Add SubjectMark | Hide Original Post | Show Chart | Poster Summary |The Case for Nuclear Energy | Stock Discussion Forums Share This Board

Moderated By: Hawkmoon -- (Moderated) -- Started: 1/19/2001 12:43:02 PM  Revision History I've recently been reacquainting myself with some of the writings of Sci-Fi author, James P. Hogan, who is an outspoken advocate of Nuclear Energy. Hogan, in his essay "Know Nukes" has made some very compelling arguments in support of building more plants, while convincingly dispelling the fear mongering negative claims by the opposition. jamesphogan.com  ornl.gov  And a great link provided by Raymond Duray that sums up many of the same points Hogan discusses: c-n-t-a.com  In fact, Hogan goes so far as to accuse the anti-nuke leadership of actually having "Mathusianist" intentions, seeking to deprive developing nations of the unlimited and relatively inexpensive energy resources so necessary to forming the foundation of a industialize society. It is his very logical contention that Nuclear Energy has far less actual, or potential, environmental impact on nature or society than does the use of fossil fuels such as coal, oil, or natural gas. So the purpose of this thread is to argue the case for, and against, the expanded use of Nuclear Energy as a means for powering our society. I think it is especially important given the current persistent power shortages being experienced in California as a direct result of the NIMBY mindset created by the environmentalist left. This is a moderated thread, so I retain the ultimate discretion as to who is able to participate. My ground rules are pretty simple. If you are going to make a claim, be willing to back it up with logic or outright supported fact. My goal is that we can ultimately provide a resource for educating folks about what it takes to power a modern day society, as well as the constant cost/benefit analysis involved in making public policy decision about energy. Here are some selected links that I find useful with regard to educating ourselves about nuclear power. I will update them from time to time so check in for changes: nei.org  (% of power generated by nukes) ans.neep.wisc.edu  uic.com.au  Thorium? blogs.forbes.com

Reply	Message Preview	From	Recs	Date
241	It's Not the Scary Things that Kill You jeffwise.net  [graphic]Message	TimF	-	10/16/2011 01:45 PM
240	New UK nuclear plant sites named Ministers have announced plans for the next ge	TimF	-	06/27/2011 11:54 AM
239	Obama’s Transparency on Science Doesn’t Include Nuclear Today the House Committ	TimF	-	06/12/2011 07:12 PM
238	How It Works: Traveling-Wave Reactor theatlantic.com	TimF	-	05/04/2011 10:15 PM
237	Cold Fusion Is Real and Commercial Development Is Near Cold Fusion has been a p	Rock_nj	-	04/25/2011 04:46 PM
236	If something like Three Mile Island, or the Japanese plants happened at Indian P	TimF	-	03/31/2011 02:18 PM
235	Can the United States really afford a major nuclear disaster at the Indian Point	Rock_nj	-	03/30/2011 03:25 PM
234	25 Other Energy Disasters From the Last Year By Alexis Madrigal Mar 21 2011, 4:	TimF	-	03/22/2011 04:52 PM
233	Despite Protests, NRC Renews License for Vermont Nuclear Plant Despite oppositi	TimF	-	03/22/2011 04:23 PM
232	xkcd.com  xkcd radiates Randall Munroe, who draws the geekerrific xkcd we	TimF	-	03/22/2011 01:37 PM
231	[graphic] Also "the single deadliest power generation disaster isn't C	TimF	-	03/22/2011 01:25 PM