Thursday Open Thread

Comments

10 responses to “Thursday Open Thread”

1. 

   Baker

   March 25, 2011

   Chernobyl was constructed by a broke, terribly managed country on a less than shoestring budget. The primary containment unit that all nuclear plants have, the “containment vessel”, was absent at Chernobyl because they were arrogant, communist idiots. Nuclear has its risks but that is worth remembering. No nuclear power in the world is built like Chernobyl was.

2. 

   Gunner

   March 25, 2011

   @Tim If there is one thing that you need to learn over there it’s never trust the Germans.

3. 

   Steve Golden

   March 24, 2011

   Can we have a discussion of Rep. Golick and Ramsey’s (R-acist) response to the massive protest today?

   Hey you guys protest, but you don’t matter because you’re not at work right now. Now shut up and let the big boys talk.

   Bigoted condescending jerks, they are.

4. 

   Steve Golden

   March 24, 2011

   100% not getting into the nuclear argument. Go to my Facebook for that one. I think there are legitimate arguments on both sides, but far too often, the anti-nuclear movement is based in innuendo and NIMBYism. That’s all I have to say about that.

   YD events sound nice. I hear there’s this big Convention coming up. I wonder who plans to join us and/or sponsor it?

5. 

   Jen B.

   March 24, 2011

   Jules keyed in on the important point.

6. 

   Jules

   March 24, 2011

   Manuels Happy Hour Friday Got it

7. 

   Tim Cairl

   March 24, 2011

   Um, the german’s are doing it. The key is it’s not an overnight shutoff, it’s a phasing out of nuclear power. The germans are radical about it and it’s proving to pay off in $$. You can see solar panels everywhere, random windmills erected around the countryside and even in the burbs, their electric bills are higher for consumption (shock! horror!) and their factories and businesses get tax deductions for doing reclamations for energy.

   Ie – the paper mill we toured took their waste from their water reclamation systems and burned it in a generator furnace to produce electricity, the by-products aren’t harmful.

   It can be done, the US has no majority willpower to do it.

8. 

   Ed

   March 24, 2011

   The point is, where decades away from FINDING an alternative and its unlikely we’ll be able to match nuclear’s output. Probably not even close. Thorium is our best bet but it is still radioactive. So in the next century, maybe we’ll get something to replace nuclear.

   At any rate, still not acknowledged is that nuclear is the only thing that will work for much of the world.

   “We must pursue alternatives with the same discipline we have pursued nuclear all these years.”

   This is a false dilemma.

9. 

   Catherine

   March 24, 2011

   Ed, it takes 25-30 years to get a nuke plant online and BILLIONS of taxpayer dollars. When you look at the full cost (both in energy and money) of bringing and keeping a nuclear plant online it isn’t much better than coal. We must pursue alternatives with the same discipline we have pursued nuclear all these years.

10. 

    Ed

    March 24, 2011

    How about this: If you don’t want nuclear, literally, the only option that can even come close to matching nuclear’s output for at least, the next 25 years at a minimum, is coal. You really want that?

    Compare coal’s total damage to nuclear please before answering.

    Also: as I said before, many parts of the world, such as Japan, can only have reliable power to meet their demands from nuclear