Skip to main content

View Diary: A skeptic's view of nuclear energy (by DeAnander) (39 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  My main problem: (7+ / 0-)

    Your comment:

    It needs to come after a massive effort at conservation and renewable energies.

    is always tacked on to the end of every speech when it should be a stand-alone message in flashing neon. I see no real sign of anyone paying attention other than lip service to this. The public, even though it is a few years ahead of the moron in the White House, cannot get over the silver bullet idea so responsible parties must do it for them.

    Carbon sequestration, anyone?

    •  I agree (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      sockpuppet, melvin

      As this specific diary is about nuclear, that particular pitfall was hard to avoid ;-)

      But you are absolutely right.

      In the long run, we're all dead (Keynes)
      Read more on the European Tribune - bringing dKos to Europe

      by Jerome a Paris on Tue May 23, 2006 at 03:50:36 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Beyond that (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        sockpuppet, NJwlss

        my main objection is the one of centralization of power - but that is a political or even cultural argument although it greatly oversimplifies to beat us with the word "luddite." (I am not a French technocrat and not particularly fond of the idea of states at all.)

        I fear we will wind up making all these decisions with a gun to our head, on an emergency ad hoc basis. Hardly seems the way to determine the shape of society for the next few hundred years, does it?

        •  I know (0+ / 0-)

          DeAnander makes that case convincingly as well.

          I guess we have a different experience of this, and I won't pretend not to being biased, as many of the top engineers and managers of the nuclear industry in France are alumnis of my university.

          In the long run, we're all dead (Keynes)
          Read more on the European Tribune - bringing dKos to Europe

          by Jerome a Paris on Tue May 23, 2006 at 04:01:44 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  the reason for your bias is a bit disappointing (0+ / 0-)

            though :-), but as you said, you are French, so you are excused. Those elites, what c(w)ould we be without them?

            •  hmm, and I thought (0+ / 0-)

              you are working with wind energy, because you had some anti-nuclear energy view-points ... I am disappointed. I don't like all your agreements with the pro arguments. They are short-sighted and I don't trust them one bit. Nuclear energy is the energy choice of the evil genius, and I can live without evil and without genius. Oh my, I hope I will reread this a couple of times tomorrow to see if there is anything that would convince me.

              •  and yes, you bet (0+ / 0-)

                Firm opposition to nuclear power is more common among people of left/liberal, anti-war, "green," anti-capitalist, sustainable/eco-activist, "hippie" leanings.  Support for nuclear power also appears to be significantly stronger among males than females, something I'll return to in a later installment.

                I am one of those female green, anti-capitalist, sustainable/eco-activists with a "science" degree and no visible hippie markers. I don't give a damn about science, when it's used to put down so-called non-scientific tree-hugging "hippie" leaning folks.

                •  Yo... (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  sphealey

                  Female green, anti-capitalist, sustainable/eco-activist tree-hugger health physicist here. I've been ragged for years by my hippie friends for my support of nukes, and have been able to bring a few around.

                  I don't think nukes are the best answer, by any means, but I do think they are something that can keep us going until we find something that works. I'm glad nuclear power scares people - I hope the public never becomes comfortable with it. Nuclear technology begs to be abused, so the sooner we can get rid of it and move to something better, the happier I'll be.

                  But we have to have something until we get there, and, like it or not, nuclear is the only option that is even remotely feasable.

                  "Eschew Ofbfuscation." - Mark Twain

                  by windsngr on Tue May 23, 2006 at 08:46:59 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  No, not a question of bringing someone around (0+ / 0-)

                    matter of fact is that no matter what mankind is a slave of its own technological and scientific discoveries and ideas. Just because we are so darn unlucky to have become dependent on nuclear energy, doesn't mean that we will "get" to something better, just because you hope so. So far most technological developments were neither planned the way they turned out, nor could they be prevented. You dont' stop people from thinking. And what that thinking leads them to is uncontrollable.

                    If them darn scientist have them darn ideas and them big entrepreneurs see an opening to make a buck of profit with those ideas, there is no way of stopping both of them developing whatever self-destrucive technology there is.

                    There is no way of knowing that what we will get nuclear energy rid off will be better.

    •  Check out the (0+ / 0-)

      Kardashev civilizations scale sometime.  I would mostly agree with its characterization of civilization as the levels of energy it can marshall.

      More energy, the more you can change things to suit your purposes (extend life, travel, perform science, etc).

      Efficiency is always good - the higher your efficiency, the more of the energy you marshall actually does what you want it to.  The ability to suck in 10^20 watts is worthless if you can only spend a tiny fraction of a percent of it.  Also, why work hard when you can work smart?

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site