A tad more subtle than "Daisy" but we'll see how effective it is...

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Sure, nuclear reactors are expensive- but keep in mind that they've been sidelined in funding because they are NIMBY bogey man. Most of the problems you cite have been fixed in new model Thorium reactors (half-life is only 500 years, waste is small amount and they actually eat old types of nuclear waste for fuel!)

I'm not sure about that solar panel lifespan- I'm just going by someone I know who has them installed- it may have been the lead acid batteries that they had to swap out ever 5 years or so. Regardless, photovoltaic cell manufacture is a dirty fab process similar to chips- lots of toxic non-recyclable metals and burning a good deal of CO2.

I'm behind new-nuclear as a sensible stop-gap until fusion comes online.

.>> ^curiousity:
>> ^dag:
As far as efficiency goes, I'd take fission over solar.
The amount of square feet required to make solar energy as well as the material required for all of those panels- heavy metals and toxic chemicals- and a short equipment lifespan make them about as well thought-out as ethanol- which is to say not at all.
If we could get over our irrational nuclear fears- nuclear fission really is the best option for the planet in the short term, and then roll on the fusion when it gets here. 10 years right?

Much of the cost for fission reactors is hidden by government subsides. Cost is definitely a reason that there hasn't been a new nuclear reactor build in the US for over 30 years. They are damn expensive. And then the real cost comes with storage of radiated materials. A storage fee that will last a long time.
Last time I checked, most decent solar panels come with a 25-year warranty which means they might last 30 to 50 years if not damaged. There are also solar-based plants that focus sunlight to heat water to drive turbines - much more efficient that current solar panel technology. I can't compare solar energy to ethanol in good faith.

>> ^dag:
As far as efficiency goes, I'd take fission over solar.
The amount of square feet required to make solar energy as well as the material required for all of those panels- heavy metals and toxic chemicals- and a short equipment lifespan make them about as well thought-out as ethanol- which is to say not at all.
If we could get over our irrational nuclear fears- nuclear fission really is the best option for the planet in the short term, and then roll on the fusion when it gets here. 10 years right?


Much of the cost for fission reactors is hidden by government subsides. Cost is definitely a reason that there hasn't been a new nuclear reactor build in the US for over 30 years. They are damn expensive. And then the real cost comes with storage of radiated materials. A storage fee that will last a long time.

Last time I checked, most decent solar panels come with a 25-year warranty which means they might last 30 to 50 years if not damaged. There are also solar-based plants that focus sunlight to heat water to drive turbines - much more efficient that current solar panel technology. I can't compare solar energy to ethanol in good faith.

"irrational nuclear fears" I got em.... kinna shell-shocked from our progress to date with arcane applications-Solar is getting easier to mass produce, but not half as fast as the barons, sheiks, coveters and inbreds that have been more concerned with empire than having us all taken care of.....mother nature is on a righteous path though, she may trump all the pitiful efforts of humans-This guy Analog in a digital world does not empress..not half as much as the cat on the TED talk soberly proposing scenarios that will make us all the bitches of robotics and nanotech.

No fusion is not "IS" energy's future...it MAY be

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

As far as efficiency goes, I'd take fission over solar.

The amount of square feet required to make solar energy as well as the material required for all of those panels- heavy metals and toxic chemicals- and a short equipment lifespan make them about as well thought-out as ethanol- which is to say not at all.

If we could get over our irrational nuclear fears- nuclear fission really is the best option for the planet in the short term, and then roll on the fusion when it gets here. 10 years right?
>> ^Psychologic:
Fusion has some great advantages, especially in the power-per-area department, but I still like solar better for a few reasons.
Fusion is an "all or nothing" tech. It takes a very large investment up front before anything significant can be done with it. Solar, on the other hand, is more of an evolutionary process. It already works, so the main goal is lowering cost and increasing efficiency (which is happening pretty quickly these days).
However, I think one of the largest advantages solar has over fusion is that it doesn't require a power grid. Once the cost and efficiency reach a certain level then you can create your own power, which will be huge in remote low-income areas. Villages wouldn't have to wait for their region to invest in a reactor or worry about power distribution being damaged.
Fusion is great and will greatly benefit the world, but I don't think it's our best option at this point.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'red, balloons, protest, war, politics, german, nuclear, fear, luft balloons' to 'red, balloons, protest, war, politics, german, nuclear, fear, luft balloons, cold war' - edited by calvados

Tags for this video have been changed from 'scifi, movies, nuclear, fear' to 'scifi, movies, nuclear, fear, cold war' - edited by calvados

Uncompromising idealism is unproductive idealism. It closes minds to scientific progress and causes opponents to dig in. Greenpeace would have made much greater progress by now if they would learn to use a wedge, not just a blunt hammer. The disproportionate and rabid opposition to nuclear technology of groups like Greenpeace has helped keep us stuck on global-warming fossil fuels (including radiation-spewing coal) to a much greater degree than we ought to be right now. Plus, many of their nuclear fears are irrelevant with modern nuclear technology. Many who still oppose nuclear energy are ignorant idealogues who've paid no attention to the progress we've made.

I think McCain is making *history.

Daisy's got nothing on this ad.

My favorite was "Radical education program".

BTW, did you know that "Radical education program"'s founder endorsed McCain?

Tags for this video have been changed from 'alphaville, forever young, 80s, new wave, synth pop, 1980s, music video' to 'alphaville, forever young, new wave, synth pop, 1980s, germany, cold war, nuclear fear' - edited by calvados

socialist policies on both sides are leading this country straight into bankruptcy.

Clinton balanced the budget. It's not socialist policies, it's war and tax cuts for the top 1% that are bankrupting the United States.


Let's look at how stupid and hypocritical this is:
1. Video implies that Democrats respect the constitution. Oh, really? Is that why Obama voted for the patriot act and gun bans, both violations of the Bill of Rights.

Since then both Obama and the Democratic Party have supported removing the most heinous parts of the Patriot Act. Obama also supported an effort against telecom immunity in the wiretapping scandal. Neither Obama nor the democratic party has attempted to ban all guns outright, just certain types of guns. Don't forget to read the first half of the sentence in the 2nd amendment. The 2nd amendment is about maintaining a militia, and does not say you have to let every mentally ill person buy an M-249

Or how about joint support for easily inflatable fiat currency, in violation of Article 1, Section 10 which mandates gold backing.

Bullshit. It says: "No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility."

The states are not allowed to make their own fiat money, but the federal government is allowed to make fiat money.


How about going to war without congressional declaration in Korea, Vietnam, Kosovo and others? All illegal under the same Article and section and all started by the Democrats.

Once again, Article 1 Section 10 is about restrictions on state governments, not restrictions on the federal government. You fail.



2. Video says abortion is about respecting a woman's right to her own body. I'm not even religious and it seems rather obvious to me that abortion is murder of inconvenience. Didn't want the kid? Why did you have unprotected sex? Furthermore, why is a being one minute apart, from womb to exiting, the difference between having no rights and having rights. That makes no sense. Life has to be defined at conception.

Which would you rather save, a conscious adult or a single-celled fertilized egg? The brain of a fly has 200,000 cells. Until the fetus develops enough of a nervous system to become sentient, its only rights are with respect to preventing suffering that might happen to it in the future after it becomes sentient. I.E., causing birth defects should be illegal but early abortion should be allowable for any reason whatsoever. Birth is NOT the single point where rights are granted; the supreme court has previously upheld a ban on late-term abortions (minus a few exceptional circumstances like saving the life of the mother).



3. Video implies that allowing drugs to be chosen immediately is a bad thing because they haven't been tested. Dude, that's against freedom. If you're dying of cancer, and you want to try an experimental drug, who the fuck cares if it's unsafe? YOU'RE GOING TO DIE. Government has no right to restrict you that opportunity to research and get advice from your doctor about it. And what about all the people who die during the delays that the FDA imposes on new drugs. How can those deaths ever show up in statistics?


You can get non-FDA-approved drugs by participating in the human studies required for FDA approval, which is exactly what you would be doing if you got an experimental treatment.

We need the FDA to keep the snake oil salesmen at bay. Selling bad medicine is not just fraud, it's often manslaughter.


4. Video implies that we should continue to block domestic drilling to prevent potential harm to some wildlife. This isn't a cartoon, drilling doesn't leave an area in shambles. Have fun trying to fly planes with solar panels and meeting our power needs without emission-free nuclear, recyclable nuclear, which you've blocked for thirty years with fear-mongering campaigns about shitty soviet reactors from the 70s. Have fun watching Bush starting insane wars in the middle east and begging Saudi princes to increase production because we have to import 70% of our oil from abroad because of these insane energy policies. Say hello to peak oil and $300 a barrel oil in the coming years.

Pelosi, Clinton, Obama Favor More Nuclear Plants
The anti-nuclear fear mongering is lessening as people realize that it's better for the environment than coal. It won't do shit about dependence on foreign oil unless people buy plug-in electric cars, but it will reduce our dependence on domestic coal.


You can't lower the price by debasing your currency to pay for 60 trillion in unfunded ponzi scheme welfare promises started by FDR, blocking oil, and blocking nuclear.


Sweden's deficit is 0.01% of its GDP, and France's deficit is under 3% of its GDP, while the USA's deficit is 4% of its GDP, despite the fact that both France and Sweden have much broader welfare programs than the USA.

If Bush's tax cuts for millionaires were undone, and the Iraq war (and "homeland security" pork) never happened, the budget would be balanced. (do the math)

Tags for this video have been changed from 'adam curtis, cold war, rand' to 'adam curtis, cold war, rand, nuclear fear' - edited by calvados

Tags for this video have been changed from 'red, balloons, protest, war, politics, german, nuclear, fear' to 'red, balloons, protest, war, politics, german, nuclear, fear, luft balloons' - edited by lucky760

Tags for this video have been changed from 'red, balloons, protest, war, politics, german' to 'red, balloons, protest, war, politics, german, nuclear, fear' - edited by calvados

Tags for this video have been changed from 'rock, ska, punk, pop punk, dreams, german, nena, cold war, nuclear' to 'rock, ska, punk, pop punk, dreams, german, nena, cold war, nuclear fear' - edited by calvados