Politics | June 07, 2009 | 7 comments

Do you support nuclear energy?

source: http://www.larouchepac.com/node/9787

Ish05
Mr. Newsom, I am a resident of California as well as an active member of the "current" community and I have a simple question I would like to ask. Do you support nuclear energy or do you, like most "treehuggers" pun intended, support the policy of going with inefficient energy sources, such as wind and solar? Thank you, if answer my question.
Sincerely, Ismael (Ish05)Current Tag


Here are a couple of videos intended to inform the people of the potential of nuclear energy and the hazards of going with inferior energy. This is all based on scientific studies.

Afraid of Nuclear Power?
http://www.larouchepac.com/node/9787

Why would you go with an inefficient energy policy?
http://www.larouchepac.com/node/9296
  1. groups:
    Politics,   Culture,   Lifestyle
  2. tags:
    Politics,  Culture,  Lifestyle,  Green Questions for Gavin Newsom,  1 more
  3.     
    |

7 comments // Do you support nuclear energy?

  • 1Eco_Media
    • 0
      1Eco_Media  

    • Best Video Doc. 2008

      First found it on Sundance Channel...

      http://www.sundancechannel.com/films/500317046

      only video that has lasted on the DVR all this time because it is a must see.

      Flexibility is the key to all future green energy design.
      The question to ask is do you want your energy source just down the road from where you live?

      Both food and energy production should be local.

      Should the energy design be cost effective and easy to ramp up?

      CPV will go commercial rooftop so the footprint stays the same. With new increased power output by a factor of 10 the secret is found in the cooling process.

      Safety, feeling safe must always be a major part of the planning process no matter what the design.

      If you get a chance to watch the video, do so. Do this will keeping in mind the storage time required is 100K years.

      It is the WASTE you must always consider with every green sustainable design concept no matter what the objective.

      Waste to Energy is the future of clean sustainable alternative energy. The future is now when the Gov. loan protection plans are totally redesigned for true green alternative energy solutions.

      http://www.solardecathlon.org/

      Also see the future of green cities via the flash animation from greenpeace.org

    • 2 years ago
  • Sumbodyswatchin
    • 0
      Sumbodyswatchin  

    • ill take the hazards of your so called "inferior energy" over bio-hazards any day. And please do enlighten me how the sun is an inferior technology? Given sun's energy is around 3.846 × 10^26 watts and we on earth only recieve a billionth of the total out put, that's a reactor for every couple hundred human beings? So why waste money building when all we have to do is collect???? I'll take a tree over an uninformed and misguided idiot anyday.

    • 2 years ago
  • Ish05
    • 0
      Ish05  
    • Sumbodyswatchin:

      "All we have to do is collect". I guess you don't take into account the fact that solar panels have to be produced to such a degree that the production and placement of these panels would take away land area better suited for more important projects. To power a city the size of San Fransisco it would require at least 3/4 the land mass of San Fransisco, full of solar collectors to power that given city. Not to mention a backup source of power would still be required for when the sun isn't shining at optimum levels, which it rarely does. The numbers for wind energy is worse.
      So yes, it is proper to call such an energy policy inferior and inefficient.
      And name calling doesn't help your argument any. You come off looking foolish.

    • 2 years ago
  • bombastinator
    • 0
      bombastinator  

    • I think that the question could be couched more neutrally, especially since he is unlikely to be swayed by name calling, I would also ad I would be interested to know his viewsz on the development of 3rd and 4th generation nuclear reactors.

    • 2 years ago
  • Ish05
    • 0
      Ish05  
    • bombastinator:

      I used the "treehugger" reference as a pun, only because the treehugger.com site is one of the communities submitting questions. It wasn't meant as an attack on Newsom or his ideals. Trying to be clever may have worked against me.

    • 2 years ago
  • bombastinator
    • 0
      bombastinator  
    • bombastinator:

      Perhaps i over spoke as well. I think it may be more accurate for me to say that the way you are framing your question implies an attempt to influence the nature of his remark or the way you want him to answer. I suspect it will not be effective in doing so, and will attract the attention of people who disagree with your stance. A way it could be done might have been to come with a piece of less value based information such as a reference that current renewable energy may not be able to cover california's future energy needs how he felt about nuclear on that basis. The stuff I personally have seen gave me the impression that full wind implementation including off shore sources can only give up to around 15% and solar remains economy crushingly expensive at large scales. Plus there's the whole reliability problem. I don't know how correct that is though.

    • 2 years ago
  • Ann_Garrison
more from Politics:
from the community

top videos