and trillions into solar power satellites.
If you want to imagine a world with 30 billion people all living in nice modern comfort, you’re probably not even talking about living on Earth proper anymore. Screw nuke. Build space colonies if you’re truly thinking about the long-term continued development and progress of human civilization.
[QUOTE=levdrakon]
That is exactly my problem with nuke. They’ve had ample time and ample billions of dollars to give us the magic ponies they keep promising, but it’s right up there with flying cars. Investors know they’d produce more electricity burning 10 billion dollar bills than they’ll ever get “affordable, safe, clean” electricity from the nuke industry.
[/QUOTE]
You’d have to figure out how to get the anti-nukes out of the way, and to stop blocking every attempt to build the things in any way they can. Of course, you don’t want to consider that aspect, since it hurts your position. Instead you want to pretend that the nuclear power industry has had a free ride, and they simply can’t pay for their own upkeep. That they haven’t gotten resistance every step of the way, that new designs are impossible to get approved and built in the environment that has existed in this country for years now, etc etc. Yeah, if you just leave all that aside and then ask why hasn’t the nuclear power industry produced, it’s a puzzlement…no doubt.
Sure…except that one technology is proven, and one is, er, pie in the sky.
The reality is that we’ve got 6-7 billion, and increasing number of who want an increasing amount of power. That’s the reality. Handwaving that away by creating a strawman about 30 billion and it not being earth anymore doesn’t address that reality. We need power. More power all the time. Wind and solar can’t even provide a major amount of that power for our needs TODAY…let alone in the future. So, what can? Coal. Natural gas (while it lasts). Hydro (if you are willing to take the Chinese approach to ‘environmentalism’). Nuclear…if you can get the fucking hippies and anti-nuke nutjobs out of the way. That’s about it. Other technologies can be niche providers (geothermal where you can get it, wind again where it’s cost effective, solar same, etc)…but to be in the over 10% club the technologies are fairly limited except in very vertically niched places like your Iceland example…few people, concentrated in few locations and living on a giant geothermally active island.
-XT
I’m already on record as acknowledging the NIMBY problem. I’m not thrilled about it either. I can’t think of a single solitary example of a form of energy production that didn’t have its own NIMBY following it around peeing on its leg.
Nuke is a big, fat, red low-hanging fruit. We haven’t built a nuke plant in 27 years now? We are managing to get something alternative here, something renewable there, etc built. It’s already happening and it’s already tested, built and proven.
You’re talking about suddenly deciding to resurrect our 1960’s-era space program, build new updated versions of our old moon capsules, rockets, etc. and have more than one or two of them within 10 years. Then you’re going to want to build 500 more. Plus the public doesn’t like you very much and when they see the price-tag they bitch because they’re unemployed and don’t have an advanced degree in nuclear physics, not that they could ever afford one anyway, and getting one of the few, coveted union nuclear jobs is like winning the lotto because 80% of it is already off-shored.
Besides that, it’s already been cited that utility companies, investors and financiers were pulling out of nuke even before it became the protest du jeur among the NIMBY-rati.
There is a market for nuclear, but it is a very small, niche one.
Still willing to drink that groundwater boys? Login - Kyodo News
Fill us up with some more propaganda as you go down on Godzilla’s dick.
Do you normally fantasize about people fellating giant lizards, or are you just in a mood?
http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/asiapcf/04/02/japan.nuclear.reactors/index.html?hpt=T1
Damn earthquakes, they really fuck shit up.
So how many people have died from radiation so far?
I seem to recall you lying about six killed in an explosion, but I wonder if you have any factual information.
No troll, I posted a link to an interview with a worker from the plant who said he saw six men killed on March 14th.
Trolls, they will do anything to get attention.
I’m not a troll, silly. I just don’t like when you lie. Although lying is understandable, since you don’t have any facts to back up your position. You may now return to your stupid-person’s impression of Socratic posturing.
Worker who was there relates he saw six men killed by explosion.
Internet troll, “You are a liar!”
Rest of internets, “lol!”
Have you considered that you might not be smart enough to be here? I’m sure the IMDB board for Shark Attack 3 would welcome your input. 
Now I am visualizing the nuclear deniers doing that everytime they post.
And it’s not a pretty sight!
Actually you’re the denier. Nuclear power has a proven track record of relative safety. You deny it based on nothing but hysteria and ignorance.
See in these cases the deniers are the ones without facts on their side, got it?
A denier looks at an image like this
http://media.voanews.com/images/480*320/REU_Fukushima_nuclear_plant+_21Mar2011_480.jpg
and says, “See? The nuclear plant stood up to a 9.0 earthquake AND a tsunami and did alright!”