Comments on: We must abolish wind power because of World War I and II. http://nuclearpoweryesplease.org/blog/2009/08/09/we-must-abolish-wind-power-because-of-world-war-i-and-ii/ Tue, 31 Jan 2012 18:45:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.3 By: Michael http://nuclearpoweryesplease.org/blog/2009/08/09/we-must-abolish-wind-power-because-of-world-war-i-and-ii/comment-page-1/#comment-10930 Michael Thu, 03 Dec 2009 09:20:34 +0000 http://nuclearpoweryesplease.org/blog/?p=784#comment-10930 Thank you. :) And believe me, the short-sightedness is one of the things that bugs me the most in this debate. To exemplify: here in Sweden our nuclear plants, currently 3 plants with 10 reactors, were built in the late 70's and early 80's. They currenly supply just shy of 50% of our yearly average consumption of electricity. But the anti-nukes are saying: "We dont' need to build any new reactors... because we currently have a production surplus". And that to me is about as stupid as saying "No, of course I didn't bring gas-money for our 3000 mile road-trip... look at the gague, the tank is full!". The lack of foresight is just astrounding. Looking even further than that, some people are saying we much abolish nuclear power because uranium and other fissionables are exhaustable. Well I agree that the fuel is indeed exhaustable... but why do we bother? Heck, if the anti-nukes were the least bit clever, they'd ask for an <b>increase</b> in nuclear power so we run out faster! The thing is it's not <b>inherently</b> bad to exhaust a resource provided it's not critical for future generations. So if nuclear power buys us 100 years of clean energy, heck, I'm all for it! It's not as if I'm saving the uranium for my grandchildren anyway. And during those 100 years, it'd be pretty piss-poor performance of mankind to not come up with anything at all to replace it. We have no less that four different research trails into fusion; energy storage techniques may revitalize things such as solar and wind adn solve that damned intermittancy problem; and smart-grids can help smooth out our consumption peaks and reduce stress from intermittent sources further. The main problem in the debate is that most people argue from <b>current</b> conditions and as if any decision we make now will be final and ever-lasting. And that's just plain silly. We need to look and not just assume the future is static. Thank you. :)

And believe me, the short-sightedness is one of the things that bugs me the most in this debate.

To exemplify: here in Sweden our nuclear plants, currently 3 plants with 10 reactors, were built in the late 70's and early 80's. They currenly supply just shy of 50% of our yearly average consumption of electricity. But the anti-nukes are saying: "We dont' need to build any new reactors... because we currently have a production surplus". And that to me is about as stupid as saying "No, of course I didn't bring gas-money for our 3000 mile road-trip... look at the gague, the tank is full!". The lack of foresight is just astrounding.

Looking even further than that, some people are saying we much abolish nuclear power because uranium and other fissionables are exhaustable. Well I agree that the fuel is indeed exhaustable... but why do we bother? Heck, if the anti-nukes were the least bit clever, they'd ask for an increase in nuclear power so we run out faster!

The thing is it's not inherently bad to exhaust a resource provided it's not critical for future generations. So if nuclear power buys us 100 years of clean energy, heck, I'm all for it! It's not as if I'm saving the uranium for my grandchildren anyway. And during those 100 years, it'd be pretty piss-poor performance of mankind to not come up with anything at all to replace it. We have no less that four different research trails into fusion; energy storage techniques may revitalize things such as solar and wind adn solve that damned intermittancy problem; and smart-grids can help smooth out our consumption peaks and reduce stress from intermittent sources further.

The main problem in the debate is that most people argue from current conditions and as if any decision we make now will be final and ever-lasting. And that's just plain silly. We need to look and not just assume the future is static.

]]> By: Michael http://nuclearpoweryesplease.org/blog/2009/08/09/we-must-abolish-wind-power-because-of-world-war-i-and-ii/comment-page-1/#comment-10928 Michael Thu, 03 Dec 2009 08:55:24 +0000 http://nuclearpoweryesplease.org/blog/?p=784#comment-10928 Well... trolling is OK to a certain degree I suppose because 1) if a sound reply cannot be given even to trolling, then the arguments are crap and 2) it's hurts the troller worse than the trollee. ;) /Michael Well... trolling is OK to a certain degree I suppose because 1) if a sound reply cannot be given even to trolling, then the arguments are crap and 2) it's hurts the troller worse than the trollee. ;)

/Michael

]]> By: pyro http://nuclearpoweryesplease.org/blog/2009/08/09/we-must-abolish-wind-power-because-of-world-war-i-and-ii/comment-page-1/#comment-10915 pyro Wed, 02 Dec 2009 23:53:14 +0000 http://nuclearpoweryesplease.org/blog/?p=784#comment-10915 Nevada wont be hopping aboard the nuclear train anytime soon, and its nice to see that you have a better understanding of the time factor in this debate then some. Nevada wont be hopping aboard the nuclear train anytime soon, and its nice to see that you have a better understanding of the time factor in this debate then some.

]]> By: pyro http://nuclearpoweryesplease.org/blog/2009/08/09/we-must-abolish-wind-power-because-of-world-war-i-and-ii/comment-page-1/#comment-10914 pyro Wed, 02 Dec 2009 23:49:23 +0000 http://nuclearpoweryesplease.org/blog/?p=784#comment-10914 may not be spam, but i troll all the same may not be spam, but i troll all the same

]]> By: Michael http://nuclearpoweryesplease.org/blog/2009/08/09/we-must-abolish-wind-power-because-of-world-war-i-and-ii/comment-page-1/#comment-10900 Michael Wed, 02 Dec 2009 23:05:07 +0000 http://nuclearpoweryesplease.org/blog/?p=784#comment-10900 I'm not saying we should go <b>only</b> with nuclear. We can't afford to say no to any clean kilowatt-hour. We need a <b>mix</b> of clean energy. Nuclear is one of those. Yeah I agree that Yucca Mountain is a bit of a mess-up. It seems technically pretty sound, even though I don't really like the idea of storing things in an oxidizing environment (KBS-3 will be implemented in a reducing environment). But the biggest problem seems to be that they tried to shove yet another nuclear facility down the throat of Nevada... hoping they wouldn't mind. They did... /Michael I'm not saying we should go only with nuclear. We can't afford to say no to any clean kilowatt-hour. We need a mix of clean energy. Nuclear is one of those.

Yeah I agree that Yucca Mountain is a bit of a mess-up. It seems technically pretty sound, even though I don't really like the idea of storing things in an oxidizing environment (KBS-3 will be implemented in a reducing environment). But the biggest problem seems to be that they tried to shove yet another nuclear facility down the throat of Nevada... hoping they wouldn't mind. They did...

/Michael

]]> By: pyro http://nuclearpoweryesplease.org/blog/2009/08/09/we-must-abolish-wind-power-because-of-world-war-i-and-ii/comment-page-1/#comment-10896 pyro Wed, 02 Dec 2009 22:53:30 +0000 http://nuclearpoweryesplease.org/blog/?p=784#comment-10896 ok, so how many new reactor do you think will have to built to make USA a "nuclear nation"? can we attain this goal before 2030, and only with funding appropriate with USA's interest in the project? And btw kootoos to you for the KBS-3 find, if only yukka worked as well politically wise... ok, so how many new reactor do you think will have to built to make USA a "nuclear nation"? can we attain this goal before 2030, and only with funding appropriate with USA's interest in the project? And btw kootoos to you for the KBS-3 find, if only yukka worked as well politically wise...

]]> By: Michael http://nuclearpoweryesplease.org/blog/2009/08/09/we-must-abolish-wind-power-because-of-world-war-i-and-ii/comment-page-1/#comment-10895 Michael Wed, 02 Dec 2009 22:41:56 +0000 http://nuclearpoweryesplease.org/blog/?p=784#comment-10895 As you may have noticed your comment passed right through this time without moderation. This is because of the Wordpress spam-filter: it blocks anyone that hasn't had two comments approved before. After that though, all your comments slip right through unless you trigger the spam search parameters explicitly. We're not afraid of dissenting opinions here. In fact: we welcome it. Nothing gets more boring than talking to people that agree with you all the time. It's like a creepy form of opinion-incest. Only by talking to those that <b>disagree</b> with you can you put your opinion to the test and get a measure of what it's worth. If you know what you are talking about, your opinion will stand up to the test. If you <b>don't</b> however... then is a good time to take a think about your opinion and if it's right to hold on to it just for old time's sake. /Michael As you may have noticed your comment passed right through this time without moderation. This is because of the WordPress spam-filter: it blocks anyone that hasn't had two comments approved before. After that though, all your comments slip right through unless you trigger the spam search parameters explicitly.

We're not afraid of dissenting opinions here. In fact: we welcome it. Nothing gets more boring than talking to people that agree with you all the time. It's like a creepy form of opinion-incest. Only by talking to those that disagree with you can you put your opinion to the test and get a measure of what it's worth. If you know what you are talking about, your opinion will stand up to the test. If you don't however... then is a good time to take a think about your opinion and if it's right to hold on to it just for old time's sake.

/Michael

]]> By: pyro http://nuclearpoweryesplease.org/blog/2009/08/09/we-must-abolish-wind-power-because-of-world-war-i-and-ii/comment-page-1/#comment-10894 pyro Wed, 02 Dec 2009 22:30:34 +0000 http://nuclearpoweryesplease.org/blog/?p=784#comment-10894 m'kay m'kay

]]> By: Michael http://nuclearpoweryesplease.org/blog/2009/08/09/we-must-abolish-wind-power-because-of-world-war-i-and-ii/comment-page-1/#comment-10862 Michael Tue, 01 Dec 2009 06:47:53 +0000 http://nuclearpoweryesplease.org/blog/?p=784#comment-10862 We was quoting me from an earlier post where I reminded him of Voltair's words: "Un bon mot ne preuve rien" - "A witty saying proves nothing". /Michael We was quoting me from an earlier post where I reminded him of Voltair's words: "Un bon mot ne preuve rien" - "A witty saying proves nothing".

/Michael

]]> By: Michael http://nuclearpoweryesplease.org/blog/2009/08/09/we-must-abolish-wind-power-because-of-world-war-i-and-ii/comment-page-1/#comment-10861 Michael Tue, 01 Dec 2009 06:46:43 +0000 http://nuclearpoweryesplease.org/blog/?p=784#comment-10861 It usually boils down to "Ok, so the emission numbers are lower, reliability is way higher and safety much better than pretty much anything else... but we still don't want it, just because. So there!". /Michael It usually boils down to "Ok, so the emission numbers are lower, reliability is way higher and safety much better than pretty much anything else... but we still don't want it, just because. So there!".

/Michael

]]>