Aside from the war in Iraq and the just-concluded trial of Micheal Jackson, no issue has been of more concern to Americans in the last several months than the cost of gasoline.

One of the first blog posts I wrote concerned my alarm at this alarmist website in which Matt Savinar predicts a global economic cata

This is part three in the series of posts that points out some of the problems with the current fad Peak Oil (parts 1 and 2 are here and here). Kevin's third post deals with the issue of how much oil is left and can we get it to the surface as fast as...

So how do you mandate ‘lifestyle change’? You cannot make people consume less and conserve. It is antithetical to human nature. I have a friend at work who lived through socialist Hungary, he said the other day that the system wasn’t so bad and it would of worked if there weren’t so many people abusing it. You cannot deny competition and status seeking in human beings, you may as well try to get kangaroos to walk instead of hop, It is human nature.

I'm not denying it, in fact I am counting on it. I am counting on that competition to increase prices in the market place. Increases in prices can bring about lifestyle changes, less consumption, etc.

As for the NIMBYism, that is a big problem. In fact, I've been hinting that part of the real problem here is government. How, well NIMBYism is one place to start.

Kaz,

All I am making a point about is that nuclear power is unsafe because if the reactor fails in the wrong way the results are catastophic.

Technically so are car accidents. How many tens of thousands have died in the last 10 years? Maybe even hundreds of thousands? Compared to how many deaths due to catastrophic nuclear accidents. You are simply scared of one, and not the other because you don't have any sense at all of the relevant probabilities.

And Slartibartfast is right. We don't have nukes because of the hysteria you and others attach to a nuclear generating station. You look at it and see your death. I look at it and see electricity that is both reliable and safe. Oddly enough you look at cars and see transportation, amusement, efficiency, but apparently no dangers whatsoever. I see the same things, but also the dangers.

One more thing that is probably the most important.When oil does run out it may be difficult to maintaning these nuclear reactors which need a working supply chain dependant on oil, we are leaving a legacy for future generations that may be hard for them to control.

You don't control much anything right now! Who controls the price of oil? OPEC? How come a few years ago it went to $10/barrel? Who controls the price of gasoline? The Saudi's? How come gasoline prices can spike when oil prices are low? Maybe it has to do with too few refineries and the large number of boutique blends? What...you didn't think of these things?

Control, control, control. That is the bottomline problem with the Peak Oil guys and people like Kevin Drum. They see these things as problems because they fear things will "spin out of control" when they were never in anybody's control (at least not completely). This illusion of losing control is what scares them. The punchline is that they nor anybody were really in control in the first place.

Why have no reactors been built in the US since the 70’s?

Because of you, kaz, and because of people like you. People who find it easier to speak out on a subject without ever having bothered to make the barest acquaintance with fact on said subject. Certainly it wasn't because of 3-Mile Island, which released radiation much lower than background level. You radiate yourself at a higher level than TMI radiated to anyone. You are aware that you're radioactive, aren't you?

You win. We wont have a shortage of oil for ages and we will invent new energy sources way before it has any effect on us and, it will be pretty much business as usual because the economy will take care of it.We can build nuclear power stations on demand, 50 a year if need be and run a hydrogen transport system with fuel cell cars trucks ships and planes.All wars in the middle east will cease beacuse oil will not have much value compared to our new energy wich will not run out for generations at least if ever, and democracy will spread throughout the world as we never need to rely on another country again for energy supply.
Yep this is what the future holds for us if we wish hard enough and have ready cash.

Our answer is in conservation and lifestyle change.This is opposte to our current economic system which will be obsolete when our energy becomes scarce and extremly expensive.

So how do you mandate 'lifestyle change'? You cannot make people consume less and conserve. It is antithetical to human nature. I have a friend at work who lived through socialist Hungary, he said the other day that the system wasn't so bad and it would of worked if there weren't so many people abusing it. You cannot deny competition and status seeking in human beings, you may as well try to get kangaroos to walk instead of hop, It is human nature.

We are going to need more nuclear power plants to keep our cities running. Personally I would rather that than more coal fired power stations. Kaz, you say "when our energy becomes scarce and extremely expensive", yet you want to deny an important potential energy source to people who will desperately need it? Why do you think James Lovelock the conceiver of the Gaia hypothesis supports nuclear power? Please do some more research on this subject, your thinking is a very out-dated.

Steve are you going to address my above post or continue waffling with these nuclear NIMBY's?

This is the second part of the my response to Kevin's Peak Oil posts. This looks at Part 2 of Kevin's series. In this part of his series Kevin looks at the work of M. King Hubbert and his Hubbert curve and why Hubbert has it, basically right. Hubbert...

All I am making a point about is that nuclear power is unsafe because if the reactor fails in the wrong way the results are catastophic.
I don't think you can argue with that.

Is it possible that this may happen caused by a resonable occurance like componet failure, humman error, deleibarate human intervention or earthquake? You have to say it may be but it could happen and the chances may be 10,000 to one however if it happens 100,000 people can be affected in a bad way.

Why have no reactors been built in the US since the 70's?

If I drive my car I can not hurt 100,000 people no matter what type of crash I have and in most instances I do have control over what happens.

Anyway I don't think nuclear power is as safe as the proponents say and it is not a long term solution to our energy problems.

Our answer is in conservation and lifestyle change.This is opposte to our current economic system which will be obsolete when our energy becomes scarce and extremly expensive.

So you say that a nuclear accident is totaly impossible even caused by an earthqake, a component failure or human error?

No, you are saying that. What I'm saying is what Slartibartfast said, Chernobyl is impossible here. Further, similar accidents are less likely here, IMO.

The 2 space shuttles that blew up and killed everyone on board were made in democratic USA and most technlogically advanced then why did they blow up?

You sure are beating the crap out of your strawman. I'm impressed. That takes alot of mental courage to step, offer up a strawman of your opponents views, then beat the ever loving crap out of the strawman. Poor thing can't even defend itself.

Do you want you family subected to that type of danger if there was a choice of not having to? Or do we have no choice?

You don't drive much do you?

We call it "Classiness, All Around Us." Click to explore more WILLisms.com. In no particular order, WILLisms.com presents classiness from the blogosphere (now with 50% more classy!): 1. Medical Marijuana- SCOTUSblog has a great series on the Gonzales...

The point is that they can and it is possible at some stage. It may be remote and you don’t know when, but when it happens the devastation is catastrophic.

Or a nuclear plant could get smacked by a kilometer-wide asteroid traveling at 20 km/sec. That'd spread radioactive waste far and wide, no question.

Of course, there wouldn't be anyone left in that hemisphere to complain...

A Chernobyl-type incident is literally impossible with our nuclear plants. Read up on it, and you'll see. This is not to say that some sort of accident cannot happen, but a Chernobyl incident is, by definition, impossible here. If you're going to go doom-crying, please do have the sense to have an idea of what you're talking about.

The reactors in the U.S. are totally different than the reactors than Chernobyl. Further, the U.S. and most of the rest of the world use fart stricter standards than Communist Russia. I think one could make the case that this is one of the benefits of living in a democracy.

Reply

So you say that a nuclear accident is totaly impossible even caused by an earthqake, a component failure or human error?
The 2 space shuttles that blew up and killed everyone on board were made in democratic USA and most technlogically advanced then why did they blow up?

The point is that they can and it is possible at some stage.It may be remote and you don't know when, but when it happens the devastation is catastrophic. Do you want you family subected to that type of danger if there was a choice of not having to? Or do we have no choice?

Also ther is no solution for the waste apart from putting it into DU bombs and pollution another country with this rubbish.