Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This is mere speculation. There's no guarantee hydrogen technology will ever reach the point where it can be mass-produced on a wide consumer industrial scale at an affordable price, or that biofuels will ever become a net energy positive source of energy. We're not even close and I think its highly doubtful it will get to that point, and shows that even technology has its limits.
Seems some here have been missing their history lessons.
If It Weren't For •_______•, Today America Would Have Safe, Functioning Nuclear Power Plants Instead of Fossil Fuels
• Big Coal
• Big Gas
• Big Oil
Thanks to construction costs, nuke margins are tight to start. Takes a while to recoup.
Blame Libs all you want since that seems to fit better into your uninformed, myopic, delusional and failed energy analysis.
I'm what many here would call 'liberal' and I've been trading uranium miners for the last decade.
There's putting money where your mouth is and then there's....... just mouthing off here on CD.
Good luck with that.
Nuclear energy can't be used to power the transportation system, so the premise of the thread title that it could replace fossil fuels is not valid. No matter of how much nuclear energy you have, you still need vast amounts of fossil fuels to run all the cars, airplanes, trains, semi trucks, etc.
Did you seriously just post a comment based solely on the limited number of characters allowed in the title line???? Did you not read the OP??
Seems some here have been missing their history lessons.
If It Weren't For •_______•, Today America Would Have Safe, Functioning Nuclear Power Plants Instead of Fossil Fuels
• Big Coal
• Big Gas
• Big Oil
Thanks to construction costs, nuke margins are tight to start. Takes a while to recoup.
Blame Libs all you want since that seems to fit better into your uninformed, myopic, delusional and failed energy analysis.
I'm what many here would call 'liberal' and I've been trading uranium miners for the last decade.
There's putting money where your mouth is and then there's....... just mouthing off here on CD.
Good luck with that.
Big Lobby certainly played a part. But if you think that liberalism and environmental scaremongering during the 70's and 80's didn't play a huge role in the national discussion, then I can only surmise that you aren't informed enough to participate in this discussion.
Big Lobby certainly played a part. But if you think that liberalism and environmental scaremongering during the 70's and 80's didn't play a huge role in the national discussion, then I can only surmise that you aren't informed enough to participate in this discussion.
If you think eco-scaremongering can compete with Big Energy Lobby, then you clearly aren't informed enough to post, much less start a thread on it.
Your OP clearly states that,
Quote:
Originally Posted by AeroGuyDC
If it weren't for liberals and liberalism, America would have a vast and expansive nuclear power infrastructure...
Thread-fail much or maybe try a new one?
Nuclear energy policy transcends party lines. And cash is bipartisan.
Not many would have pegged John McCain for a eco-NIMBY but he made sure Yucca Mountain didn't happen.
Since you're so interested in nukes, there's a lot going on right now and the market's changed considerably.
OT but great story. Charlie Steen 'Uranium King' and his exploits around Moab. I've been to the Hot Shot veins #1 & #2 near the MiVida. John Wayne partied at his house (now Sunset Grill) among other movie stars shooting in Moab or Monument Valley. He built up high so they could 'look down' on all the people who thought he was crazy. Reception's horrible there so they'd take up the plane to watch TV. That article's not the best obviously. The NEC of the 50's was pretty Wild West.
[url]Due to liberals' intransigence on Yucca Mountain, taxpayers have paid out $2 Billion in court awarded settlements for storing used fuel on-site. And many more billions are coming down the pike.
Seems like, there would have been a marvelous opportunity for a proper conservative state to swoop in and take on the job. Surely can't be that hard of a sell to a proper non-lib constituency?
This is mere speculation. There's no guarantee hydrogen technology will ever reach the point where it can be mass-produced on a wide consumer industrial scale at an affordable price...
Well, if we pout and say "it's hard, so why bother", we sure as all out won't get there.
You can pursue nuclear all you want, but it will never replace fossil fuels that the transportation system is totally dependent on.
Cars and trains can run on electricity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dane_in_LA
Seems like, there would have been a marvelous opportunity for a proper conservative state to swoop in and take on the job. Surely can't be that hard of a sell to a proper non-lib constituency?
Nobody wants nuclear waste in their backyard--not Nevadans, Mississippians, not Floridians.
Big Lobby certainly played a part. But if you think that liberalism and environmental scaremongering during the 70's and 80's didn't play a huge role in the national discussion, then I can only surmise that you aren't informed enough to participate in this discussion.
Three-Mile Island and Chernobyl didn't help. Were those liberals too?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
