|
|
|
December 17, 2009
It Would Damage What We Hold Dear
That I think is one of the most eloquent points ever made against the alternative energy craze as it is currently being manifested. We know what the world looks like now. How will it look if we have to get 100% of our energy from natural sources with technology that is available now? Or even technology that will reasonably be available in the next ten years? Cross Posted at Power and Control posted by Simon on 12.17.09 at 02:41 PM
Comments
There IS a low-carbon alternative to oil, gas, and coal. It's called nuclear energy. India is aggressively developing the Liquid fluoride thorium reactor and will probably have several of them operating within ten years, while the United States, the tech laggard, will continue to resist nuclear and burn coal. The solar and wind promoters might as well be on the payrolls of the oil, gas, and coal producers, and in fact often are- because there is no way wind and solar work at any cost without a fossil fuel or nuclear backup. Laura Louzader · December 18, 2009 01:47 PM If the LFTR works out we can always design the second generation based on what is learned from the first. OTOH we are doing pretty well in IEC Fusion. M. Simon · December 18, 2009 06:11 PM M. Simon · December 18, 2009 06:12 PM Post a comment
You may use basic HTML for formatting.
|
|
December 2009
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
December 2009
November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 AB 1634 MBAPBSAAGOP Skepticism See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
• Another Way To Hide The Decline
• The smart way to avoid bankruptcy • It Would Damage What We Hold Dear • Being white isn't "enough" • Polywell Down Under • "Precautionary principle" throws caution to the wind • 210 years ago.... • What to do with a Senator in need of an etiquette lesson? • Sorry, but the green just had to go! • dead issue
Links
Site Credits
|
|
Against? Don't you mean for?
Natural CO2 has been over 10x higher than now - yes, but man-made CO2 is inherently evil and thus the only kind capable of destroying the earth.
Shipping manufacturing off to China increases CO2 and real pollutants by 3x or more - yes, but Western CO2 is a lot more evil and more capable of destroying the earth.
And so on.
For the religion of Apocalyptic Socialism - whether or not it's wearing green - Western Civilization must be destroyed so that something better can arise. That things get worse every time they manage a small success is just because they haven't brought down the whole thing yet.