At the very least, if not for environmental reasons, we should be weening ourselves off of petroleum based products, including gas, as there is a finite amount of it.

The reason for getting off of fossil fuels is almost entirely political.

I agree.

 

Though I would add that from my perspective using a non-renewable resource is intrinsicly bad. Philosophically, I would argue that the consumption of any resource that exists in limited supply should be avoided as much as possible. Why use something that can be exhausted, if an alternative exists which can be created as needed? The former is parasitic behavior while the latter is self-sufficient. (This all rests on the assumption that the alternative is comparably efficient priced)

What's the modern process of disposing of nuclear waste? I'm truthfully ignorant about it.

Thanks

The reason for getting off of fossil fuels is almost entirely political.

 

I disagree. That might be the reason we are currently pushing for it, but it's not the reason we need to get off fossil fuels. We need to get off of fossil fuels because it is foolish to rely on a non-renewable energy source that is currently mostly in the hands of people who have nothing but distaste for us.

The reason for getting off of fossil fuels is almost entirely political.

 

I disagree. That might be the reason we are currently pushing for it, but it's not the reason we need to get off fossil fuels. We need to get off of fossil fuels because it is foolish to rely on a non-renewable energy source that is currently mostly in the hands of people who have nothing but distaste for us.

:blink:

 

Which is my point.

 

The finitude impact of fossil fuels is drastically overstated. And as I've been saying we already have one method of thwarting that problem but no one is willing to take advantage of it.

 

Developing alternative fuels should be conducted in the name of isolating ourselves from the Middle East, not these falsehoods fabricated and spread around by non-scientists.

 

The finitude? You mean the fact that according to you we have 100 years of oil left? That is extremely finite. We won't have to worry about it, but we are 2 or 3 generations from a serious problem.

 

And I'm not sure how nuclear power solves the problem of cars running on fossil fuel.

Nuclear power plants should only be used if there is absolutely no other option available, which is not the case. They are just too dangerous to the public, not to mention the fact that there is no way to get rid of the waste, as it has a half life in the hundreds or thousands of years depending on the elements involved.

 

Of course, on the plus side, they don't produce the emissions created by coal plants and other dirtier technologies.

Reduce, reuse, recycle.

 

Just reuse the nuclear waste in weapons, problem solved. It's already done.

 

http://www.hps.org/publicinformation/ate/q746.html

 

edit: doesn't even seem as that big of a deal as far as radioactivity.

Given the dependence we have for coal and natural gas, we will need to convert to nuclear power as well. They are nearly as finite as petroleum, coal being longest lasting. Why aren't people fretting about shortages? Because there are no poltical implications and 100-200 years is a long time.

 

Obama actually leans towards nuclear power.

 

[A]s Congress considers policies to address air quality and the deleterious effects of carbon emissions on the global ecosystem, it is reasonable ? and realistic ? for nuclear power to remain on the table for consideration. Illinois has 11 nuclear power plants ? the most of any State in the country ? and nuclear power provides more than half of Illinois' electricity needs.

 

But keeping nuclear power on the table ? and indeed planning for the construction of new plants ? is only possible if the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is vigilant in its mission. We need better long-term strategies for storing and securing nuclear waste and for ensuring the safe operation of nuclear power plants. How we develop these strategies is a major priority for me.

http://epw.senate.gov/hearing_statements.cfm?id=238285

 

I actually think nuclear is not a bad idea. If we have adequate assurances of disposal and safety, then I think we should go with it, at least until we find a better alternative.

We do have adequate methods of disposal and safety. The perceptions of the public are skewed by media scare tactics. If we go nuclear we could probably expand our reserves at the lowest estimate by 40 percent.

 

I know you know everything about energy and stuff, but can you not be so condescending?

You talk about this issue as if the only right way to do it is your way. The media is trying to rouse the rabble into a hysteria so they can... Well, we don't know what theya re going to do, but I bet it's gonna be scary.

 

Regardless of whether you think so or not, 100 years is a finite supply. And that is at current consumption rates, assuming that India and China don't further develop and the US population doesn't see a similar boon that happened to those nations (Which some predict will). It is a problem. Not because of global warming (which could or could not be a problem, I don't think anyone has any better idea), but because of the finite supply. Anytime you base essentially your entire civilization on one finite item, you are asking to be f***ed over. In 50 years, when things start getting even tighter and nations still rely on gas, you can bet there will be even more violence over oil reserves.

 

People are afraid of nuclear power because of things like Chernobyl or Three Mile Island. Until we can ensure, 100% that things like that won't be happening, people will have a fear of it. It is natural.

The media doesn't feed on the ignorance of our society. The media isn't a big, giant controlled, amorphous entity that actively works to blind the people. The media reports, simply. If there were advances being made with hydrogen fuel cells, or if politicians were standing up and shouting about coal shortages, the media would report on it. There isn't this big, anti-petrol conspiracy in the media.

I've always thought we should keep pushing nuclear. Instead of demonizing it let's spend our efforts on trying to make it as safe as possible.

 

It's the best of the currently available options IMO. If significant advancements are made in solar & other areas down the road, fantastic.

 

 

Again we're not talking automobiles here though, that's a separate issue.

yeah from most of what I've heard & read over the past several years, drilling in Alaska isn't the savior some would like us to believe.

 

penguino I can appreciate the position you're coming from, and since you're after the same end result it probably doesn't matter much in the grand scale, but the disrespect you seem to have for the other side of the issue would seem to be on the level of a mass-scale global conspiracy.

What's the modern process of disposing of nuclear waste? I'm truthfully ignorant about it.

 

If they can ever make fusion feasible...there would be no waste.

 

Sadly thats a ways off.

Yeah, I have a feeling that fusion will be used to generate power in the future, but I will be long dead, I'm afraid. I watched a program about it, and right now there is one working fusion reactor in Europe, but it is only used very briefly for experimentations. It is also extremely dangerous now, and would be a disaster if something went wrong. The power output from one of those reactors is insane, however, and hopefully someday it can work on a global scale.