Table - German power

[kristopher]

30. Still waiting. Either provide specifics or retract your insinuation.

Last edited Wed Apr 25, 2012, 12:55 AM - Edit history (1)

ETA 12:40 That's what I thought. There is a tendency on the part of those who support nuclear power to make things up and engage in that type of personal slander. It is a result of not having a leg to stand in in their push to promote nuclear power and malign renewable energy sources.

It is worth pointing out one thing: this is a progressive discussion forum and the energy policy I endorse is based on energy efficiency and 100% renewables. It is recognized by virtually every independent energy expert as the most rapid, least cost path to a carbon free economy for the US and the world. It is a policy embraced by virtually every progressive that claims the title.

You and the other nuclear supporters on the other hand are trying to promote a recognized dead end energy source that is the least publicly acceptable of all ways of generating power. It has long been a darling of the republican party and in the last campaign was embraced by McCain with a pledge to build 100 new plants if he were elected. While a small number of progressives will accept nuclear power because of concern about climate change, the idea that a progessive forum is dominated by the vanishingly small number of rabid pronuclear progressives is a statistical anomaly that probably rivals winning the MegaMillions jackpot.

When you add to that the fact that the American Nuclear Society and the Nuclear Energy Institute both expend vast resources promoting the nuclear gospel with thousands of volunteers and paid operatives, then we can get a sense of where the probabilities lie regarding whose message is more a product of sincere beliefs and whose is influenced by dark motives.