115

Have the events in Japan changed your view of nuclear energy?


 

 

Have the events in Japan changed your view of nuclear energy?

  1. I think nuclear plants are very safe under proper circumstances. Not to suggest their engineers didn't take this into account — but I wouldn't consider an earthquake/tsunami-prone area to be a good site for a reactor.

  2. I think nuclear plants are very safe under proper circumstances. Not to suggest their engineers didn't take this into account — but I wouldn't consider an earthquake/tsunami-prone area to be a good site for a reactor.

    • I believe that they are not safe :)

      • I agree, they are not safe :)

        • I'm so glad someone is in their right mind ;) call me sometime Hex

          • EW ! I have specific needs in men and you obviously don't posses the specific qualities…I see no future in our relationship. Sorry, Brian.

          • You go girl !

          • Thanks girl ! Girls now a day should stand up and protect each others opinions.

          • Ladies please, i don't see how this relates to the subject at hand in any way .. i believe that nuclear plants are safe for the environment and people should stop worrying about all these explosions …

          • Stop worrying ?!?!!?!? .. thats totally self-centered…your crazy…

          • I agree.

          • Karaitlyn ? what kinda name is that …?

          • Joshy isn't much better … but i will not press the matter .. for i am an intense debater and this is a serious subject!

  3. I don't think nuclear energy is so dangerous that we should never use nuclear power generation facilities, but they should be established so that the can NEVER be any political interference in the way they are operated and the rules that apply to their operation. The trouble at the facilitiy in Japan centered around failure of the cooling pumps as well as the back up pumps. Here in Canada Stehen Harper ordered a nuclear facility to operate even though the backup pumps were not even connected and the chief regulator resigned rather than accept that situiation. I guess Stephen Harper figures he makes the rules to the extent that he there will not be an earthquake while he is Prime Minister. The events in Japan illustrate just how much risk Harper took and how dangerous he really is.

  4. I don't think nuclear energy is so dangerous that we should never use nuclear power generation facilities, but they should be established so that the can NEVER be any political interference in the way they are operated and the rules that apply to their operation. The trouble at the facilitiy in Japan centered around failure of the cooling pumps as well as the back up pumps. Here in Canada Stehen Harper ordered a nuclear facility to operate even though the backup pumps were not even connected and the chief regulator resigned rather than accept that situiation. I guess Stephen Harper figures he makes the rules to the extent that he there will not be an earthquake while he is Prime Minister. The events in Japan illustrate just how much risk Harper took and how dangerous he really is.

    • The CANDU system designed here is far safer than those used in Japan or the US. Our challenge is to keep the fission process going not getting it to stop. I suggest you look it up on Google to see that it has nothing to do with the PM being dangerous. I suppose however that some people would blame him for the weather if they could. Get a life!

      • Right on.

    • You're absolutely right. Creating a waste disposal expense for MIILLENNIA is always best, since we can not just offload the full costs to our children and grandchildren, but we can leave our wastes for entirely new SPECIES of humans which will evolve over the next few hundred thousand years!

      Looked at from a technical viewpoint, we're effectively leaving our garbage for at least one, and possibly TWO completely different species of human beings! Perhaps even more than that, if radioactivity rises sufficiently enough to accelerate mutation rates globally! Sure beats doing the right thing and using non-destructive, non-polluting, anually renewable natural resources!

      FYI: You may not have noticed, but "failure of the cooling pumps" means "it ain't so safe after all if a relatively low-technology device such as A PUMP can cause a thermonuclear MELTDOWN!" Of course, you're saying "We need better pumps! That'll fix everything!" but in reality, unless those pumps also extract 100% of ALL radioactive material from what they pump, they're still not going to be "absolutely safe" or "absolutely foolproof."

      People have this arrogant notion that we can do whatever we want to this planet without ever realizing any consequences…guess what? The planet knows it's got fleas, and it's in the process of shaking us off if we don't stop causing it more and more damage! We have better, safer, cheaper, and renewable options to choose from…it's time we focused a lot more heavily on those, and got away from all of these nuclear reactors once and for all.

  5. A switch to thorium nuclear reactors that are much safer would be a very good idea. I think you should write about it. Put it out there, better alternatives are available.

  6. A switch to thorium nuclear reactors that are much safer would be a very good idea. I think you should write about it. Put it out there, better alternatives are available.

  7. I think that the people in Japan who died from the earthquake directly, or from the effects of the tsunami, would gladly have their lives back in exchange for a bit of low-level radioactive dust. Water, dirt, wood and concrete have killed far more actual people in the last year than every nuclear incident combined, since 1945.

  8. I think that the people in Japan who died from the earthquake directly, or from the effects of the tsunami, would gladly have their lives back in exchange for a bit of low-level radioactive dust. Water, dirt, wood and concrete have killed far more actual people in the last year than every nuclear incident combined, since 1945.

  9. I believe, comparing nuclear to gas/oil/coal power, there have been significantly less deaths. But your poll, seemed rather biased, giving us no way to choose the above answer.

  10. That'd be the third option, actually.

  11. That'd be the third option, actually.

    • No .. according to my precise calculations .. it would be the 39.66453rd option :)

  12. NO amount of radioactivity is ever “safe” to anyone or anything IMO. I don’t care what they experts say.

    All that radiation on its way across Canada will end up in the sea, sea life, water supply, EVERYTHING, and eventually end up not only on us but inside us on top of all the other toxins we ingest daily that all add up to more cancers & disease.

    Nuclear energy is nothing but a toxic never ending money pit from the day it is built to the day your town is chosen as a burial site for its toxic waste.

  13. NO amount of radioactivity is ever “safe” to anyone or anything IMO. I don’t care what they experts say.

    All that radiation on its way across Canada will end up in the sea, sea life, water supply, EVERYTHING, and eventually end up not only on us but inside us on top of all the other toxins we ingest daily that all add up to more cancers & disease.

    Nuclear energy is nothing but a toxic never ending money pit from the day it is built to the day your town is chosen as a burial site for its toxic waste.

    • You are a proper disciple of mass media.

    • Who need experts when we have paranoia!

  14. You are a proper disciple of mass media.

  15. Who need experts when we have paranoia!

  16. You better not fly then. Or go out in the sun. Or get a medical CAT scan or X-ray. Or live on Earth.

  17. You better not fly then. Or go out in the sun. Or get a medical CAT scan or X-ray. Or live on Earth.

  18. The CANDU system designed here is far safer than those used in Japan or the US. Our challenge is to keep the fission process going not getting it to stop. I suggest you look it up on Google to see that it has nothing to do with the PM being dangerous. I suppose however that some people would blame him for the weather if they could. Get a life!

  19. Ash from coal burning power plants has more radioactive components in it than any nuclear plant has ever put into the atmosphere. The guys that complain about nuclear power are the ones who complain the loudest when they lose power at their home.

  20. Ash from coal burning power plants has more radioactive components in it than any nuclear plant has ever put into the atmosphere. The guys that complain about nuclear power are the ones who complain the loudest when they lose power at their home.

  21. Energy from oil is far more dangerous for the environment than Nuclear energy. Have a look at all the oil related environmental impacts on our air, water, and land from the early 1900. Gee, just last year we poisoned the entire South Eastern Gulf with oil impacting millions killed untold numbers of marine life still ongoing. Since we started using nuclear we have had, What? 3 mile island (Nobody died and no outside contamination) Cherynoble (USSR did not react in time many deaths) and now Japan where a 40 year old reactor scheduled for shut down (Bad luck) No difference really, slow death from oil pollution or quick death from nuclear contamination. Nuclear and hydro is the way to go if you want clean energy with least impact on the environment.

  22. Energy from oil is far more dangerous for the environment than Nuclear energy. Have a look at all the oil related environmental impacts on our air, water, and land from the early 1900. Gee, just last year we poisoned the entire South Eastern Gulf with oil impacting millions killed untold numbers of marine life still ongoing. Since we started using nuclear we have had, What? 3 mile island (Nobody died and no outside contamination) Cherynoble (USSR did not react in time many deaths) and now Japan where a 40 year old reactor scheduled for shut down (Bad luck) No difference really, slow death from oil pollution or quick death from nuclear contamination. Nuclear and hydro is the way to go if you want clean energy with least impact on the environment.

    • Hydro is clean but uses up land mass. Coal would be preferable to nuclear. Especially in Canada where we have lots of coal. That way the plants can be built in the cities where the bulk of the power is consumed rather than flooding valleys that are out of sight of the users.

  23. You're absolutely right. Creating a waste disposal expense for MIILLENNIA is always best, since we can not just offload the full costs to our children and grandchildren, but we can leave our wastes for entirely new SPECIES of humans which will evolve over the next few hundred thousand years!

    Looked at from a technical viewpoint, we're effectively leaving our garbage for at least one, and possibly TWO completely different species of human beings! Perhaps even more than that, if radioactivity rises sufficiently enough to accelerate mutation rates globally! Sure beats doing the right thing and using non-destructive, non-polluting, anually renewable natural resources!

    FYI: You may not have noticed, but "failure of the cooling pumps" means "it ain't so safe after all if a relatively low-technology device such as A PUMP can cause a thermonuclear MELTDOWN!" Of course, you're saying "We need better pumps! That'll fix everything!" but in reality, unless those pumps also extract 100% of ALL radioactive material from what they pump, they're still not going to be "absolutely safe" or "absolutely foolproof."

    People have this arrogant notion that we can do whatever we want to this planet without ever realizing any consequences…guess what? The planet knows it's got fleas, and it's in the process of shaking us off if we don't stop causing it more and more damage! We have better, safer, cheaper, and renewable options to choose from…it's time we focused a lot more heavily on those, and got away from all of these nuclear reactors once and for all.

  24. Because, generally speaking in the western Society in particular, there is a school of thought that human life is very precious and is to be saved at all costs, even to the detriment of others. Humans are a plague on the environment. A few million lost as a result of a nuclear , or, even a natural disaster like a earthquake, typhoon ,plague , famine etc would not cause a depopulation of the homo sapiens specie . No, the world would go on as nature goes on with her work. Like the Dinosaurs the Human specie will be obliterated from the face of the earth, but no one knows how or when I don't worry about that sort of thing.

  25. Because, generally speaking in the western Society in particular, there is a school of thought that human life is very precious and is to be saved at all costs, even to the detriment of others. Humans are a plague on the environment. A few million lost as a result of a nuclear , or, even a natural disaster like a earthquake, typhoon ,plague , famine etc would not cause a depopulation of the homo sapiens specie . No, the world would go on as nature goes on with her work. Like the Dinosaurs the Human specie will be obliterated from the face of the earth, but no one knows how or when I don't worry about that sort of thing.

  26. If we'd move of this notion of centralized power generation we might get somewhere. But that would mean shifting profits from utility companies to research, manufacturing, installation and maintenance, not to mention all the new innovations that would come from near, if not free energy. Look what happened to technology when the cost of computing power dropped to nearly zero.

  27. If we'd move of this notion of centralized power generation we might get somewhere. But that would mean shifting profits from utility companies to research, manufacturing, installation and maintenance, not to mention all the new innovations that would come from near, if not free energy. Look what happened to technology when the cost of computing power dropped to nearly zero.

  28. I truly believe we, as a society, and theoretically intelligent species, need to look beyond all the environmentally hazardous methods of generating the energy we need and use, for any purpose. Were it not for the artificially low prices we pay pay for energy products today, environmentally friendly ways of generating (and or using) energy would now be our mainstay.

    We had electric powered vehicles back in the 1990's, they were a huge success. The people who had one were thrilled with them, they were taken away and crushed and companies moved back to producing gas guzzlers. Imagine where we would be today (20 years later) had these companies, GM, Ford etc continued R&D into this vision of the future.

    We buy an ever increasing and dangerously large portion of our foodstuffs from overseas, not only decimation our home farming industry, but a large percentage of these products are grown / produced using practices over which we have neither any control, nor even aware, till something happens.

    We ship out raw product and buy the finished product (a practice that even in grade 9 economics was frowned upon, because it creates no jobs at home.

    If the true cost of energy used to ship these products all over the globe, we would see far less of that practice and jobs would, by necessity and profitability of the "Corporation" and good paying jobs would be returned to this country.

    If the true cost of energy used by our society were being charged, the cost of the alternatives would be reduced very quickly as the investment in development and adoption would be far higher. As someone above mentioned, look at the ever lower cost of technology (it is only 30 years ago I paid over $5000 for an original 4mhz IBM PC, no monitor, no hard drive, no network, just a box + $300 for an amber/green monitor), today we can buy complete systems including extras for a few hundred dollars. Invention, investment and development of alternative clean/renewable energy sources and will save not only our environment but also will return jobs to ouur home shores so we can by the products produced.

    IMO

  29. I truly believe we, as a society, and theoretically intelligent species, need to look beyond all the environmentally hazardous methods of generating the energy we need and use, for any purpose. Were it not for the artificially low prices we pay pay for energy products today, environmentally friendly ways of generating (and or using) energy would now be our mainstay.

    We had electric powered vehicles back in the 1990's, they were a huge success. The people who had one were thrilled with them, they were taken away and crushed and companies moved back to producing gas guzzlers. Imagine where we would be today (20 years later) had these companies, GM, Ford etc continued R&D into this vision of the future.

    We buy an ever increasing and dangerously large portion of our foodstuffs from overseas, not only decimation our home farming industry, but a large percentage of these products are grown / produced using practices over which we have neither any control, nor even aware, till something happens.

    We ship out raw product and buy the finished product (a practice that even in grade 9 economics was frowned upon, because it creates no jobs at home.

    If the true cost of energy used to ship these products all over the globe, we would see far less of that practice and jobs would, by necessity and profitability of the "Corporation" and good paying jobs would be returned to this country.

    If the true cost of energy used by our society were being charged, the cost of the alternatives would be reduced very quickly as the investment in development and adoption would be far higher. As someone above mentioned, look at the ever lower cost of technology (it is only 30 years ago I paid over $5000 for an original 4mhz IBM PC, no monitor, no hard drive, no network, just a box + $300 for an amber/green monitor), today we can buy complete systems including extras for a few hundred dollars. Invention, investment and development of alternative clean/renewable energy sources and will save not only our environment but also will return jobs to ouur home shores so we can by the products produced.

    IMO

    • You got that right. As a species, we have been programmed to accept certain things, such as our dependence on fossil fuels and nuclear energy. At one time, not very long ago, (less than 30 years) computers were large and bulky and had to be connected to "mainframes" that took up entire floors in office buildings for any kind of storage capacity. Now, that same capacity can be contained in the palm of your hand. Solar and wind power technology is out there but the oil companies don't want it developed to where the wind generated by the movement of a vehicle would provide more than enough power to keep it moving and take up almost no space at all. A combination of these two electricity sources alone could power everything on this planet if the same effort were made to develop them as the effort to make more powerful and smaller computers were used. Unfortunately, we are held prisoners of the current big money powers, namely oil & gas producers and uranium mining. They will eventually kill or mutate us all if not stopped.

      • You are delusional. Total nonsense. What happens when the solar panels are covered in snow or the wind blows too hard or not at all? You need completely redundant fossil fuels or nuclear or hydro system. The oil companies have NOTHING to do with trying to kill solar or wind, it kills itself.

  30. Right on.

  31. Risk management versus profit and efficiency.
    How many plants haven't had an incident or accident?
    We could make these plants way safer…but it would cost more to build. Build them in the bottm of a pit 500ft deep with concrete quad lined walls.
    Apparently the fuel will only last for 100yrs….at current levels of usage.
    I say continue as is….with heavy safety measures on stand by 24/7 robotic trucks with water cannon.
    Only reason Nuclear is feasible..is due to the lack of risk management

  32. Risk management versus profit and efficiency.
    How many plants haven't had an incident or accident?
    We could make these plants way safer…but it would cost more to build. Build them in the bottm of a pit 500ft deep with concrete quad lined walls.
    Apparently the fuel will only last for 100yrs….at current levels of usage.
    I say continue as is….with heavy safety measures on stand by 24/7 robotic trucks with water cannon.
    Only reason Nuclear is feasible..is due to the lack of risk management

  33. Hydro is clean but uses up land mass. Coal would be preferable to nuclear. Especially in Canada where we have lots of coal. That way the plants can be built in the cities where the bulk of the power is consumed rather than flooding valleys that are out of sight of the users.

  34. With the disaster in Japan Run of River and windmills look good. So does coal. A coal plant can be built right in the middle of a city where the bulk of the power is used and burn garbage as well, eliminating landfills and the environmental problems that come with them.

  35. With the disaster in Japan Run of River and windmills look good. So does coal. A coal plant can be built right in the middle of a city where the bulk of the power is used and burn garbage as well, eliminating landfills and the environmental problems that come with them.

  36. No isn't exactly true. I have learned more about the inherent safety of current (generation III) reactor designs. I have also learned that even the obsolete (generation II) designs used in Japan can withstand epic levels of punishment. I have learned that the biggest problem (in a non-fail-to-safe reactor) is not with the disaster but power supply in the post-disaster management. I guess that will be the next research focus in reactor maintenance development.

    Most surprisingly, I have learned of research findings that a significant level of radiation exposure (say, twice the legal limit) correlates with BETTER health outcomes than average. I hope to hear more detail in future articles.

  37. No isn't exactly true. I have learned more about the inherent safety of current (generation III) reactor designs. I have also learned that even the obsolete (generation II) designs used in Japan can withstand epic levels of punishment. I have learned that the biggest problem (in a non-fail-to-safe reactor) is not with the disaster but power supply in the post-disaster management. I guess that will be the next research focus in reactor maintenance development.

    Most surprisingly, I have learned of research findings that a significant level of radiation exposure (say, twice the legal limit) correlates with BETTER health outcomes than average. I hope to hear more detail in future articles.

    • Interesting.

      Got a link?

      • See: "A GLOWING REPORT ON RADIATION" http://www.anncoulter.com/
        Unfortunately, the article will be overwritten in the next 12 hours and you will have to hunt a little.

        • Thanks. I copied the text, and will check it out later.

          In general terms, I gather that you are a nuclear proponent; have the events in Japan shaken your confidence at all?

          I was (and still am) a proponent, but I have to admit that my confidence has been shaken a bit. And I'm at least a little bit annoyed that these preventable events will set the entire industry back a decade or so, at a time when populations were just about ready to round the corner and see nuclear power as part of the answer to getting ready to broaden the energy supply mix away from such a high reliance on fossil fuels.

        • An interesting column from George Monbiot of The Guardian(?).

  38. In the event of a nuclear accident, the Premier, the Minister of Energy, the CEO, President and all senior officials of the power company and their families should be immediately rushed to the nculear plant and forced to remain there for the duration of the accident.

    Still in favour?

  39. In the event of a nuclear accident, the Premier, the Minister of Energy, the CEO, President and all senior officials of the power company and their families should be immediately rushed to the nculear plant and forced to remain there for the duration of the accident.

    Still in favour?

  40. All power plants come with some risk but the damage at Fukushima was totally unnecessary. The plant survived the earthquake but there was totally inadequate tsunami protection. They should have built a higher tsunami wall (or otherwise protected their emergency power) which would have been many orders of magnitude less expensive than the damage that has resulted due to their neglect

  41. All power plants come with some risk but the damage at Fukushima was totally unnecessary. The plant survived the earthquake but there was totally inadequate tsunami protection. They should have built a higher tsunami wall (or otherwise protected their emergency power) which would have been many orders of magnitude less expensive than the damage that has resulted due to their neglect

  42. I believe that they are not safe :)

  43. I agree, they are not safe :)

  44. I'm so glad someone is in their right mind ;) call me sometime Hex

  45. EW ! I have specific needs in men and you obviously don't posses the specific qualities…I see no future in our relationship. Sorry, Brian.

  46. You go girl !

  47. Thanks girl ! Girls now a day should stand up and protect each others opinions.

  48. Ladies please, i don't see how this relates to the subject at hand in any way .. i believe that nuclear plants are safe for the environment and people should stop worrying about all these explosions …

  49. Stop worrying ?!?!!?!? .. thats totally self-centered…your crazy…

  50. I agree.

  51. Karaitlyn ? what kinda name is that …?

  52. Joshy isn't much better … but i will not press the matter .. for i am an intense debater and this is a serious subject!

  53. ..my sons name is Joshy…

  54. I don"t care *!@#$%^&! Can't you people see that this is an important matter to be handled with seriousity ..

  55. I don"t care *!@#$%^&! Can't you people see that this is an important matter to be handled with seriousity ..

    • Seriousity isin't a word my friend..Try seriousness next time..

      • As a punishment of your shallowness , i thumbs downed your unfriendly, unnecessary, selfish, rude, unacceptable, disrespectful, irrelevant and not happy comment. :(

        • Not happy isn't a very good adjective…Try unhappy next time..

          • If you continue to abuse my grammer, i will gladly take it to the next level and REPORT your comment.

  56. Seriousity isin't a word my friend..Try seriousness next time..

  57. As a punishment of your shallowness , i thumbs downed your unfriendly, unnecessary, selfish, rude, unacceptable, disrespectful, irrelevant and not happy comment. :(

  58. Not happy isn't a very good adjective…Try unhappy next time..

  59. If you continue to abuse my grammer, i will gladly take it to the next level and REPORT your comment.

  60. Not if I report you first!

  61. HAH! one step ahead of you .. if the police show up .. dont be surprised

  62. HAH! one step ahead of you .. if the police show up .. dont be surprised

    • Oh your very funny..

      • No, im just warning you. I thought you would want to know :(

  63. No .. according to my precise calculations .. it would be the 39.66453rd option :)

  64. I strongly caution every man and or woman in this nuclear business .. for i am plotting a scheme .. a dangerous, scary scheme. I shall hunt down all these people who believe destroying the environment is an ok action, and i will carry out this scheme by sending pretend love letters to each individual, they will then fall for my scheme and fall into the trap which i have set. which for now is unknown .. but BEWARE of my wrath ……. and BEWARE.

    Sincerely ,

    God

  65. I strongly caution every man and or woman in this nuclear business .. for i am plotting a scheme .. a dangerous, scary scheme. I shall hunt down all these people who believe destroying the environment is an ok action, and i will carry out this scheme by sending pretend love letters to each individual, they will then fall for my scheme and fall into the trap which i have set. which for now is unknown .. but BEWARE of my wrath ……. and BEWARE.

    Sincerely ,

    God

  66. Dear God. I sincerley hope that your scheme carries out. I have FAITH in you. From now into forever… I shall never accept a love letter from a mysterious being, for I KNOW that it has been sent by God who is trying to make a statement.
    Amen.

    Love Jesus

  67. Son!! that is VERY rude! I thought I raised you better then that! :(

    And God, I DO agree with Jesus on your very thoughtful, lovely, intricate scheme

    Love Mary

  68. Son!! that is VERY rude! I thought I raised you better then that! :(

    And God, I DO agree with Jesus on your very thoughtful, lovely, intricate scheme

    Love Mary

    • Mommmyy !!!! You are embarrassing me :( this is humiliating. Adam and Eve are making fun of me at school !

  69. Mommmyy !!!! You are embarrassing me :( this is humiliating. Adam and Eve are making fun of me at school !

  70. The only long term solution to energy generation is nuclear fusion. Fission accidents like this will continue to happen in spite of the best precautions. We need a Manhattan style project organized by the UN and funded by all countries to develop sustainable nuclear fusion.

  71. The only long term solution to energy generation is nuclear fusion. Fission accidents like this will continue to happen in spite of the best precautions. We need a Manhattan style project organized by the UN and funded by all countries to develop sustainable nuclear fusion.

  72. There are no absolutes and guarantees in life; everything carries its own risks. Stricter regulations, higher safety standards, and regular inspections should be imposed on the industry to keep risks at a minimum.

  73. Why not get all the energy we need from the sun? It has been there all this time and since i checked last, not going anywhere soon!

  74. Why not get all the energy we need from the sun? It has been there all this time and since i checked last, not going anywhere soon!

    • Well, it was pretty cloudy here yesterday, in fact we had a snowstorm that we couldn't see 100 feet down the road…still think solar is a reliable power source, especially in Canada?
      Many people drink the Kool-Aid willingly, without putting their thoughts to rigorous cross examination and common sense analysis.

  75. Interesting.

    Got a link?

  76. See: "A GLOWING REPORT ON RADIATION" http://www.anncoulter.com/
    Unfortunately, the article will be overwritten in the next 12 hours and you will have to hunt a little.

  77. Thanks. I copied the text, and will check it out later.

    In general terms, I gather that you are a nuclear proponent; have the events in Japan shaken your confidence at all?

    I was (and still am) a proponent, but I have to admit that my confidence has been shaken a bit. And I'm at least a little bit annoyed that these preventable events will set the entire industry back a decade or so, at a time when populations were just about ready to round the corner and see nuclear power as part of the answer to getting ready to broaden the energy supply mix away from such a high reliance on fossil fuels.

  78. Oh your very funny..

  79. No, im just warning you. I thought you would want to know :(

  80. You got that right. As a species, we have been programmed to accept certain things, such as our dependence on fossil fuels and nuclear energy. At one time, not very long ago, (less than 30 years) computers were large and bulky and had to be connected to "mainframes" that took up entire floors in office buildings for any kind of storage capacity. Now, that same capacity can be contained in the palm of your hand. Solar and wind power technology is out there but the oil companies don't want it developed to where the wind generated by the movement of a vehicle would provide more than enough power to keep it moving and take up almost no space at all. A combination of these two electricity sources alone could power everything on this planet if the same effort were made to develop them as the effort to make more powerful and smaller computers were used. Unfortunately, we are held prisoners of the current big money powers, namely oil & gas producers and uranium mining. They will eventually kill or mutate us all if not stopped.

  81. An interesting column from George Monbiot of The Guardian(?).

  82. You are delusional. Total nonsense. What happens when the solar panels are covered in snow or the wind blows too hard or not at all? You need completely redundant fossil fuels or nuclear or hydro system. The oil companies have NOTHING to do with trying to kill solar or wind, it kills itself.

  83. Well, it was pretty cloudy here yesterday, in fact we had a snowstorm that we couldn't see 100 feet down the road…still think solar is a reliable power source, especially in Canada?
    Many people drink the Kool-Aid willingly, without putting their thoughts to rigorous cross examination and common sense analysis.

Sign in to comment.