Any official news as of late July 2008?

Point out news stories, on the net or in mainstream media, related to polywell fusion.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

Betruger
Posts: 2321
Joined: Tue May 06, 2008 11:54 am

Post by Betruger »

Maybe crop it to on-topic posts? Theres quite a few posts of interests earlier in the thread..

JLawson
Posts: 424
Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2008 6:31 pm
Location: Georgia
Contact:

Post by JLawson »

My apologies for going all political - should have saved it for elsewhere...
When opinion and reality conflict - guess which one is going to win in the long run.

IntLibber
Posts: 747
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 3:28 pm

Post by IntLibber »

Maui wrote:
IntLibber wrote: Well Obama is anti-nuclear-anything, so its a waste of time to try there, the political left is almost unanimously against any kind of nuclear power (other than the few intelligent greens who have admitted nuke is the only solution to saving the environment).
Oh, come on. I hate our tendencies to assume the worst from the other side. All that Obama has said is that the problem of nuclear waste needs to be solved before building new fission plants. What is unreasonable about that?

And who --on either side-- thinks that nuclear power is the only option? Certainly, it could be a significant piece, but I bet all but a few people here even realize nuclear power can not account for all of the solution, especially in the short term.

If you think McCain would be better to solve the energy problem, fine. But don't buy into the B.S. of the political henchmen, okay?
I'm experienced in politics as an activist and election official (and not a republican), so I know how this works (I've also worked as an energy analyst, so I know the energy industry pretty well). Claims that the "problem of nuclear waste" needs to be solved are disengenuous when the "problem" has been solved for decades but anti-nukers have stymied every attempt at the solutions:

a) theyve tried obstructing the Yucca Mountain storage site, the place is fine, secure, geologically stable.

b) the solution other nuclear nations use, in order to reduce their waste tonnage by 90%+ is using breeder reactors to reprocess expended fuel rods to regenerate their isotopes. it works fine, the left doesnt want us to implement it cause it would force the anti-nukers to get real jobs.

c) one coal power plant puts out more radioactive heavy metals into the atomosphere than the entire nuclear industry. coal plant operators can sell radioactive fly ash to concrete manufacturers as filler for concrete mix (hence the real source of most radon in the home).

Of course nukes are not the only option, but lets look at the others:

a) wind: usable capacity is typically only a few percent of installed capacity due to the unreliability of winds to supply when needed. tree huggers locally oppose what they espouse nationally (see the Kennedy opposition to the windfarm proposals for offshore of cape cod and nantucket) with NIMBY attitudes.

b) hydro: the US is built out for hydro, and the tree huggers have been getting existing dams destroyed to restore habitat, they want even the biggest dams gone like the grand coulee and the hoover.

c) solar power: generates LOTS of toxic waste manufacturing solar cells, low ROI

d) biofuel: actually causes MORE harm to the environment than drilling for oil, a LOT more. increases soil erosion, nitrate pollution in rivers, deforestation, increases food prices resulting in rising poverty rates globally.

I'm a NH resident. I remember when the dems tried for years to kill Seabrook. Gov. Sununu told em to go to hell and he finished the reactor and got it online.

Maui
Posts: 586
Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2008 12:10 am
Location: Madison, WI

Post by Maui »

IntLibber,

Thanks for the detailed, insightful response. Let's continue this here:
viewtopic.php?p=10537#10537

tonybarry
Posts: 219
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2007 4:32 am
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Post by tonybarry »

Thank you gentlemen for your forbearance. Much appreciated.

Regards,
Tony Barry

Post Reply