eponymous cowherd wrote:
In article .com,
wrote:
Might I suggest that the US would be far better developing peaceful
nuclear energy itself, developing the methane hydrates in the Carribean
and NOT pumping up talk of war.
Most of the people I know with engineering degrees or a similar
education support nuke power and then everyone else thinks that it kills
cute little puppies and kittens and only the bad man with the stupid
ideas likes nuclear anything. If you can convert the massively ignorant
masses to nuke power you will have won a victory only slightly less
improbable than bringing democracy to the muslims.
France does emphatically. In fact somebody has done a survey on
acidents per unit of electricity. Guess what is tops. Nuclear power -
think again. Hydroelectricity. A dam burst creates far more havoc than
Chernolyl.
Nuclear power comes quite low down - below gas. If you include
greenhouse effects and add on the destruction in say New Orleans that
will alter the equation yet again. Mind global warming is now
unstoppable. Driving a small car at 90km/h and not flying will not
arrest it.
I personally would like research on solar power, robotics - need I say
Von Neumann machines. NASA is cutting back on everything not associates
with its pet mollochs - the ISS and Shuttle. The Shuttle was supposed
to bring in cheap space flight but is now a molloch. As well as
replacing fossils fuels we will also need active space based climate
control.
I would like to see this being adaquately researched. In the mean time
nuclear is the only realistic option. L'option francaise.