







Comments     Threshold


RE: 640 acres is a lot of land
By TomZ on 7/10/2007 2:59:27 PM , Rating: 4
One of these days, "environmentalists" will wake up and realize that nuclear power is the only way we can realistically put a dent in emissions.

Nuclear power doesn't fit well with the "environmentalists" because it doesn't benefit them in any way. With things like the so-called "global warming crisis" and things like that, they can whip the public into a frenzy, which gives them some degree of control over our culture, lifestyle, politics, personal choices, and checkbooks.

Nuclear power solves far more problems then it creates, and if they were truly objective in considering what is best for the environment and people, and what is also economically sustainable, they'd be behind it.

RE: 640 acres is a lot of land
By RogueSpear on 7/10/2007 9:26:34 PM , Rating: 2
I always find it interesting how the people here who have such a crisis of conscience when it comes to the batteries in hybrid cars going in a landfill (hint - they're largely recycled) have no such qualms regarding the waste produced by a nuclear power plant.

It's also depressing at best that whenever there's news or some article about technology or a project that attempts to be environmentally responsible, the pro nuclear and pro fossil fuel crowd always has a lot to say in the negative. Devil's advocate is one thing, being a shill is quite another.

RE: 640 acres is a lot of land
By TomZ on 7/10/2007 10:38:42 PM , Rating: 2
Let's stick to the debate, and avoid the name calling, ok?

Nobody has mentioned anything about hybrid car batteries going into landfills, or anything even remotely related to spent nuclear fuel going in or anywhere near a landfill. I don't understand the correlation you draw between these ideas.

I am personally reacting to the misguided perception that solar power is an environmental panacea (which it isn't) and to the general dislike of nuclear power by environmentalists (which is illogical).

RE: 640 acres is a lot of land
By RogueSpear on 7/11/2007 6:18:36 PM , Rating: 2

Name calling? Please point out where I did that.

RE: 640 acres is a lot of land
By PrinceGaz on 7/11/2007 10:37:26 AM , Rating: 2
I don't normally find myself agreeing with you, but I'm fully with you on the nuclear power issue.

If environmental campaigners really want to save the planet, the only viable way of generating the power we need today without burning fossil-fuels is by nuclear-fission. Wind-farms and solar-plants generate relatively small amounts of power and cannot be relied on as a major source of energy (wind-farms don't generate much power on calm days, and solar-plants produce next to nothing at night), yet are disproportionately expensive and use large areas of land.

I want to save the planet (it's the only one we've got) and the only way I can see of doing it is building more nuclear plants.


Related Articles
