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.

Safe way to store nuclear energy? Did he mean nuclear waste?

>> ^oileanach
The power source is a serious issue I agree. I can't stand it when people suggest that electricity (or similarly hydrogen) is a SOURCE of energy - it's just a means of transmission. Now in a place like France where they have more nuclear power than they can use (especially at night) charging batteries would be a good alternative to burning fossil fuels.

>> ^Kagenin
Quote from his comments:
Here in Southern California (power company: SCE), when I charge this bike, about 50% of the electricity comes from natural gas, 20% from Nuclear, 15% renewable (Geothermal, Wind, etc), and only 9% comes from coal

Nuclear energy and gas/coal are unsustainable/inefficient/old-fashioned/dangerous (esp. nuclear)/centralised (elitist) sources of energy, e.g. read this article by Jeremy Rifkin
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0929-33.htm
Conclusion of the article is that there are a lot better options available: "Instead, we should pursue an aggressive effort to bring the full range of decentralized renewable technologies online: solar, wind, geothermal, hydro and biomass. And we should establish a hydrogen storage infrastructure to ensure a steady, uninterrupted supply of power for our electricity needs and for transportation."

MRI Industry:
Reflecting the fundamental importance and applicability of MRI in the medical field, Paul Lauterbur of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and Sir Peter Mansfield of the University of Nottingham were awarded the 2003 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for their "discoveries concerning magnetic resonance imaging".

Microwave Industry & Cellular Communication Industry:
Maxwell, Hertz, and nearly half of all microwave parts that I can think of were first introduced at NIST... These two I am not going post supporting evidence for.


Nuclear Energy Industry:
Err... Quantum Mechanics- Hello?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics

Computer Industry(By way of the transistor, substrates, etc.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transistor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_Edgar_Lilienfeld
He created it at the University of Leipzig. Funded by the German government.

Genetic Engineering Industry
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polymerase_chain_reaction

Your claim is that without government incentives, these industries would not exist, or would have progressed slower? Can you prove that?

How can I prove something wouldn't exist if people hadn't invented it? The best I can say is it would not have been invented when it was. And scientist wouldn't research whatever they wanted without funding, which companies wouldn't and don't pay for because it is to financially risky. How do I know this? I am a scientist.

Another good example is your IPod and the colossal magnetoresistor in it's hard drive.

^I'm trying hard to even respond to your claim, because it is so unfounded its unbelievable. give me a second.

Here are your examples:
MRI Industry
Microwave Industry
Cellular Communication Industry
Nuclear Energy Industry
Computer Industry(By way of the transistor, substrates, etc.)
Genetic Engineering Industry

Your claim is that without government incentives, these industries would not exist, or would have progressed slower? Can you prove that?

Here is proof you are dead wrong on at least one of those:
The first Nuclear power plant took 18 months to build. After government regulation, Nuclear power plants now take 12 years to build.

Here is what you fail to realize, and why your thinking is so narrow. When the government subsidies the Nuclear Energy Industry--what happened to all the alternative energies that were just opening, that didn't receive subsides? What about the solar manufacturer who just got put out of business because he can't compete with a Nuclear Industry funded by taxpayers?

And when the government chooses the solution to demand, what you are left with is not the best product (i.e the product which survives the natural selection of the market by either being lower in cost or higher in quality) you are left with whatever solution some government official decided was best for you. How can you think that is the best way to develop new technologies?

I'm sorry but you don't understand anything about economics...money is not created out of thin air. When the government gives money to one industry, but not another it is playing favorites, it is choosing for the consumer what products they receive. Why do you think we have an oil based economy when 100 square miles (real number, calculate it or look it up yourself) of solar panels could power the entire country?

I think risk is the primary deterrent. It is the same logic behind becoming a scientist, doctor, or lawyer.

It is a fact we make a lot of money, but not everyone does it. There are more factors than simply 'this is in my best financial interests'. You are presenting things as they are absolute black and white, which they are decidedly not.

>> ^imstellar28:
^tell me this. why do you need incentive for people to enter a $1,000,000,000,000 industry? you don't think the sheer profit available is enough?


A good example of this would be:

MRI Industry
Microwave Industry
Cellular Communication Industry
Nuclear Energy Industry
Computer Industry(By way of the transistor, substrates, etc.)
Genetic Engineering Industry

Basically anything except Railroad and Oil...

Hey wait... Those had incentives... Carnot is basically the founder of thermodynamics. And the British Government gave him tons of money to research steam engines. And research into the science of mining for oil is supported by the government, too. So yeah, I guess your question is silly. Regardless of the profits to be made governments have always provided incentives in one form or another to support industry, because ensuring a good economy is in their best interests.

Can I get an amen?

I have a certain sympathy for Libertarian ideas, and I like the way Mr. Paul states his opinions without all the obfuscating sentimental baggage we get from most pols. But I also have many reservations. Here are couple of examples.

The thing that worries me about Libertarians promoting nuclear energy is that that I assume they mean a 100% unregulated nuclear industry. It seems dangerously naive to assume that the small circle of people in charge of any given plant would have any free-market motivation at all to embrace the extra expense of safely disposing of the nuclear waste. They are more likely to find ways to justify to themselves that a "sweep it under the carpet" type solution will be just fine so long as they maintain the right to collect the profits at the end of each year. Then, after many years of neglect, with all the profits having been spent and the perpetrators safely retired, we get permanent radio active disaster areas popping up all over the place. I don't see how the free market is going to help at all at that point. There is no profit associated with cleaning up nuclear disaster areas and with no taxes and no government, I don't see who is going to volunteer for the dangerous, dirty hard work that pays nothing.

I am also not necessarily convinced that simply allowing everybody to keep as much money as they can earn is even the best possible solution even for the very people who imagine they would benefit most from such a policy. It *seems* obvious that if I have, for example $20,000 more in my bank account than I would otherwise have, then I am better off as a result. But that $20,000 is really nothing in relation to the national economy. It will not enable me to, for example, fix the problems created by toxic nuclear waste dump that just happened to burst open upriver from my home town after a recent storm. Imagine also that EVERYBODY has that extra $20,000. We'd all think it stupidly obvious that we are all better off. But many people are likely to spend it in ways that may make both my and their lives much worse. Again, to a degree that the extra 20k in our accounts cannot compensate for. For example, if everybody living in my town suddenly received enough of a tax break, then we might all celebrate by buying a car rather than continuing to cycle or bus to work. But in fact, everybody might actually be worse off because of the extra traffic, smog and loss of exercise. With all the new traffic, it might actually take longer to get to work--even for those who continue to take buses--but everybody would just sit in their cars anyway damning the traffic like it was uniquely everybody else's fault; no amount of extra money or tax breaks will get them there faster. So, time again to dust off that old cycle (also an example of an alternative to burning fossil fuels, but hardly a comprehensive solution to the problem.)

I think capitalism (i.e., the free market) works because it is fundamentally based on the assumption that all people are greedy, lazy, selfish and stupid. Exceptions to this are rare enough that the system winds up working acceptably well, or at least out competing alternatives attempted until now. People go to work because they realize that they are forced to if they want to eat and show off or whatever and so long as it seems like they are adequately compensated for their efforts, they consider the situation tolerable and think they are "free". Everybody might secretly prefer to be poets rather than janitors, but the free market ensures that bad poetry doesn't pay very well, thereby ensuring that we don't end up with a 100% population of layabout poets and we can all avoid starving to death. Fine. On average, everything looks good. But as soon as someone is permitted to accept inherited privilege or wealth, we are looking at an exception to the free market. This person has profited without regard to contribution or ability and is therefore just as much a violation of the free market as is a welfare recipient (otherwise, the much more popular target of free-market cheer leaders). I would argue that this person is in fact a more dangerous aberration to the system than the welfare recipient because it frees him or her (let's call her "Paris") to apply influences to society that are out of proportion to her ability, compassion or understanding of the consequences. It also lets her not care if everything goes to shit because she will always have enough money to buy a house far away from whatever problems she produces (through nuclear waste mismanagement, for example) and even her own private army to fight off the malcontents when they come knocking. Once the Libertarians have knocked down all government and regulations, how are we to deal with Paris? Do we all deserve to suffer because of our poor choice of birth parents?

Ron Paul is also anti-choice on the abortion issue. Hardly a Libertarian opinion. I suppose that's why he left the Libertarians to join the Republicans.

I'm all in favor of closing all the military bases and bankrupting most the defense industry, though.

"The free market is very protective of the environment."
-
Yeah, Exxon Mobil really super awesomely cares about the environment!


"We do know a source of energy that's cheap and clean and that's nuclear energy"
-
Yeah, nuclear waste is super-duper clean!



I'm totally voting for Ron Paul.

that is just plain cool. future generations will mock us for using nuclear energy when, - to paraphrase - In one hour, the sun produces as much energy as the Earth comsumes in one year." To me, that's profound.

Working with non-EU countries to confront global issues = World Government!

Everybody be scared! Everybody vote libertarian!


... honestly I thought maybe you were mocking the often hilarious posts people try to drive through where they see a 'new world order' in every politicians speech that mentions working with other countries.

(p.s. there already is a World Bank (worldbank.org), which interestingly has only had a string of American leaders, for no reason beyond tradition.)

(p.p.s. Iran has enriched uranium, they say only for nuclear energy, but if a bunch of different countries are worried I think its probably something to be worried about; http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25809160/)

I hate voting for Olbermann videos because he uses the same emotional tactics that you see on Fox News. The video is pointless because anyone who can follow the reasoning presented therein will already have done so on their own.

BansheeX, I agree with you about nuclear energy and off-shore drilling. I'm not sure I agree with off-shore drilling being forced to sell US. Think about the worlds biggest oil exporters: if they stopped exporting oil, what would they have going for them? Iran would just be some crazy-potential terrorists in the desert if it weren't for the money they make from us in oil trade. With that in mind consider what would happen (the assumption is made that oil is cheaper in the US than other places):

A. Oil sold in foreign markets: drillers make more money. Supply in the world economy increases and the price reacts accordingly (if at all). Most Americans would not see a benefit.

B. Oil sold in domestic markets: drillers make less money. Demand in the US decreases (since we have more domestically and rely less on foreign oil). Price reacts accordingly.

Seems to me if the oil is forced to be sold domestically, Americans would get more benefit from it.

In reply to this comment by DavidRaine:
Wind turbines kill birds, and now we see their operation is unsafe and causes wanton destruction to nearby wildlife. We ought to outlaw these dangerous turbines and move to clean, safe, nuclear energy!

I'm not sure if wind turbines can be accurately categorized as causing "wanton destruction", though I will second your notion for nuclear energy (still I'm pretty sure your comment was made in jest). Those fucking baby boomers and their fear mongering back in the '80s has put a damper on new nuclear power plant development in this country. Yet another reason to hate the hippies! Stop fucking in the bushes, cut your hair and get a job, hippies!

It's a shame we don't embrace nuclear power, because it's really a clean and sustainable energy source. A lot better than fossil fuels, in my opinion. I want every car to be equipped with the Flux Capacitor and your very own Mr. Fusion to power it with banana peels and refuse.

Wind turbines kill birds, and now we see their operation is unsafe and causes wanton destruction to nearby wildlife. We ought to outlaw these dangerous turbines and move to clean, safe, nuclear energy!

Oof. I feel that some of Condi's points need to be responded to.

1) Not all "terrorists" are alike, obviously. Condi needs to get it straight that Hezbollah is not Al Qaeda. They are very different organizations with somewhat opposed goals. They shouldn't be lumped together. As Paul points out, it is highly unlikely that Iran would be helping Sunni terrorists, and Condi's answer is just some more of the vague hand waving he was complaining about.

2) Iran Nuclear Program: Iran is currently approaching a major energy crisis. Lack of maintenance and support for their oil refinement infrastructure, combined with increased energy demand, has been having serious effects on their economy. It's projected that within a decade, Iran will not be exporting any oil at all. To help combat the crisis, Iran is now requiring all of its automobile manufacturers to make hybrid cars only. It is only reasonable that they move to nuclear energy. That's not to say that they might not also work on nuclear bombs on the hush-hush as well; it's in their interests. But as things stand, they can't afford /not/ to build nuclear reactors at this time.

3) The supposed unilaterality of the opposition to Iran is not as simple as it seems. To be sure, the craziness of Ahmadinejad does tend to make non-Iranians worry, but the real worry isn't that Iran will bomb anyone. Rather, the power afforded by nuclear weapons would make Iran a far more influential country, with far more say as to how the Western countries interfere in the Middle East. To be sure, there is some truth to Condi's assertion that it's a national security matter; a rise in Iranian power could threaten our petroleum supply. In response, one must answer with the cliche, nonetheless true, that we need to reduce our dependence on petroleum period. A more far-sighted foreign policy would allow Iran to do as it wills in the region--decreasing Middle Eastern animus toward the West and especially America--and simultaneously move toward alternative energy sources in serious way. The Bush administration's lack of concern with alternative energy is well established by now.

Wow, it's not a fair comparison to make between Nuclear energy and Clean energy (solar, wind, waves). Of course we SHOULD switch to clean energy as soon as possible, but at this moment you can't just replace everything else with it - it is simply not efficient enough.

The comparison that must be made is between fossil fules (coal, oil) and Nuclear energy. The amount of nuclear waste is far less damaging than the damage from fossil pollution.