Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Libya is better off without nuclear generation

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
 
Kolesar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-21-11 03:55 PM
Original message
Poll question: Libya is better off without nuclear generation
Edited on Mon Feb-21-11 04:13 PM by Kolesar
edit:too wordy
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
yurbud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-21-11 03:57 PM
Response to Original message
1. no country needs it for electricity, but that doesn't mean we have to bomb them back to the stone
age and/or invade and occupy them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GliderGuider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-21-11 04:29 PM
Response to Original message
2. Libya yesterday, Libya today or Libya tomorrow? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
damntexdem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-21-11 04:37 PM
Response to Original message
3. Everyone is better off without nukes.
Global warming is one thing -- global radioactivity in another league.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheWraith Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-22-11 03:52 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. Except coal plants release more poison in a day than nuclear plants ever have.
Is poisoning the air and water somehow better and more morally acceptable if we do it with coal plants, which kill probably around 40,000 people a year just in the US? Compared to civilian nuclear power never having killed anyone here?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-22-11 04:31 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. It's a good thing we have renewables so that we need neither nuclear NOR coal.
Edited on Tue Feb-22-11 04:31 PM by kristopher
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
XemaSab Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-22-11 05:13 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. You're right, we don't need either
We could just pull all our coal and nuclear facilities offline today, if we so chose.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bananas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-23-11 06:54 AM
Response to Reply #7
12. Bazinga!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-05-11 04:20 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. Bazinga?
Thanks for the link.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheWraith Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-22-11 09:25 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. Solar and wind together are much less than one percent of our power generation.
Hydro is significantly more, but we can't scale it up. So please tell me how many wind turbines we need to place in order to generate enough energy to replace ALL coal, and ALL nuclear, and how much money that will cost.

Show your work.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
XemaSab Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-22-11 10:11 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. Here's energy generated in California, which is 2/3 of consumed energy in the state
Coal isn't such a big percent of energy generated IN STATE, but natural gas is nearly 60% of our energy.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x275734

And California is supposed to be the leader of the renewables movement.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-23-11 12:09 AM
Response to Reply #6
10. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
XemaSab Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-23-11 12:19 AM
Response to Reply #10
11. Hey, 0.4% of the power generated in the state of California isn't nothing
:P
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-22-11 03:18 PM
Response to Original message
4. What could possibly be the problem with encouraging the spread ...
... of dual use nuclear technologies in a world as unstable as we now have?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kolesar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-15-11 06:38 PM
Response to Original message
14. kick
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 26th 2024, 12:49 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 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