You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #32: Exactly as I thought - you didn't read the thread, just reacted to key words. [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU
Nihil Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-08-10 04:00 AM
Response to Reply #31
32. Exactly as I thought - you didn't read the thread, just reacted to key words.
> There has been recognition for more than 20 years that a renewable grid
> is a practical and achievable objective will within the limits of existing
> technology.

And yet do we see one? No. In "more than 20 years" we *still* have the view
that it is "a practical and achievable objective" rather than a hard fact.

> It is faster, less expensive and cleaner than nuclear at achieving the
> same end.

It would definitely be cleaner and probably less expensive but in the
"more than 20 years", the "faster" aspect is (ironically) still theoretical ...


I repeat: I have no problem with "RENEWABLES"; I just want them to replace
the most devastating fossil fuels first and stop with all the bullshit about
"nuclear is deh evil" as an alternative. It is an unnecessary distraction
that only divides the anti-coal argument and results in delays which only
benefit the coal side.

I do not encourage nuclear power to replace wind, solar PV or solar thermal.


Although you've probably just slipped into the usual groove in response to
the word "nuclear", please recall that my entry point into this thread was
regarding the re-use (re-processing) of nuclear fuel.

>> I openly state that so-called "greens" are two-faced when they decry the use
>> of well-established re-use methods when applied to nuclear fuels at the same
>> time that they support the re-use (or recycling) of every other substance
>> under the sun.

I support the re-processing of nuclear fuel (albeit with the usual caveat that
I don't expect Americans to be any more capable of being trusted with it than
they are of nuclear power stations en masse).


>> To put it plainly: if you do not agree with getting every bit of useful energy
>> out of whatever source then you are not "green" in any shape or form.

>> The coal will *not* go away - even the current occupant of the White House
>> doesn't pretend that he is sufficiently interested in the planet as to go against
>> the people who pay him/his friends - but the goal *should be* to reduce the
>> input from coal and replace it with renewables.

These points still stand. Once-through processing is cheaper than re-processing.
Disposable plastic containers are cheaper than reusing glass ones. The cost is
not seen as a justifiable reason for doing the wrong thing in any other aspect
of life so why do some people insist on making an exception for nuclear fuel?


As regards to your pious request ...

> I'll ask once more, please, if you have a valid analysis demonstrating
> why renewables cannot replace coal more rapidly and at less cost than
> nuclear would you mind sharing it with us?

... as you well know, there have been many threads by people more patient
than I who *have* provided valid analyses but you, I and most readers are
well aware that you *only* accept the Word of your Prophet and, as I have
been pleasantly surprised that you have restrained yourself from spamming
this thread with "The Gospel", I have no intention of feeding you an
invitation to shut it down in the usual manner.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC