Comments (16) (Please sign in to comment)

1. 

   C. A. Brobst said, over 5 years ago

   Wind Farms can now be built more cheaply than nukes and provide the same power.
2. 

   cdward said, over 5 years ago

   ^^And with some of the newer technology for wind power, they don’t have to be so big and noisy. There are actually some very exciting experiments going on with wind that will make it much more efficient!
3. 

   motivemagus said, over 5 years ago

   Oh, dear, harley, the first article was written by Christopher Booker, well-known “denialist” liar, and published in the Daily Mail, not famed for its accuracy, so I’m not inclined to believe anything he says. (http://www.realclimate.org/wiki/index.php?title=Christopher_Booker) The second is more reasonable. But bad application of good power sources is not a reason to reject the power source outright.
4. 

   BrianCrook said, over 5 years ago

   Yeah, Howgoz, all environmentalists speak with one voice.

   You can find SOMEONE against anything. Although the windmills may not be as attractive as, say, a pine tree, they are much more attractive than oil derricks or nuclear power plants, and their energy is perpetual & clean, clean, clean.
5. 

   dtroutma said, over 5 years ago

   There was no single answer for the problem, more like 300+ million of them in this country alone, nor is there a single answer for the “cure”- but a holistic approach is needed, not just a “profit driven’ one- where we’re stalled in the search. The fact that the “big blue marble” is proving a lot smaller is part of it. BTW, for “deniers”– if “Man”, can’t affect the planet, or the atmosphere, or the climate, why is it all the “deniers” seem to be the ones running out in a panic to buy iodine tablets???
6. 

   worldisacomic said, over 5 years ago

   Yeah I’m for wind farms! anywhere except in Cape Cod!
7. 

   Justice22 said, over 5 years ago

   I foresee a time when people live in cities and walk to work, suburbs are converted into farmland tilled by farmers using horses and mules and travel is by stagecoach and sailing ship. Any bets?
8. 

   motivemagus said, over 5 years ago

   Um, harley, I posted a link with an array of links to articles criticizing Booker’s facts, citations (quoting a nonexistent phrase to make his point, for example), reasoning…and I agreed with you on the second one, remember? Old Cicero said, “false in one thing, false in all.” In Booker’s case: false in everything, false in this one, too.
9. 

   motivemagus said, over 5 years ago

   ^Don’t be too optimistic, bob. There are new designs – the first in decades – but this design (BWR) was supposed to be foolproof AND self-correcting. Either something unexpected went wrong, or poor maintenance took it down. Naeser’s Law: You can make it foolproof, but you can’t make it damnfoolproof. Adams’s Corollary to Naeser’s Law: Anyone who designs anything foolproof has obviously underestimated the ingenuity of fools.
10. 

    Jade said, over 5 years ago

    All technology, even WIND, has its drawbacks, its costs, its environmental damage, etc.

    Nuclear power is no more and no less safe than other options.
11. 

    Justice22 said, over 5 years ago

    The Japanese chose this design because it was cheaper.

    You can’t get first quality for last quality prices.
12. 

    narrowminded said, over 5 years ago

    Foolishness. We must use the resources we have. WInd, solar, tidal….i.e. “green’ energy, while a good idea, simply cannot produce the energy needed for the continuation of our society, no matter how badly we hope they can. They are expensive, inefficient and insufficient pipe dreams. Fossil fuels are what we have NOW! and into the foreseeable future. Forcing the use of green energy supplies, before the technology of a truly new source of energy is discovered, is the worse thing we can do. New concepts are created by free individuals striving to better themselves, not thru the tyranny of desperate need or Government madates. We will get locked into trying to”perfect” bad technology, rather than finding new.

    We can’t afford the luxury of hoping and dreaming that the current crop of “green” sources will meet our needs. No matter how much money is spent, they simply don’t work. Following this model will lead to a regression of lifestyles to that of the 19th century or worse. I’m sorry, but that’s reality.
13. 

    deadheadzan said, over 5 years ago

    Windfarms and solar panels and maybe geo thermal power is a start for clean energy.
14. 

    motivemagus said, over 5 years ago

    mdavis: 30 people dying from Chernobyl? Try 4,000: http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2005/pr38/en/index.html Radiation good for you? Perhaps in controlled doses. But the considered opinion of the experts is that there is no safe level of radiation.
    Oh, and just because people go for “radon cures” doesn’t mean they’re right - I shouldn’t have to even say this - lots of people took radium-infused water back in the day for health reasons and died as a consequence. fennec?
15. 

    Jase99 said, over 5 years ago

    “Nuclear power is no more and no less safe than other options.”

    Except for the deadly radioactive waste with a 10,000 year 1/2 life.
16. Load the rest of the comments (1).