tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post383226873375558850..comments2024-03-28T14:22:22.656-07:00Comments on Through These Woods: Oil Disasters are Nothing New...Dan Trabuehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14303597141397042669noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-46368141952665508262010-07-03T05:30:02.772-07:002010-07-03T05:30:02.772-07:00Dan wrote:I also suggested a compromise: Why don&#...Dan wrote:<br><br><i>I also suggested a compromise: Why don't we try the Living within our energy means solution for, say, 1,000 years and if AFTER that, we think our quality of life has suffered, we can consider heavily regulated nuclear energy as a possible option.</i><br><br>There are a couple of problems with this proposal:<br><br>1. The US would become less economically competitive with nations that used all or more energy options than we do. Specifically, that means a world dominated by Communist China.<br><br>2. It means subjecting ourselves to a thousand years of impoverishment. Think about where we would be if we decided to limit US energy production to that of Europe, circa 1000 A.D.<br><br><i>Briefly, I suggested that why don't we just do the easiest, most elegant and, to me, the most rational thing and simply consume less, live in smaller circles and live responsibly.</i><br><br>I like having clean water, vaccinations, and food surpluses. Living with less energy production means increasing the cost of all of these.<br><br>Remember that abundant energy production means that everything gets cheaper and that poor people have access to goods and services that would otherwise be inaccessible.Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04854543617806427302noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-69667322343817335462010-07-03T05:18:31.826-07:002010-07-03T05:18:31.826-07:00Alan wrote:I would agree with John if only the nuc...Alan wrote:<br><br><i>I would agree with John if only the nuclear regulatory commission would mandate certain designs shown to be significantly safer, such as pebble-bed reactors. Or what about the thorium reactors I keep reading about which are supposed to be significantly safer?</i><br><br>Sounds good to me.Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04854543617806427302noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-69578695299743688352010-07-02T08:03:50.341-07:002010-07-02T08:03:50.341-07:00I would agree with John if only the nuclear regula...I would agree with John if only the nuclear regulatory commission would mandate certain designs shown to be significantly safer, such as pebble-bed reactors. Or what about the thorium reactors I keep reading about which are supposed to be significantly safer?<br><br>If we're still building the same designs since the 70's, then no, I don't think we should build more nuclear.<br><br>But the question is not either/or. We can look for newer/safer energy supplies AND conserve at the same time.Alanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16274395216929104919noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-46591961734368758762010-07-01T15:16:48.321-07:002010-07-01T15:16:48.321-07:00Dang it, blogger! What's going on?? I keep los...Dang it, blogger! What's going on?? I keep losing posts!<br><br>Briefly, I suggested that why don't we just do the easiest, most elegant and, to me, the most rational thing and simply consume less, live in smaller circles and live responsibly.<br><br>I also mentioned that IF we were going to the nuke route, I'd want to go the "big gov't" route and see it heavily regulated with much oversight to try to avoid the predictable <a href="http://www.lutins.org/nukes.html" rel="nofollow"> "accidents"</a> and <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/10/AR2007051001621.html" rel="nofollow">indiscretions</a>.<br><br>I also suggested a compromise: Why don't we try the Living within our energy means solution for, say, 1,000 years and if AFTER that, we think our quality of life has suffered, we can consider heavily regulated nuclear energy as a possible option.<br><br>Prudent, yes?Dan Trabuehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14303597141397042669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7923725288901074422.post-14941163103014739012010-07-01T11:13:13.984-07:002010-07-01T11:13:13.984-07:00This is a good reason to build more nuclear power ...This is a good reason to build more nuclear power plants.Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04854543617806427302noreply@blogger.com