No nuclear for me, thanks.

I have reasons enough, but I'm spared more discussion by work.

Nuclear would be the most best option if people would give it a chance. One or two little accidents shouldn't make people ♥♥♥♥ their pants when they hear any mention of the word "nuclear".

I never even understood the stigma against 3-Mile Island. I mean, Chernobyl, about 4000 people perished. But NOBODY died in the other incident. And it seems like everyone assumes nuclear power plants are sloppily run and woefully unsafe. In reality, they require constant supervision NOT to shut down, and have many redundant security features. Not to mention, the Chernobyl disaster was caused by an unregulated and unwarranted test of the facility.

Also, nuclear power is a very clean source of power.

Less than a third of a gram (I think that's the right amount) can power your house and everything in it (continuously) for one year.
That's a third of a gram of nuclear waste per household for one year.
I'm tired so I'm not doing the math tonight, but for the United States, you could power every house by nuclear means and fit all the nuclear waste in a very very very small space.

Farmed soil are generally going to be constantly replenished, because if you live off something you generally avoid poisoning your livelihood. 'frank einstein' seeds are not uniquely depletive or harmful in any way and naming them as such seems a fairly uneducated and irrational retort towards them.Hydrocarbon cracking means that oil distilleries will generally be able to provide a larger amount of short chain hydrocarbons as is attractive for use by chemicals facilities. As a large fraction of these facilities use constant flow mechanisms to provide the highest yield, they would be the ones offering the highest prices. Fuel is more likely to be the product that enters scarcity, rather than consumer goods.Ideally, you recycle them. It's no fault of plastics industries if people throw their bottles into the ocean rather than recycle them.It is estimated that oil will not be depleted for at least another century. That is not what is meant by Peak Oil and is thus irrelevant.The radiation released into the environment by a coal power plant is more than that released by a nuclear power plant, both by energy unit count and by time count.The chains are long enough to do standard cracking for it, but you'd also need to separate the various components. The conversion of the large number of esters into usable simple hydrocarbons would add additional complexity. It would generally be fairly unnecessarily complex compared to other possible sources.

Nuclear power is a tremendously wonderful idea (and supplies a full fifth of the US's current power) but it'll never really take off. People are too dumb, superstitious, and irrational about it.

Plus beeswax isn't something you can too easily make in bulk...

Personally, i think nuclear power is one the best alternatives, the relatively small amount of waste created as stated before can be stored in a relatively small space.

But as Grif said, people think it is too dangerous. Mostly because they instantly think of the nuclear bomb and Chernobyl and all that at the mention of this form of energy.

Hurr durr because a technology can only be good or bad yeah?
Technologies only fall into the limits of my binary mind's representation of good and bad hurr durr.

Nuclear power is an immense power source, but it has it's drawbacks, simple as that.

Getting rid of the waste is a hassle though. Although you could theoretically just put it in rockets and launch it into space.

And we can all trust nuclear fusion to bring us tomorrow's source of power hor hor hor.

.

Generally speaking, you want to make your sources less passionate, more impartial, better sourced, more reasonable, less sensationalist, more balanced, more careful about the use of logical fallacies and better accredited.

I agree. This image jumped out at me : http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/PeakGraph.jpg
for the last 110 years, oil production has followed a very definite trend. I'm supposed to believe that the trend of oil production is, in the next 10 years, going to completely reverse? Oil production should follow a bell cure, and that i not a bell curve.

Also from the website, a quotation from ♥♥♥♥ Cheney:

...which is normal. Old reserves run out, so you drill some new ones. Problem solved.


Demonstrating a misunderstanding of basic economics, as prices will always rise so supply equals demand.

Oop. On more edit.


Yeah. That's pretty freaking stupid, guys.
High prices cut demand, all other factors being held equal. This means that there are other factors (more bloody cars for one) pushing the demand up. The high Oil Demand growth just proves that oil is has a very inelastic demand curve. This doesn't challenge anything about traditional economics whatsoever.

I'm not saying that the reserves are infinite, but that website is pretty freaking stupid.