RSS Feed
Twitter
February 17th, 2010 
QuadsZilla As many of you know, I’m a pretty staunch climate change skeptic. From the “value added” and selective temperature readings to the evidence that CO2 has not been the primary driver of climate in the distant past to the even tacitly agreed upon increase over the last 100 years (~.6C) being too small to worry about to – I just don’t agree that catastrophic AGW is even close to likely.
But I could be wrong.
And while I don’t think that CO2 is a pollutant, combustion does result in other pollution that I’d rather see curbed.
But not by scams like cap and trade.
The solution is to take all this money we are pouring into climate change bullshit, and funnel it instead developing and mass producing modern nuclear power plants and distributing them all over the world: like 20,000 of them. Take all that money that our government is going to use to “create jobs” and instead use it to create nuclear power plants and ship them all over the world.
Iran says their nuclear program is only to produce nuclear power. Well, let’s build 4 nuclear power plants over there for free them and sell them the energy.
Forget telling developing countries that they need to cap emissions. Let’s build nuclear power plants everywhere and sell the energy. We can even discount the sale at first to help them spur their economy. Think in terms of something like the Marshall plan but on a Global scale for nuclear energy.
If we start doing this, China will do it too. I’m sure some other countries will get into the mix as well. Then we’ll have real competition in the nuclear reactor space.
Let’s make energy so damn cheep that only a fool would use Oil, Gas or Coal.
Posted in 
hi,
thats not a good idea. When you ignore the risks of runing 20,000 new nuclear power plants and build them, you will not have enough uranium as resource: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium#Resources_and_reserves
But you are right: engery should be cheep. A lot of regeneratively produced energy is much cheaper and even more secure.
best regards
Kai
Ha! That’s just the “reserves” of shit we can easily get to. You can get more energy out of the uranium impurities in coal than you can from burning it.
That’s a very good idea, but I’m afraid we’ll have to wait until nuclear fusion power plants become as cost effective as our current fission plants.
The thing is that with 20,000 nuclear fission power plants (the current technology), we’ll generate a s**tload of toxic waste which we’ll have no way of disposing of and which is even more dangerous for nature and people than global warming (imagine a terrorist attack on one of these plants or toxic waste storage facilities – it’ll kill and damage everything on a radius of hundreds of miles – kinda like Chernobyl, only worse).
Forgot to add – solar and wind power would be much better – especially in sunny and windy areas, which is pretty much everywhere
.
Honestly, your positon should be a bit more refined as you should know through your SEO experience, not everything is black and white.
Everything should be part of the clean energy mix, regardless of global warming or not, i dont want to live like I’m in Beijing.
Like J said above, other areas are suited better to other energy forms.
Also, what isnt considered by you, is that if we had 4 nuclear plants in Iran, they wouldnt be ran by us, since it would have appearance of US people controlling Iran, and then, Iran and other nations like them would have much easier access to the technology and experience.
Not so simple boss!
Wind and solar are great ideas that suck in practice. Nuclear is an “evil” idea that works great in practice.
You can’t power an electrical grid with intermittent sources.
Yes, we do need more nuclear reactors. I like your thinking… Removing our dependency on fossil fuel will resolve many issues. However, some of us have it all figured out. Just no capital to pursue it.
Hi QZ,
since every one can have its own opinion nobody can stop you from saying that sort of crap (<- my opinion). Imho the only true thing in your article is "But I could be wrong"…you are…believe it.
There has been always climate change, but never that fast. Thats because mankind trys hard to accelerate it with emissions and gives a damn on following generations.
If you or the republic party of US or anybody else doesnt believe in mankind powered climate catastrophe, ask an icebear or if you dont talk icebearish, aks one of the humans, sitting on an island sinking in the next 20 years. They can tell you if it is real.
Your plan to sell nuclear power plants is a great idea. (remember what i said about people that dont care of times and peaople after them?!) Not only that you have 20000 times of the risk of nuclear disasters, but you have to care about the nuclear waste to. And until now, nobody has a clue how to handle it responsible or even safe. As i said, your plan to sell them is good, if you only could change the nuclear to regenerative powerplants. If the stupid politicans all over the world wouldnt have listent to lobyists (and get payed by) past 30 something years we would have a lot less nuclear waste, more developed, ready to use in large scale, modern regenerative technology. And you could say to the iranian guys, hey why use that old style nuclear power plant thing, we have modern, responsible options for you. You could sell energy from the sun. Thats even cheaper than to deliver uran you know.
Try to open your mind for new ways of producing energy. Try to open your mind for new ways to think. Think on your own and dont listen to lobyist or lobyist driven politicans (oh my fault, there is non in the US) but keep trying to become an responsible person. As my frind says, earth will keep spinning with or without climate change, they will even spinn when there is no human life on earth, she dont cares, but we do…do we?!
yours Themakemethinkguy
What we should do is build a massive solar wing that floats above the atomsphere or tap into tidal flow. Unlimited energy. Nuclear energy is the modern mans stone age tecnology. They spent the capital on the banks…
I like it.
I just hope nobody from near Chernobyl agrees with you or this will make this the maddest article ever.
Yeah, because current US technology is roughly equal to that of Russia in the mid-80s. Nothing’s improved at all since then.
Now we can all start complaining about 3 Mile Island, I mean that was in the US. And massive “unknown quantities” of radiation were released, that never killed anyone or caused unusual levels of illness. Meaning no radiation was released.
Nuclear is simply the cheapest, easiest, and safest option for energy. Solar and wind make everyone feel all gushy on the inside, but they are, at this point, well in their infancy and couldn’t sustain energy needs. So keep working on them, they’d be great for the future, but nuclear is what we need now.
Oh, and Yucca mountain is a great idea that is completely safe for ALL spent uranium in this country. It’s safe to transport the fuel rods there, and it’s safe to store them.
For those who prefer video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1eJMY9MT4a8
Damnyou Aresowrong – Dude, you REALLY need to quit drinking the GREEN kool-aid. And everyone else needs to learn to spell cheap correctly.
France derives over 75% of its electricity from nuclear energy has the lowest cost electricity in Europe, and extremely low level of CO2 emissions per capita from electricity generation.
As far as storage of waste, the US can do what France does – ship it to Russia. the US COULD store it at Yucca mountain in the middle of the Nevada desert – a great place to store spent fuel rods.
If France can do this, the US can do it better and more more efficiently and with less Union labor.
Wind and Solar? Yeah – those work ok in either places that are not so great for humans to live like deserts or Antarctica, or places that Ted Kennedy is going to complain about his view being obstructed (Cape Cod).
On another note – I hear Ted Kennedy has been sober for 6+ months today – a personal best.