Skip to comments.This energy source could solve all of our problems Ś so why is no one talking about it?
Posted on 03/05/2014 2:03:32 PM PST by kingattax
Energy is arguably the single most important strategic issue of our time. It literally powers everything we do. The world economy see-saws to the gyrations of oil prices. Most of our geopolitical squabbles are about energy in one way or another. And, of course, above all hovers the threatening Armageddon of global climate change.
But when it comes to energy, you probably don't know who, or what, to trust. Clean energy! No, wait, that doesn't work! (And what does that mean, exactly?) Shale gas! No, wait, you will pollute everything.
There's a band of hipsters within the community of people who think hard about energy who think this is a bunch of hoo-ha. We already have a perfectly useful and clean energy source, they say: nuclear power.
In terms of its capacity, nuclear power could provide almost all of our energy needs. In terms of carbon emissions, nuclear power is totally clean. Outside of a handful of countries whose names you probably already know, proliferation isn't an issue. Of course, there's the issue of safety.
But nuclear power is safe, advocates say. Chernobyl happened because of the insanity of communism, and Fukushima because you probably shouldn't build reactors on the path of tsunamis, not because of anything inherent to nuclear power. The solution to nuclear waste, they say, is more R&D, so that waste can be recycled.
Look at France! It draws almost all of its energy from nuclear power, with no serious incident to note in the past 50 years, and the power is cheap, plentiful, and clean.
(Excerpt) Read more at theweek.com ...
Oooh, but what about the China Syndrome?... Goobers all.
Yay, yet another article about Thorium.
Solving problems is not what we’re about anymore...
You’d think the oil companies would be in the building nuke plants since we’re running out of oil ...?
TMI was a success story. Contained even when it hit the fan.
The Rats and Obama don’t want thorium reactors because there are no political gains in getting us to be energy independent.
You must be stuck in the energy polices of the 50’s (sez 0bama).
The hardest reasons of all to overcome are the political. I personally don’t want to stand in the way of any “real” effective energy production.
My personal crusade is to repower some of the thousands of dams in this country that are just wasting readily available energy now. Its green, its proven, and it works every day, all day.
All US resources, under the undocumented Indonesian Impostor,
are SOLELY for al Qaeda, Islam, except because he is
“more flexible” he also just sent 1 billion
dollars to Russia (through Jacques Kerry and Ukraine).
>Oooh, but what about the China Syndrome?
Not a problem. Any meltdown that attempted to make its way to China would simply stop at the center of the Earth. Gravity being what it is and all. Plus, it’s already hot there, so a little more heat won’t matter.
I won’t trust nuclear power until the power companies pay for their own insurance coverage rather than taxpayer liability.
Any sane national energy policy would direct resource towards advancing a portfolio of these technologies rather than wind, solar, and other currently fashionable but otherwise inefficient and environmentally dubious approaches.
If we don't innovate, other countries surely will.
If red tape, regulations and environmental impact reports weren’t an issue I’ll bet a consortium of investors could successfully get a nuke plant up and producing energy within 5 years and be able to turn a profit without any subsidies of any kind.
I thought this article would be about stupidity. It’s abundant and renewable, and could be tapped for an unlimited source of energy, if we had the technology. Too bad we’re using it to prevent new sources from coming on line (i.e. liberalism run amok).
Thanks for your post. Whichever way this country goes, it needs to involve weaning ourselves off of middle eastern oil and providing alternatives for other countries to do the same.
From your link:
Just how serious was the accident? Based on our investigation of the health effects of the accident, we conclude that in spite of serious damage to the plant, most of the radiation was contained and the actual release will have a negligible effect on the physical health of individuals. The major health effect of the accident was found to be mental stress.
The operating nuclear reactors in the US are all decades old and because of anti nuclear hysteria no new plants have been built. Clearly better nuclear technology has been developed in the last 50 years that could be applied to make nuclear power, safe, cheap, clean and reliable.
A logical energy policy for America would involve nuclear power and hydro for electricity. Then natural gas and oil could be used mainly for heating and transportation.
We could be energy-independent in a couple of years if we wanted to. Of course, it looks like we’re headed that way anyway, due entirely to private industry, but in perhaps 10 years.
So true...nuclear is a great energy source.