thomasrex’s Recent Comments

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Bad Gar!

  Gar, I usually enjoy your comments but this one wasn't up to par.  Too much ranting and negativity with little or no fact.  

  The plankton stuff is interesting science, and important ecology as well.  Maybe we could actually take some time to think about it and debate it like civilized beings, instead of just launching verbal missle attacks.

  That and a cup of coffee will perk up the day.On Putting iron in the ocean posted 2 years, 6 months ago 47 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Capitalism

  You are absolutely right that nuclear power is, by definition, huge energy.  It cannot be made "local".  It will always be controlled by huge corporations and governments.  Personally I don't like concentrating power like that.

  But the problem is, we NEED huge energy sources if we're going to have a chance in hell of displacing coal.

  How many of you have seen Gore's new movie?  Remember the scene at the beginning where he is talking to Chinese energy planners?  China is building THOUSANDS of coal plants.  They are burning more coal than any nation on the planet and they plan on a 500% increase over the next couple decades.  They are only planning 10% renewable energy at most.

  So that means the other 90% is coal, coal, and more coal.  Billions of tons of coal.  Not clean coal like the US either...wer're talking the dirtiest possible.  Pollutions beyond our worst nightmares.

  So what's your solution for this?  "Socialism"?  Riggggght.  Solar/wind power?  Sorry, not a chance in hell.  China needs 24-hour-a-day, baseline power, the kind that solar and wind are worst at supplying.  Conservation?  Nice but won't provide 500% growth.  

  The one and only energy source that has a chance of preventing even a small part of the brewing environmental disaster in China is nuclear power.  LOTS of nuclear power.  China already has planned another 58 nuclear plants.  You'd better pray they find the money to build  hundreds more, or the earth's ecosystem is in MAJOR trouble.

  Yes, this means a lot of nuclear waste that needs to be disposed of, but that's better than destroying the entire ecosystem of the earth.

  Yes, nuclear power is by definition a "large scale" energy source.  And that is exactly what we need.On No nukes is good nukes posted 3 years, 5 months ago 62 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Solar sucks

  Sorry folks, but the truth is, solar and wind power suck.  

  Here in California we've had tax credits and incentives for decades, and yet solar energy still contributes less thann 1% to the energy grid.  The state is currently building a gigantic power line to wyoming so they can build 12 huge coal plants and pump the electricity to our grid.

  Solar is a big fat failure.  You people who rhapsodize on solar power have nothing but promises.  We've heard promises for years and the actual performance has been horrible.  You pump out studies and statistics about how great solar is, how fast it's growing, and yet at the end of 20 years, it's still less than 1%.  

  Why the discrepancy?  Simple.  You folks are all talk, no do.

  Same with wind.  Same with wave energy.  Lots of talk, but 20 years later nothing but more coal power.

  I wonder how many of you solar promoters realize that you are playing right into the hands of Big Coal?  The fossil fuel billionaires LOVE solar power because they know it's no threat to them.

  Meanwhile France already generates 75% of their electricity with Nuclear power, and they converted their entire grid in only 25 years.  On No nukes is good nukes posted 3 years, 5 months ago 62 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  re:Vincenze

  -------------
  Um... ok, so not 75 years... how long then?  100, 150?
  Do you have another estimate or is your only arguement that the two estimates I've seen are silly?

  If you're not prepared to back up your claims with evidence or refute other then your arguement is silly!

  Of all the comments I've read on this thread that are pro-nuclear none have addressed the fact that we will inevitabley run out just like with oil!!!!!!

  Unless someone can provide some counter estimates on the long term viability of uranium, leakage scares, waste, mining... then we're not having a debate, we're simply pushing our own interests blindly.
  --------------------

  Good point Vincenze.  OK, let me try to answer you:

  The current generation of nuclear reactors have terrible fuel efficiency.  They are the equivalent of a car that only gets 3 miles per gallon.  Over the next 20 years, the reactors are expected to triple or quadruple their efficiency.  Within 40 years they'll increase their efficiency by a factor of 20 (the equivalent of 60 miles per gallon).  

  Based on that efficiency, and a very conservative view of how much Uranium is economically recoverable, we could probably power the entire human race, electricity and transportation, for at least 200 years, and probably 1000 years.  

  Hopefully that's enough time to build more solar panels.  If not, well then in 1000 years we're in trouble.  Personally I'm just hoping we survive the next 50 years without Global Warming destroying out civilization...a very real danger.On No nukes is good nukes posted 3 years, 5 months ago 62 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  re: the irony

  ---------------
  so you plan to use up all the oil, then the Uranium... then what?
  ---------------

  We won't use up all the Uranium by then.  There is billions of additional tons of it.

  Get over it.On No nukes is good nukes posted 3 years, 5 months ago 62 Responses