Who is willing to reduce their energy consumption to avoid the nuclear power route our Führer wants to take?

Question

ie do you want nuclear power? Would reducing consumption make any difference or do you believe the decision has already been made?

Shiraz - I was talking about Blair not Bush - I don't have a clue what his stance is on nuclear power but the "debate" has just opened up again here. I wasn't comparing him to Hitler I was just using a German word. So poke it

By "his" I mean Bush

Black Sabbath - I'm not ignorant I just have a different outlook and opinion from you. If you can enlighten me I'd be willing to change my mind... I'll take some convincing, tho'

Answer 1

I doubt that reduction would make that much difference. With the dwindling supply of oil the reduction would come nowhere near offsetting the loss of oil supplies. Solar, hydrogen and windpower are just not enough (right now) to offset the use of oil and natural gas. The differences would have to be made up somehow.

Answer 2

1) If I reduced my energy consumption any further, I'd (a) be about to drop dead from heat stroke, and (b) also be living like an Amish Farmer. Seriously, I already walk and use Mass Transit busing wherever I go (long story short, I suck at driving), and do not spend one penny on either that insurance racket, *or* that Arabist Terror Menace, thank you.

I keep my lights turned off as much as I can--well, except for winter when I NEED as much extra lighting to maintain my mood as possible. I recycle. My only real energy-hog problem is my air-conditioning three lousy months of the year in the summer. My (donated) computer uses no more juice than a 100-watt lightbulb would.

So yeah, I already AM taking multiple "hits for the team" as it is. I am already dirt-poor, miserable, suffering a mood disorder or three and unable to work because every time I try to return to work folks want to *cheat me* out of my NEEDED medications. If I reduced my energy consumption any further I'd be living in a barbaric state not unlike what exists in the *deliberate* ruins of New Orleans (which are a CEO- and HMO- Beta Test for the future, mind you, an answer to the question, "How much barbarity *will* America tolerate if it isn't 'in their backyard'?"). And I would be quite dead shortly afterwards....

2) I am all for "nuclear power" provided it gets to be safe enough to use *in an airplane*. And a version of it has, keyword search the link in my Source for "hanfium" (check that spelling just in case), and "radio-isomer cascade". Somewhere there is a *crashworthy* version of an AWACS plane flying about that once airborne, does not run on any fuel whatsoever and instead runs on, well, an isotope of hanfium that has a very unusual property.

If you expose the right isotope of hanfium to x-rays *at all*, the atoms will undergo a radio-isomer cascade and release anywhere from 30 to 60 times the amount of radiation put into it in response....it is a very easy and controllable and predictable way to get a 30 to 60 fold increase in your energy system. And to shut the thing down, you just withdraw the original x-ray source and the hanfium powers down in less than an hour.

In other words, atomic energy safe enough for an *airplane*. :)

So why aren't we doing this on the ground again? We have enough x-ray sources at most hospitals in your average mid-sized town to actually pump electricity back into the grid with this system....and it doesn't produce *any* toxic waste above and beyond that associated with producing the hanfium or the original x-rays.

Really, check the link below, do the keyword searches.

Answer 3

What's wrong with nuclear power? Chernobyl was because the Russian techies got lazy, and there were poor plant safety measures in place. There Mile Island was a misunderstanding; nothing actually happened, and all the people who got 'sick' were just sick with psychological problems. Nuclear energy is actually an EXCELLENT idea, if used properly. If we implemented the correct systems (not the way we run them now), the amount of energy waste made per family per year would be a shiny rock about the size of a button. Nuclear energy has been hyped by movies and idiots who have no clue what they're talking about as ridiculously dangerous, but it's not. Not at all!

Answer 4

Are you ignorant? Nothing is wrong with nuclear power.. Nuclear Power makes up 78% of all power used in France, and they have never had an accident. Nuclear power produces little air or water pollution, and is by no means the cheap way out, it is much more expensive than coal which destroys the environment.

Answer 5

I would definitely be willing to reduce my energy consumption to save the environment.
When will the people in authority realise the importance of green issues? Why is it that any party with strong views on this are seen as a minority, and a laughing stock?
I don't know if it's too little too late but I think more should definitely be being done to conserve our planet. And I feel that politicians need to realise that these are no longer minority views.

Answer 6

And why are you so against Nuclear Power! It's clean (doesnt' produce toxic gases or CO2), relatively cheap, and because we've learned from our own and other's mistakes, it's safer than it ever was.

OK, it does produce thermal pollution, but even this is localized to an isolated feeding pond. And from what I understand, with new technologies, spent fuel rods can still be used to produce energy.

We have plenty of other reasons to conserve energy and/or become more fuel efficient, but to avoid a re-surgence of cheap nuclear power is NOT one of those reasons.

Answer 7

"...in spite of if nuclear ability vegetation recent a concern mutually as working usually is part concern to the devastation they could reason if there is an accident. And no person can confirm no longer something will flow incorrect..." If is the main important word in the English language. If Lord Nelson had grew to become to speak to somebody throughout the conflict, he could have lived longer. If Hitler have been admitted to paintings college, we can't in any respect have fought WWII. If if if... No no person can confirm something WILL flow incorrect, the two. perhaps Greenpeace ought to foyer government and businesses to greater effectual prepare for contingencies than be so destructive. i understand i'm going to get thumbs down votes, yet, I used to artwork for Greenpeace, and am unimpressed by using their loss of inventive and prescient.

Answer 8

THE QUESTIONER IS REFFERING TO BLIAR, NOT BUSH.

I am more than willing to reduce my energy consumption, and indeed my household uses much less than an average similar household. However nuclear is still necessary, remember, carbon is a far greater threat than nuclear waste. Renewables cannot meet all the necessary demand because they are too unreliable.

Answer 9

don't want nuclear power...........have just had double glazing installed at huge expense. and have got a hybrid fuel car , also more expensive than the ordinary car, to transport disabled husband about.

interesting that the person above thought Bush not Blair was the target of the hitler jibe

Answer 10

I'm not all that sure I don't want nuclear power! I know the dangers, and the potential dangers. However, can it be worse than we have now? Oil rich radicals wanting to kill everyone who doesn't believe as they do?

Give me a nuclear power plant that could kill thousands to a human power plant that does kill thousands. Ike thought eclectic wold be too cheep to meter! Now wouldn't that be nice?

If we as humanity are going to kill ourselves, let it be in a peaceful mistake instead of through war and hate.

Answer 11

I am of course but doubt it will change much.

Politics seems to be based on having a load of rich business friends with Companies who need work or Government contracts. So they create a problem that their mates can help out with, and everyone gets rich - except the public!