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

Reply #31: Not in my opinion. [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
NNadir Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-14-06 12:36 AM
Response to Reply #30
31. Not in my opinion.
I insist that for the reasons described in my previous posts that you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

I gave scientific references indicating that people who do know what they're talking about don't give a flying fuck about what you assert.

Sprinkling a little pseudoscientific terminology into a set of absurd contentions will not help either. You still are clueless. I have long been aware that you have no idea about the nature of nuclear equilibrium; I recall that several times you denied its existence. Now you raise subject that is related to that phenomena in an effort to sound "informed." Actually though, since it is has nothing to do with the subject at hand, it makes you even more ridiculous.

No matter.

Like I said, you are irrelevant.

This may come as a surprise to the little princes hiking around the family estates musing to themselves about how much firewood they can "sustainably" cut off Mommy and Daddy's acreage, but there are many people who are not Dick Cheney who support nuclear power and who are unimpressed by the unreferenced mutterings such as you produce.

I'd like to think that people like me played a role in the building of new nuclear reactors, by pointing out by word of mouth just how fucked up and weak the anti-nuclear arguments are. I was speaking as I speak now before most people even heard of Dick Cheney. I am sure that there are a fair number of people who when they hear of a new nuclear reactor are relieved, because they have understood what I have taken the time to discuss with them.

I'm sure of my own motivations. My Mommy and Daddy didn't manage land that had been in their family for generations. They didn't have "holdings" and investments. They were laborers, union members. When strikes came, my mother didn't wander the family property looking for the ideal tree to harvest. She worried if she could buy food, or keep clothing on my back or stay in her home. Because I grew up in such a world, I have sympathy for those who are not doing well, those who do not live in a world of academic abstractions, but in the day to day world of mere survival, those who live in fear of deprivation and suffering and denied access.

Sometimes things were rough, but at others they were surprisingly good: I am a child of the well regulated capitalism of the 1950's, 60's and early 70's, where mass production and public ethics made decent living standards broadly available across a vast and largely honorable middle class. My world was made by people like the Roosevelts, people who believed in fairness, opportunity, and justice and basic human rights, including economic rights. All of these things were available because there were resources, especially energy resources.

But there is a difference between a decent standard of living and a devotion to rich boy toys: The modern equivalents of my parents are not concerned with buying elaborate PV systems and huge banks of batteries and shelling out twice their annual salaries earned in places like Walmart so they can satisfy the bizarre representations of the little princes. Some of them are just trying to keep their kids fed and clothed and warm, just as my parents did. These need affordable and continuously available energy; one might argue that having these things is a human right.

The main reason that US utilities are considering nuclear power is because nuclear reactors work and produce cheap and clean power. Until the operational bugs were worked out, nuclear reactors typically worked at low capacity utilization. Now that decades of experience - thousands of reactor years - of experience are available, the situation is quite different. Nuclear energy has the highest name plate capacity utilization of any form of energy in the United States, coal included. For this reason, any company that owns and operates a modern reactor is probably experiencing it as a cash cow. Such a lesson is not easily lost on business executives.

I think for a long time, they worried about public acceptability, and bullshit delaying tactics used by lame Greenpeace types, but when they finally got around to checking out the climate they were surprised to have communities like that of Calvert Cliffs Maryland begging for more reactors.

I'd like to think that the attitude where people ask to have nuclear power plants built in their area have only come to pass because of lots of people like me, who worked hard to clarify what's going on. To the extent that I have helped to change public attitudes, I feel proud of my efforts.

Moreover, I think many utility executives know that carbon controls are going to come and a few cute little windmills in Maine and the bullshit promises of Arnie Steroid man's solar roofs, aren't going to do the trick. Thus utility executives - seeing the writing on the wall - want nuclear power to diversify their sources against the business implications of (necessary) regulation. They may not be able to get gas, and they may not be allowed to get coal. (Hooray for that!) Finally, not to rain on the little parade of our socialist Fidelite friends, some people who work in utilities are not in fact little demons who need to be struck down by the Holy Brats of Greenpeace waving windmill blades like swords. Some of them are working people who care about the future, who care about their children, and who care about the earth. People who care about their children, who care about the future, and who care about the earth don't gamble these things on bullshit unproved day dreams of puerile morally and intellectually isolated. They know that nuclear power is safer and cleaner than any of the alternatives. They want nuclear power because they want to be proud of what they do.

None of these people give a fuck about how often you can say "Dick Cheney." They know that Dick Cheney is irrelevant, much as you are irrelevant. I assure you that most people are smart enough to understand what a Dick is, and whatever Dicks might say, it means dick about the matter of nuclear energy.

And now from the grand world of sustainable biofuels, let's take a look at a satellite view of Haiti, one of the most impoverished nations on the face of this dire planet, where most of the biofuels do not come from Mommy and Daddy's acreage, but right out of the flesh of the raped and ravaged wilderness, where desperately impoverished people burn just about anything they can find that can be burned:

The border between Haiti and the Dominican Republic. Haiti is to the left and the Dominican Republic is the greener area to the right /
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

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

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002
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