[QUOTE=repete86;58269]I don't consider cost to be an issue when discussing the fate of the world.

hes gota point there

omgwtfbyobbq -

Yeah, but I have read the exact opposite. It has already been published that the security at the plants is terrible and easy to break into.

Nation?s Nuke Plants Still Not Secure, New Gov?t Report Finds
April 7, 2005
https://www.hstoday.us/Kimery_Report/...port_Finds.cfm

GAO Finds Nuclear Power Plants' Accounting of Spent Nuclear Fuel Deficient, Poorly Regulated
April 12, 2005
https://www.hstoday.us/Kimery_Report/..._Regulated.cfm

Slammer worm crashed Ohio nuke plant network
Kevin Poulsen, SecurityFocus 2003-08-19
https://www.securityfocus.com/news/6767

Chernobyl on the Hudson?: The Health and Economic Impacts of a Terrorist Attack at the Indian Point Nuclear Plant
Edwin S. Lyman, PhD, Union of Concerned Scientists, September 2004
https://www.ucsusa.org/global_securit...wer-plant.html

Here is one that presents your argument :

(Nuclear Power Plant) SECURITY
https://www.nmcco.com/education/facts...y/security.htm

CarloSW2

Bubba Bob -

No problem. Beyond the issue at hand, people tend to listen to and read the stuff that reinforces their argument and world view. It's natural to do so. I read my stuff and you read yours. Our ideas are ultimately valid if they can withstand the light of day.

The Rocky Mountain Institute sees the solution to our problems through technology, but favors some over others. For instance, RMI wants to have a hydrogen/fuel cell future. Some would say that's bonkers, but they have a "game plan" that is pretty interesting to read.

You may notice that I cite RMI alot because they try to marry pro-environment and pro-economic interests. They are looking for win-win solutions.

CarloSW2

I appreciate you concern for the environment, but in all honesty, you're dramatizing something that isn't there. In case you were unaware, one of the primary objectives of the Tennessee Valley Authority was to prevent flooding which had previously been a huge problem. Alongside that, it provided needed jobs and helped to power a section of the country which was in the dark for the many years before its existence. It comes at a cost, as all things do, but the cost is minimal.

Solar and wind power are highly unfesible. Have you even taken geographics into account? How many places actually receive sufficient sunlight or wind to actually sustain a power grid? Not many. The fields required for such a power plant would be massive. Now certainly it has its promise, but it is simply promise. It is not a logical solution at the present time.

It's all well and great that you're taking the initiative to cut your power bill. I would prefer not to suffer from heat stroke, so I intend to run the central air at a comfortable 73 degrees. People can chage their consumption habits, but why would they want to? We have been given so many things by technology and science that have made our lives easier. It would be foolish to ignore all of those advances and essentially "go back in time" so that we can conserve. Science has to account for its advances by also improving upon power and its collection. Until a better method of power distribution is found, it would be foolish to expect people to give up the modern comforts which have we have been afforded.

The point isn't to want to. I would certainly love to have the AC running full blast year round, take long hot showers, and do all sorts of other wasteful things, but I choose not to. You talked about technology making thigs easier. The technology is also there to make things more efficient. What we are doing on a national and global level is not sustainable by any means. Not too far into the future, it will be difficult to live (not live comfortably, but live) because of a mass apathy and utter disregard for their actions that provide a petty comfort.


Bubba Bob-

The World Nuclear Association is a lobbying group representing the nuclear industry. Don't you think that it would be in their favor to hand pick or distort results in the same way King Coal and Big Oil do?

And exactly whom would you rather me look at? Greenpeace?



Actually, I guess you would...

I don't think anyone was saying do without. The object is to consever, you don't have to use less energy then repete86 ,you just need to use less then you did last year. We get carried away here sometimes it's not an all or nothing deal. You think you could be comfortable at 74 or 75 degrees? Unless you don't think we need to consever then thats another thread.

No, I hate Greenpeace. They have changed from being a direct action group in the 70's to a money-making operation doing only enough to cover the feel-good environmentalists who don't do much other than talk about the issues. I prefer independent studies.

For the "why change" argument, here's how I think about it:

It's like a credit card. You can use it well as long as you don't overspend and pay it back in time. But, if you start overspending and can't pay it back, you end up paying interest and becoming mired in debt. At this point you can't get anything new until you pay back your inflated debt and you end up worse off than if you just spent moderately and didn't get into debt at all. In a worse case scenario you don't pay it back at all and the repo person comes and takes all your stuff.

Now, you say I don't want to change, but I think it's obvious at this point we're overspending our environmental capital and pretty soon we're going to end up putting all our effort into paying it back. Don't be so damn lazy and just let it happen.

Great analogy.