Quote:
Originally Posted by cmac2012
This is what you hear a lot from that sector. Using nukes sounds attractive at first glance but I suspect that the skinny I've heard on that -- which is that it would take a new nuke plant coming on line once a week for 20 or 30 years to produce the amount of BTUs we currently get from petro -- is in the ballpark of correct. Each plant produces multiple tons of plutonium in its lifetime, and only a few pounds are needed for a bomb.
The waste problem would go up exponentially. I'm thinking out of the frying pan, into the fire.
My strong gut feeling is that we simply cannot afford -- in several ways at once -- to continue to maintain our Nascar/SUV/RV lifestyle much longer. I mean who in God's creation needs to haul a washer/dryer, shower, and toilet around with them on wheels?! Just whack . . . .
|
Out of the frying pan? Yep, probably.
My biggest concern is population growth. Even if we were able to reduce per capita consumption dramatically from current levels, what about all the new "capitas" coming down the road. They will be energy consumers too.
Who, if anybody plays god (or dictator) and forces cutbacks in population growth and energy consumption.
I guess we can always grow enough food to feed the worlds population to some degree, but what will 6 billion people do all day long with limited energy to live and work?
I don't have faith that our system has the force or will to tackle serious problems. And I speak of our society in general and the political ruling class. Shoot, we still convict the Jack Kevorkians for ending lives of misery and suffering. Keep them alive for what. To wast more limited resources and services in keeping them alive to endure more pain and suffering? WTF kind of reasoning is that? Goofy I say.
We have met the enemy and the enemy is us.
