tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7597656451205429515.post6973861575343003223..comments2024-02-16T17:52:44.944-06:00Comments on The Nuclear Green Revolution: The cost of saving our skinsCharles Bartonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01125297013064527425noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7597656451205429515.post-60233364038471747302009-02-10T20:43:00.000-06:002009-02-10T20:43:00.000-06:00We don't have to castigate global warming skeptics...We don't have to castigate global warming skeptics to present the benefits of thorium energy. Bjorn Lomborg, for example, writes about alternatives to spending excess money on carbon constraints. [Europe spent $50 billion already with no results!] <BR/><BR/>Energy cheaper than from coal is a persuasive, positive way to BOTH increase economic productivity worldwide and to dissuade nations from burning coal. That's the focus of Aim High,<BR/>http://rethinkingnuclearpower.googlepages.com/aimhighRobert Hargraveshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06846491141058940965noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7597656451205429515.post-6093916940396308392009-02-04T23:00:00.000-06:002009-02-04T23:00:00.000-06:00Conservatives/skeptics can love LFTR for energy se...Conservatives/skeptics can love LFTR for energy security and low cost power for the world's poor.<BR/><BR/>Liberals/AGWCC believers can love LFTR because they fear co2.<BR/><BR/>LFTR can attract 80% of the public. We will never get the fewer people fewer resources crowd and we will never get the coal infrastructure crowd.<BR/><BR/>charlesHAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7597656451205429515.post-38963606174783845802009-02-04T16:14:00.000-06:002009-02-04T16:14:00.000-06:00George Carty and Domb, I have argued not too long ...George Carty and Domb, I have argued not too long ago, that this is a tribal thing. Let's acknowledge that everyone who is a member of other tribes is a nut case, and not be too clear about the tribe I am a member of. In fact some 40 years ago I discovered that insanity was the rule rather than the exception in my tribe.Charles Bartonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01125297013064527425noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7597656451205429515.post-48454655029345089692009-02-04T15:53:00.000-06:002009-02-04T15:53:00.000-06:00CharlesI also consider myself an AGW agnostic like...Charles<BR/><BR/>I also consider myself an AGW agnostic like Donb and George. <BR/><BR/>I also believe that the conservatives could be more easily swayed to the benefits of LFTR technology if it is presented as an energy independence/national security interest vs. global warming, even if that's the primary benefit. Most conservatives just believe your a 'nutcase' once you mention global warming....<BR/><BR/>RobRobwhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00039496770111413350noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7597656451205429515.post-46887396419864142182009-02-04T15:19:00.000-06:002009-02-04T15:19:00.000-06:00Charles Barton said:I think it important that cons...Charles Barton said:<BR/><I>I think it important that conservatives participate in mitigation discussions.</I><BR/><BR/>The political hurdle here, as George Carty implied above, is that participating in CO2 mitigation discussions (as such) basically admits that it is a legitimate problem. It is hard to discuss solving a problem you don't believe exists.<BR/><BR/>That is why I would frame the discussion in terms of the moving away from fossil fuels to the safe and economical alternative of advanced nuclear energy, and let the various groups take away what they will -- CO2 mitigation, improved health, conservation of increasingly scarce fossil fuels, reduced exports of dollars. <BR/><BR/>We don't have to agree on what what we think is the biggest problem to be solved, so long as we all agree on the same solution. Let the political discussions revolve around the exact path to the solution, so long as that does not substantially impede progress towards it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7597656451205429515.post-20789762753237924162009-02-04T14:36:00.000-06:002009-02-04T14:36:00.000-06:00I'm skeptical on AGW climate catastrophe, though l...I'm skeptical on AGW climate catastrophe, though like donb I recognize good reasons for moving away from fossil fuels. I'd also suggest that ending our oil addiction will free us of the necessity of engaging in imperialist behaviour in the Middle East, with all the repercussions that goes with this.<BR/><BR/>The biggest problem I have with AGW alarmists is that they may convince people that they're screwed and that there is therefore no point in doing anything (after all, even if the West could with a truly Stalinesque level of effort become carbon-neutral in 10 years, that may well be cancelled out by increased Third World use of fossil fuels). <BR/><BR/>Personally, I think that we'll be OK as long as we keep CO2 below 500 ppm, and get it back below 350 ppm by 2100.<BR/><BR/>To give a comparison, if Klaus von Stauffenberg and his like-minded German officers had been aware of the stuff that the Allies were talking about among themselves - Morgenthau Plans and the like - do you think they would even have bothered trying to overthrow Hitler?<BR/><BR/>No, they would have given up in despair and resigned themselves to fighting to the last alongside the Nazis - even though they hated them. "If that's all we've got to look forward to, we might as well go down fighting..."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7597656451205429515.post-23261725780982864402009-02-04T10:23:00.000-06:002009-02-04T10:23:00.000-06:00domb, Your comments reflect why I think it importa...domb, Your comments reflect why I think it important that conservatives participate in mitigation discussions. Although i do not count myself a conservative, I believe that mitigation efforts need not involve extensive long term government involvement in the personal lives and choices of its citizens. I also view the most desirable energy option to be the one which delivers the greatest amount of energy at the lowest cost. I would expect agreementfrom conservatives on that view.Charles Bartonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01125297013064527425noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7597656451205429515.post-32949927677006844782009-02-04T09:57:00.000-06:002009-02-04T09:57:00.000-06:00I am a political conservative. I take an "agnostic...I am a political conservative. I take an "agnostic" view of anthopogenic global warming. But I believe we political conservatives can strongly support doing the right thing with respect to advanced nuclear energy, even if it is for the "wrong" reasons.<BR/><BR/>I believe that the two biggest reasons are the negative health effects of burning fossil fuel, and their increasing scarcity/cost. I would hope that both sides of the political spectrum could agree on this.<BR/><BR/>The cost issue needs work. Part of the solution is factory built, truck/rail transportable modular reactors, as Charles Barton has often suggested.<BR/><BR/>I think also there is a regulatory cost problem. For conventional reactors, this is the single biggest cost, exceeding the cost of labor to build a power plant or the cost of the reactor. The role of government should be to regulate for the success of advanced nuclear energy. Success means quickly obtaining safe, low cost energy from advanced reactors such as the LFTR. Government needs to be a stakeholder in that success, not just a provider of safety regulations.<BR/><BR/>With regulation for success and mass production, I believe that advanced reactors will eventually provide energy at lower cost than coal does today.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7597656451205429515.post-67728905404489076352009-02-04T08:01:00.000-06:002009-02-04T08:01:00.000-06:00I found this quote from Amory Lovins on the Canadi...I found this quote from Amory Lovins on the Canadianbluelemons blog. "If you ask me, it'd be a little short of disastrous for us to discover a source of clean, cheap, abundant energy becasue of what we would do with it. We ought to be looking for energy sources that are adequate for our needs, but that won't give us the excesses of concentrated energy with which we could do mischief to the earth or to each other." This is from the Mother Earth-Plowboy Interview Nov/Dec 1977 on page 22. Now we understand Lovins' irrational objection to nuclear power. I wonder what his vision of "adequate for our needs" is?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7597656451205429515.post-1947908477503271102009-02-04T07:27:00.000-06:002009-02-04T07:27:00.000-06:00Lynne, your voice needs to be heard. The Greens a...Lynne, your voice needs to be heard. The Greens are over reaching, and eventually will be pushed to the margins, but right now the politicians and the media are looking for answers, and the greens are talking in very loud voices. The politicians and the media have not yet noticed that what the Greens are saying is crazy.Charles Bartonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01125297013064527425noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7597656451205429515.post-81578225676975579892009-02-04T07:19:00.000-06:002009-02-04T07:19:00.000-06:00This has been a concern of mine for quite some tim...This has been a concern of mine for quite some time. If we allow these 'energy charlatans' to direct funding to renewables, then we may not have the financing to build or refurbish nuclear plants. Money has to go to a reliable baseload source on which we can build a recovery at the end of this recession. Watching California is very instructive. Now that the 'greens' have influenced the energy supply plan, I read that they are looking at banning plasma and large screen LCD televisions. The move to control energy, and now lifestyle choices, is proceeding as planned. Will sanity ever prevail?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com