solargroupies’s Recent Comments

• Click here to view comment in original post

  It's hardly a realistic expectation for sure! Hate to say it but this was so predictable! You would think that the car companies must pump millions of dollars into Congress pedaling their own self-interests! What's that you say? The car companies already do this?On Cash for Clunkers brought us ... more clunkers! posted 2 weeks, 1 day ago 29 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Sorry to sound negative but until it is more profitable to harvest clean energy, and until it is no longer legal for Congress to accept millions in PAC money fro huge corporations, this will continue. Lawsuits have not stopped cigarette companies.On Coal River Mountain, a symbol of hope, is slated for destruction posted 3 weeks, 5 days ago 37 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Mr. ROGUEINTELLECT, You asked: One in particular is being maintained and only requires fuel to be added. Is this true? If you want numbers to support my answer I can give it to you. I am familiar with all of the pros you mention as we have VT Yankee in our backyard. Solar installations will shrink and improve with new technology if we provide the same enormous subsidies as we have for nukes and fossil fuels, and solar will not poison the land forever. When enormous corporations fail, the government (you and me) are the ones who bail them out. Several retired nuclear plant engineers have told me that those plants will never be decommissioned, there is simply not enough money i the world. The question is are you willing to factor in the whole cost, including the enormous toll for future generations that will make our present projections for our federal deficit look like a piggy bank? I think I know the answer to that question.On Stewart Brand's nuclear enthusiasm falls short on facts and logic posted 1 month ago 162 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  In a simplistic sense, without considering the enormous infrastructure, monitoring, maintenance, decomissioning costs and waste transport, safeguarding and storage, yes! In a realistic sense, your information source is conveniently leaving out all of those other responsibilities. It's kind of like saying "all you need to do is put gas in your car and it keeps running". Except your car doesn't need 4 foot thick concrete walls to protect everyone from radiation, and your car doesn't use millions of gallons of cool water to cool the fission heat, nor does it need a huge staff of engineers, maintenance people and monitors to keep it operating and safe. The plant is also a convenient terrorist target, it generates tons of radioactive waste that will contaminate the earth for hundreds of thousands of years, and one more thing. The nuclear plant and property will never be of any other use, EVER. Outside of that, all you need to do is add fuel.On Stewart Brand's nuclear enthusiasm falls short on facts and logic posted 1 month ago 162 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Nuclear power plants will not save us from imminent demise- you couldn't build enough of them in the next 20 years even if you could afford to, to do that. According to Nocera, from MIT, who measures global power needs in terawatts, we will need ALL of our available power sources to fuel the world's electricity needs. The question is can we AFFORD to safeguard and store nuclear waste? There is no solution now and of all the responses so far, no one has addressed that basic issue. Even if we subsidize more fission plants the waste storage will bankrupt us. When you compare toxicity of radioactive fuel to the sun and wind, it is really an insane proposition to produce more nuke plants that we will never be able to afford to decommission, and will cost trillions to safeguard and store waste. Even fossil fuels and carbon sequestration, which has all kinds of problems, start looking pretty good in comparison. It simply doesn't make sense. Might it be driven by corporate greed? We need to smarten up and realize that we can't take our profits to the grave, but we can leave a legacy that is unaffordable for our children's children.On Stewart Brand's nuclear enthusiasm falls short on facts and logic posted 1 month ago 162 Responses