4 ms·

We don't need storage sites. If we unstuck our heads from our asses we can just burn most of the waste. And you're talking like nuclear engineers are some sort

We don't need storage sites. If we unstuck our heads from our asses we can just burn most of the waste. And you're talking like nuclear engineers are some sort of freaks just waiting to unleash the next horror upon the world. The fact is that if we want to realize UN millennium goals we need more energy. If we want to help poor asians and africans, we need more energy. If we want everybody to own a Xbox, a car and a week of vacation per year - we need more energy. Basically only obstacle in our path of increased welfare and general well being (peace also!) on the world is access to more, cheaper energy. And newsflash - hydro, solar and wind won't cut it. They might if we build a world supergrid. But that won't happen for at least 40 years (If we had necessary tech today - it would take 20-40 years to get it built). So what are you proposing? Or are you just washing your hands and laying off the burden from your soul?

lispm 16y ago
Nuclear engineers are technocrats powered by corrupt politicians and corporations. The US does not need more energy. The US needs to start thinking about using less energy. About every country in the industrialized world uses MUCH MUCH less energy. If you think the US lifestyle is sustainable, then you are dreaming. Renewable will fully power us here in Germany in 40 years or less. We have started a decade ago working on that. Checkout the progress renewable energy has made here in the last decade. This is combined with energy saving based on more efficient industrial processes, higher standards, and so on. If you guys sit on your ass, it is not my problem. I have for example no car. I use public transport. I live in a city where already experimental fully hydrogen powered busses are being tested in regular use. I'm also sitting in a winter garden right now which is 25 degrees celsius in March - powered by the sun... not everybody is fucking lazy like you guys.
- JanezStupar 16y ago
  Dude: 1. I'm not from US - and I wasn't speaking about US. I was speaking about rest of the world. Which whether you like it or not wants to live american lifestyle. 2. Current american model is indeed sustainable if we manage to bring cost of energy (total cost, including intangibles) to a low enough level. 3. I also try to minimize my impact upon world by using as few resources as I can. Being economic is fine and good. But it won't solve all our problems. 4. You resorted to an ad-hominem attack upon my person you also dared to insult me by calling me fucking lazy - when all I wanted to hear from you is what kind of alternative you propose. 5. I'm not denying that substantial progress has been made in the field of renewable power sources. The problem is that its just not enough. 6. You are vehemently claiming that Germany will be completely on renewables in 40 years. Thats what green power lobies claim. Green power is also a huge industry. Never forget that. edit: Calling an engineer technocrat just shows that you don't even understand either the meaning of the word "engineer" or either "technocrat" for that matter.
  - lispm 16y ago
    Look, the 40 year plan is an official plan of the current conservative government. If it is a huge business, well, fuck, that's the plan. We want green technology to be the huge growth industry for the next decades. Making money with that is the plan. Technocracy means for example that engineers are the decision makers. Here in Germany the decision to invest billions into nuclear energy has been supported and promoted by engineers and scientists in all levels of government, government funded research institutes and universities and by companies using their influence on government. This faulty advice has cost us billions and has left us with some industry ruins and fucked up attempts on storing nuclear waste. Ordinary people are protesting against this for decades.
    - JanezStupar 16y ago
      I totally agree with this last comment. However - I have two major issues with it. 1. You assume that green technocracy is "better" than current technocracy. Or are you proposing that we let hysteric extremist (fascist?) wing of green take over? 2. The largest issue of nuclear power is that people who are declaratively for saving environment block any and all attempts to improve current situation. In this sense - the greens are at fault for Fukushima. Otherwise this plant would be probably dismantled 10 years ago and replaced with more modern and safer model. The same goes for nuclear waste - green is playing an extremely dangerous game of trying to prove that the problem of nuclear waste is insolvable, by obstructing any attempts of solution. 3. In retrospective - show me single plan created by bureaucrats that stood the test of time.
      - lispm 16y ago
        The greens are definitely not fascist. I think you are confusing this. Fascist is the influence of huge corporations over people. Not the influence of people over themselves. Wow, Fukushima is caused by the Greens now? And I though it was caused by a greedy and incompetent company not willing to invest into safety. No company would invest into a newer model. These are extremely expensive. Like 5 billion Euro in western Europe. Every electricity company is talking about EXTENDING the life of the current plants. Replacing old ones which are running with new ones is the most stupid thing an electricity company can do. What they want is getting the money from the existing plants with as little effort as possible.

lispm 16y ago

Nuclear engineers are technocrats powered by corrupt politicians and corporations. The US does not need more energy. The US needs to start thinking about using less energy. About every country in the industrialized world uses MUCH MUCH less energy. If you think the US lifestyle is sustainable, then you are dreaming. Renewable will fully power us here in Germany in 40 years or less. We have started a decade ago working on that. Checkout the progress renewable energy has made here in the last decade. This is combined with energy saving based on more efficient industrial processes, higher standards, and so on. If you guys sit on your ass, it is not my problem. I have for example no car. I use public transport. I live in a city where already experimental fully hydrogen powered busses are being tested in regular use. I'm also sitting in a winter garden right now which is 25 degrees celsius in March - powered by the sun... not everybody is fucking lazy like you guys.

JanezStupar 16y ago
Dude: 1. I'm not from US - and I wasn't speaking about US. I was speaking about rest of the world. Which whether you like it or not wants to live american lifestyle. 2. Current american model is indeed sustainable if we manage to bring cost of energy (total cost, including intangibles) to a low enough level. 3. I also try to minimize my impact upon world by using as few resources as I can. Being economic is fine and good. But it won't solve all our problems. 4. You resorted to an ad-hominem attack upon my person you also dared to insult me by calling me fucking lazy - when all I wanted to hear from you is what kind of alternative you propose. 5. I'm not denying that substantial progress has been made in the field of renewable power sources. The problem is that its just not enough. 6. You are vehemently claiming that Germany will be completely on renewables in 40 years. Thats what green power lobies claim. Green power is also a huge industry. Never forget that. edit: Calling an engineer technocrat just shows that you don't even understand either the meaning of the word "engineer" or either "technocrat" for that matter.
- lispm 16y ago
  Look, the 40 year plan is an official plan of the current conservative government. If it is a huge business, well, fuck, that's the plan. We want green technology to be the huge growth industry for the next decades. Making money with that is the plan. Technocracy means for example that engineers are the decision makers. Here in Germany the decision to invest billions into nuclear energy has been supported and promoted by engineers and scientists in all levels of government, government funded research institutes and universities and by companies using their influence on government. This faulty advice has cost us billions and has left us with some industry ruins and fucked up attempts on storing nuclear waste. Ordinary people are protesting against this for decades.
  - JanezStupar 16y ago
    I totally agree with this last comment. However - I have two major issues with it. 1. You assume that green technocracy is "better" than current technocracy. Or are you proposing that we let hysteric extremist (fascist?) wing of green take over? 2. The largest issue of nuclear power is that people who are declaratively for saving environment block any and all attempts to improve current situation. In this sense - the greens are at fault for Fukushima. Otherwise this plant would be probably dismantled 10 years ago and replaced with more modern and safer model. The same goes for nuclear waste - green is playing an extremely dangerous game of trying to prove that the problem of nuclear waste is insolvable, by obstructing any attempts of solution. 3. In retrospective - show me single plan created by bureaucrats that stood the test of time.
    - lispm 16y ago
      The greens are definitely not fascist. I think you are confusing this. Fascist is the influence of huge corporations over people. Not the influence of people over themselves. Wow, Fukushima is caused by the Greens now? And I though it was caused by a greedy and incompetent company not willing to invest into safety. No company would invest into a newer model. These are extremely expensive. Like 5 billion Euro in western Europe. Every electricity company is talking about EXTENDING the life of the current plants. Replacing old ones which are running with new ones is the most stupid thing an electricity company can do. What they want is getting the money from the existing plants with as little effort as possible.