Check out FoEAction's presidential campaign ads:
Does this mean I can be pro-nuclear by voting for ANY of the remaining candidates? SCORE!
If you like, you can also play with their interactive anti-nuclear video:
Well, that was solidly disingenuous. Hopefully these crude efforts are a sign of desperation on the part of the anti-nuclear movement.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
In the first part of the video, is that yet another example of "Oh, look at those big cooling towers - it must be a nuclear power plant!" and hoping that no-one notices the big smoke stacks which give away that it's actually a coal-burning plant?
"We don't have the time or money to build tripple the reactors.."
And yet... apparently we do have the time and money to build solar and wind? How the hell does that make sense.
That's one of the major holes in the anti-nuclear activists' worldview. They seem to be blissfully unaware that their preferred energy sources have most of the same problems as nuclear to a greater degree. Renewable energy receives far more government subsides per kWh than any other source; even optimists at the NREL don't think it can replace more than 25% of electricity generation by 2040; renewables cost more per MW capacity than nuclear; and renewable energy's high material intensity means that we'll run out of copper before we can power the country with wind turbines. Meanwhile, they complain that nuclear plants won't come on line for ten years. Well, imagine what we could have after ten years with a little effort! And by 2040, with real government commitment, we could create a genuine fission economy. Remember, in 1972 Nixon expected there to be 1,000 nuclear plants in the US by 2000. If they could build 1,000 plants in 30 years back then, why can't we now?
Post a Comment