amicus
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2003
- Posts
- 14,812
I just listened to President Bush speak from South America. He must do it on purpose; it must be an affectation.
He said, 'nucular' again.
Approximately twenty percent of electricity generated in the United States is by Nuclear Power Plants. Although a new plant has not been built in over thirty years.
Some European nations use Nuclear to a greater degree than the US, some approaching fifty percent.
The anti-nuke protestors of the Hippy 60's is a thing of the past and I wonder if an anti-nuclear bias exists and if so, why?
In the event younger folks don't know, Nuclear energy is cleaner, safer and cheaper than any other form of generation.
Coal, natural gas and hydro electric make up the large fraction, with wind generation adding a percent or so.
Take it as fact, that neither solar, nor wind, nor hydrogen offers afforable alternatives to the massive amounts of electricity required by the nation.
Conservation is not really an option as we truly are an electric society.
I question the roots of the anti nuclear people. I can understand the coal miners union if coal were phased out, jobs gone.
I can understand the owners of coal mines, the land, the machinery the equipment, the entire culture of some West Virginia towns. A large part of the economy.
But even with low sulphur coal, burning coal or oil creates pollution; a lot of it.
So who are they others that oppose Nuclear? Is it really just a handful of States, politicians, industrial power and interest groups and Union influence that has kept new Nuclear plants away for thirty years.
In the United States, to my knowledge, with the single exception, an experimental reactor in Idaho some years back, there has never been a death or an illness directly caused by Nuclear power.
Thanks....amicus...
He said, 'nucular' again.
Approximately twenty percent of electricity generated in the United States is by Nuclear Power Plants. Although a new plant has not been built in over thirty years.
Some European nations use Nuclear to a greater degree than the US, some approaching fifty percent.
The anti-nuke protestors of the Hippy 60's is a thing of the past and I wonder if an anti-nuclear bias exists and if so, why?
In the event younger folks don't know, Nuclear energy is cleaner, safer and cheaper than any other form of generation.
Coal, natural gas and hydro electric make up the large fraction, with wind generation adding a percent or so.
Take it as fact, that neither solar, nor wind, nor hydrogen offers afforable alternatives to the massive amounts of electricity required by the nation.
Conservation is not really an option as we truly are an electric society.
I question the roots of the anti nuclear people. I can understand the coal miners union if coal were phased out, jobs gone.
I can understand the owners of coal mines, the land, the machinery the equipment, the entire culture of some West Virginia towns. A large part of the economy.
But even with low sulphur coal, burning coal or oil creates pollution; a lot of it.
So who are they others that oppose Nuclear? Is it really just a handful of States, politicians, industrial power and interest groups and Union influence that has kept new Nuclear plants away for thirty years.
In the United States, to my knowledge, with the single exception, an experimental reactor in Idaho some years back, there has never been a death or an illness directly caused by Nuclear power.
Thanks....amicus...