6 ms·

Introducing a bold nuclear energy initiative to win an election?

1 points by rickmaltese 14y ago

PythonDeveloper 14y ago
Wow. You guys must REALLY be desperate.
- rickmaltese 14y ago
  Which guys? The democrats or the thorium and nuclear advocates? Would you care to elaborate?
  - dalke 14y ago
    The thorium and nuclear advocates. In the 1950s, during the 'Atomic Age', we heard over and over that nuclear power plants were safe, and the power source of the future. The Atomic Energy Commission said that nuclear power would soon be as cheap as power from other sources. We said 'go ahead!' It's easy to be optimistic about thorium and nuclear energy. The problem is that our optimism has burned us before, and in big, easily obvious ways at Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima, but also in the difficulties of radioactive waste management. And we don't have practical evidence that thorium power really will be useful, only assurances from the same sorts of people that said, back in the 1950s, that fission power was safe and would soon be as cheap as that from conventional sources. Reread the letter from the Telegraph. It doesn't want to deal with the decades of lying "self-serving opponents of anything nuclear science", and the "waste" that is the Blue Ribbon Commission on nuclear waste, nor the effort to "convince the anti-nuclear voters that their thinking has been wrong." Instead, the author wants to make an end-run around to entire system: bypass the legislative system and the popular vote, and appeal directly to the executive, almost as if the executive were tzar. That's why the letter sounds desperate. It's thrown its hands up at democracy. The obvious, and mentioned, analogy is to Kennedy and the moon program, but there was already popular support for the moon program; at the very least from pulp novels and TV shows. There was also no existing wide-spread concern about the public dangers of rockets. Therefore I don't see how they really are comparable.
    - rickmaltese 14y ago
      More than REALLY desperate. How about seriously concerned for the well being of the planet? I guess if I were to die knowing that I helped reverse a calamity that allowed future generations to enjoy their futures rather than dwindle from disease, extreme weather, economic collapse or even a Mad Max scenario which might be a best case scenario, then I'd feel it was worth this effort. All I want to happen is that some form of energy that does not create green house gases to replace the coal plants and other polluting sources that are currently ruining the lives of many forms of animal and plant life on land and in the seas. We can make very good educated guesses about Thorium molten salt reactors that can be made better than the already successful experiments that took place at Oak Ridge National Laboratory back in the 60's and 70's. Scientists who actually study nuclear energy know that the damage caused by the fossil fuels has been far, far greater than that cause by nuclear energy. If I were preaching to the President to lie to the public then that would be pathetic. It would be non-democratic to try to go with the whole mess without getting the people's approval but that is not what the article is saying. I wrote the article and I do believe that people want to know the truth and if someone like Obama were to suddenly start down that path there is a much better chance that he would get that message across than anyone else. In case you had not noticed every election year is getting further and further from democracy because neither candidate is addressing the real problems in their campaigns. When they do get elected after a close election nothing much changes. They are criticized for false promises. Well I'm only asking that something valuable actual be part of the agenda. The system does not work very well. The wealthy can damage an opponent anonymously by funding smear campaigns just because the opponents want to improve conditions for the majority of the population. The four year cycle that every president has does not get enough time to implement his plans and he's blamed for the damages caused by previous regimes. The republicans successfully blocked most of Obama's ideas for change then they criticize him for not doing anything. The fear factor has played a role in preventing technology from advancing. Besides the assassinations of the 60's and the terrorist attacks that keep killing people the irrational fear has been growing. Fear of things people don't understand is normal to some extent. What is beginning to be less normal is that people are willing to be fed information without investigating and seeking the truth. The Chernobyl accident is the only truly serious nuclear accident that took place. It is well documented. Even a little research reveals that Chernobyl was unique because it had no containment. That is why people died. The other two you mention had far less radiation and no deaths occurred at Three Mile Island or are predicted by the well informed scientists and professionals at Fukushima. The article is really just an exercise to make the reader think.
  - PythonDeveloper 14y ago
    I'm pro-thorium. What got me was this guy was clearly only interested in having Obama work on this, as a means to get re-elected. If he was truly an advocate of the technology, he would have sent it to both parties. Thorium234 is much safer than uranium or other fissile material, and unlike those, it can be used to make neighborhood reactors, allowing energy independence on a local scale.
    - rickmaltese 14y ago
      I'm the guy who posted the blog. If you were to see the blog in context you would change your point of view. The rest of the site is devoted to Thorium Molten Salt Reactors. Romney is the last person I would want to run for President. I think Obama needs an edge. By bringing in a controversial idea like clean green nuclear energy he might ruin his chances but he might not. It truly is a lesser of two evils situation. I happen to believe Romney is a lot worse. I have observed the situation closely. Steven Chu has no interest in solving the problems with the NRC. The NRC is seriously holding back innovation.
      - deleted 14y ago
        [deleted]

1 points by rickmaltese 14y ago

PythonDeveloper 14y ago

Wow. You guys must REALLY be desperate.

rickmaltese 14y ago
Which guys? The democrats or the thorium and nuclear advocates? Would you care to elaborate?
- dalke 14y ago
  The thorium and nuclear advocates. In the 1950s, during the 'Atomic Age', we heard over and over that nuclear power plants were safe, and the power source of the future. The Atomic Energy Commission said that nuclear power would soon be as cheap as power from other sources. We said 'go ahead!' It's easy to be optimistic about thorium and nuclear energy. The problem is that our optimism has burned us before, and in big, easily obvious ways at Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima, but also in the difficulties of radioactive waste management. And we don't have practical evidence that thorium power really will be useful, only assurances from the same sorts of people that said, back in the 1950s, that fission power was safe and would soon be as cheap as that from conventional sources. Reread the letter from the Telegraph. It doesn't want to deal with the decades of lying "self-serving opponents of anything nuclear science", and the "waste" that is the Blue Ribbon Commission on nuclear waste, nor the effort to "convince the anti-nuclear voters that their thinking has been wrong." Instead, the author wants to make an end-run around to entire system: bypass the legislative system and the popular vote, and appeal directly to the executive, almost as if the executive were tzar. That's why the letter sounds desperate. It's thrown its hands up at democracy. The obvious, and mentioned, analogy is to Kennedy and the moon program, but there was already popular support for the moon program; at the very least from pulp novels and TV shows. There was also no existing wide-spread concern about the public dangers of rockets. Therefore I don't see how they really are comparable.
  - rickmaltese 14y ago
    More than REALLY desperate. How about seriously concerned for the well being of the planet? I guess if I were to die knowing that I helped reverse a calamity that allowed future generations to enjoy their futures rather than dwindle from disease, extreme weather, economic collapse or even a Mad Max scenario which might be a best case scenario, then I'd feel it was worth this effort. All I want to happen is that some form of energy that does not create green house gases to replace the coal plants and other polluting sources that are currently ruining the lives of many forms of animal and plant life on land and in the seas. We can make very good educated guesses about Thorium molten salt reactors that can be made better than the already successful experiments that took place at Oak Ridge National Laboratory back in the 60's and 70's. Scientists who actually study nuclear energy know that the damage caused by the fossil fuels has been far, far greater than that cause by nuclear energy. If I were preaching to the President to lie to the public then that would be pathetic. It would be non-democratic to try to go with the whole mess without getting the people's approval but that is not what the article is saying. I wrote the article and I do believe that people want to know the truth and if someone like Obama were to suddenly start down that path there is a much better chance that he would get that message across than anyone else. In case you had not noticed every election year is getting further and further from democracy because neither candidate is addressing the real problems in their campaigns. When they do get elected after a close election nothing much changes. They are criticized for false promises. Well I'm only asking that something valuable actual be part of the agenda. The system does not work very well. The wealthy can damage an opponent anonymously by funding smear campaigns just because the opponents want to improve conditions for the majority of the population. The four year cycle that every president has does not get enough time to implement his plans and he's blamed for the damages caused by previous regimes. The republicans successfully blocked most of Obama's ideas for change then they criticize him for not doing anything. The fear factor has played a role in preventing technology from advancing. Besides the assassinations of the 60's and the terrorist attacks that keep killing people the irrational fear has been growing. Fear of things people don't understand is normal to some extent. What is beginning to be less normal is that people are willing to be fed information without investigating and seeking the truth. The Chernobyl accident is the only truly serious nuclear accident that took place. It is well documented. Even a little research reveals that Chernobyl was unique because it had no containment. That is why people died. The other two you mention had far less radiation and no deaths occurred at Three Mile Island or are predicted by the well informed scientists and professionals at Fukushima. The article is really just an exercise to make the reader think.
- PythonDeveloper 14y ago
  I'm pro-thorium. What got me was this guy was clearly only interested in having Obama work on this, as a means to get re-elected. If he was truly an advocate of the technology, he would have sent it to both parties. Thorium234 is much safer than uranium or other fissile material, and unlike those, it can be used to make neighborhood reactors, allowing energy independence on a local scale.
  - rickmaltese 14y ago
    I'm the guy who posted the blog. If you were to see the blog in context you would change your point of view. The rest of the site is devoted to Thorium Molten Salt Reactors. Romney is the last person I would want to run for President. I think Obama needs an edge. By bringing in a controversial idea like clean green nuclear energy he might ruin his chances but he might not. It truly is a lesser of two evils situation. I happen to believe Romney is a lot worse. I have observed the situation closely. Steven Chu has no interest in solving the problems with the NRC. The NRC is seriously holding back innovation.
    - deleted 14y ago
      [deleted]