Skip to comments.
Music stars: We must still fight nukes
CNN.COM ^
| 10/12/07
| Bonnie Raitt, Jackson Browne, Graham Nash & Harvey Wasserman
Posted on 10/12/2007 10:05:04 AM PDT by BlazingArizona
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40 next last
Now that Al Gore has been awarded the Nobel Prize for global warming, the warming issue will be back on the front news burner this week. Even some leftists have been talking about a revival of nuclear power in the US.
But opposing nuclear power is a religious issue to many Boomers. The writers of this article are surviving Sixties musicians who made antinuclear ballads last time around. Watch for them to rise from their wheelchairs to shake their canes at The Man one more time.
To: BlazingArizona
Washed-up hack singer/songwriters unite - against nuclear energy!
2
posted on
10/12/2007 10:09:22 AM PDT
by
wideawake
(Why is it that so many self-proclaimed "Constitutionalists" know so little about the Constitution?)
To: BlazingArizona
Maybe Bonnie, Jackson, Graham, et al, will demand that their music NOT be played, in order to save precious electricity.
3
posted on
10/12/2007 10:09:58 AM PDT
by
BOBTHENAILER
(One by one, in small groups or in whole armies, we don't care how we do it, but we're gonna getcha)
To: BlazingArizona
Fools. If they really want us to not be dependent on oil (and all the greenhouse gas emissions it causes that they fear so much) embracing nuclear power is the first step.
4
posted on
10/12/2007 10:10:26 AM PDT
by
JamesP81
To: BlazingArizona
If we had more nuke plants the less oil and coal we will burn thus lowering carbon emissions.
Wow, what real geniuses these jet flying, limousine riding music stars are...
5
posted on
10/12/2007 10:10:34 AM PDT
by
darkwing104
(Let's get dangerous)
To: BlazingArizona
Celebrities.
Is there anything they don’t know?
I laugh when these marginally-educated dimwits complain about the escalating costs of building reactos.
They don’t mention that many of the costs are incurred because slow-thinking celebrities help fund environmental lawsuits against the manufacturers, forcing them to incorporate inexpensive and unnecessary features into the reactor and support structures.
And then there’s the DECADES of delays while these lawsuits are settled.
6
posted on
10/12/2007 10:12:07 AM PDT
by
SJSAMPLE
To: darkwing104
All this comes as the renewable energy industry is soaring to new heights of power and profitability. Funny thing that Bonnei, Jackson & Graham don't tell us how much they have invested in these "suddenly profitable" entities.
7
posted on
10/12/2007 10:15:06 AM PDT
by
BOBTHENAILER
(One by one, in small groups or in whole armies, we don't care how we do it, but we're gonna getcha)
To: BlazingArizona
The Population Bomb movement has many faces. Anti-nuke is one of them and not the most powerful.
8
posted on
10/12/2007 10:15:09 AM PDT
by
RightWhale
(50 years later we're still sitting on the ground)
To: BlazingArizona
The Raging Grannies
9
posted on
10/12/2007 10:17:35 AM PDT
by
Dr. Thorne
(Compromise on your vote and you get a compromised government.)
To: BlazingArizona
The Raging Grannies
10
posted on
10/12/2007 10:17:44 AM PDT
by
Dr. Thorne
(Compromise on your vote and you get a compromised government.)
To: BlazingArizona
I wonder how many diesel generators they’ll need for their stage lights and sound systems.
On another note, I’m with them in opposing the subsidies for nukes- not because I don’t like nukes, but because I don’t like subsidies.
11
posted on
10/12/2007 10:19:29 AM PDT
by
Squawk 8888
(Is human activity causing the warming trend on Mars?)
To: Squawk 8888
Im with them in opposing the subsidies for nukes- not because I dont like nukes, but because I dont like subsidies.Well, here's the thing.
There are incredibly high artificial regulatory barriers to entry in the nuclear energy sector.
The subsidies basically acknowledge that the government has made it so economically forbidding to enter the sector due to its onerous regulation that it is offering subsidies to help overcome the economic barriers it created.
12
posted on
10/12/2007 10:26:26 AM PDT
by
wideawake
(Why is it that so many self-proclaimed "Constitutionalists" know so little about the Constitution?)
To: JamesP81
Don’t forget that the underlying aim is to bring down the economy of the U.S.A. What they seem not to have considered is the effect this will have on their own lives, in a material sense.
13
posted on
10/12/2007 10:27:32 AM PDT
by
Elsiejay
(,)
To: BlazingArizona
Bonnie Raitt answers your questions
The only question Bonnie Raitt can answer for me about nuclear power is why she thinks anyone should care about her science-illiterate opinions on the subject.
To: BlazingArizona
I had no idea Bonnie Raitt had degrees in engineering and envrionmental sciences, nor was I aware of her previous nuclear power experience.../sarc
15
posted on
10/12/2007 10:31:50 AM PDT
by
OCCASparky
(Steely-Eyed Killer of the Deep)
To: BlazingArizona
I'd trust a Third-Class Petty Officer fresh off the Nuclear Power School "comp" 100 times before I listened to one of these clowns.
The areas in the east which rely on conventional power are getting killed by skyrocketing bills due to volatile oil/gas prices. Those (like here) who rely more on nuclear power have much lower and more stable electric bills.
Then again, they won't care about that until the lights go out for good. TVA is ramping back up--ditto South Texas Project, Duke, Florida Power and Light, and (IIRC) Exelon, to name several companies. Good luck trying to stop it, clowns.
16
posted on
10/12/2007 10:36:12 AM PDT
by
OCCASparky
(Steely-Eyed Killer of the Deep)
To: SJSAMPLE
I laugh when these marginally-educated dimwits complain about the escalating costs of building reactos. If cost is their metric in opposing an energy source, then they should really, really, really be against things like solar PV, whose costs per kwhr dwarf those of nuclear. Not to mention very poor capacity factors and availability.
If subsidies are the metric for opposing an energy source, then these idiot clowns should really, really, really protest against things like so-called "renewable" energy. In my state alone, at one time (not sure if they still have it), if you installed certain kinds of "green" energy systems in your home, you could claim a tax credit that covers up to 50% of the cost of such a system. The government has spent billions on "renewables" and after all this time and money those are struggling to supply barely a fraction of a percent of our energy needs. If anything qualifies as a "failure", it's those things.
17
posted on
10/12/2007 10:40:53 AM PDT
by
chimera
To: OCCASparky
Then again, they won't care about that until the lights go out for good. TVA is ramping back up--ditto South Texas Project, Duke, Florida Power and Light, and (IIRC) Exelon, to name several companies. Good luck trying to stop it, clowns.Could not agree more. Nuke POWER FOR THE PEOPLE
18
posted on
10/12/2007 10:43:03 AM PDT
by
BOBTHENAILER
(One by one, in small groups or in whole armies, we don't care how we do it, but we're gonna getcha)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson