Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: RetiredNow who wrote (307842)	10/26/2006 9:36:01 PM
From: combjelly	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1571929

"As far as Al Gore, I didn't see your post saying he was anti-nuke facilities. " He isn't. He just isn't enthusiastic about it. Won't. There are serious problems that have to be solved, and they are not limited to the long-term waste-storage issue and the vulnerability-to-terrorist-attack issue. Let's assume for the sake of argument that both of those problems can be solved. Spend Your $.02 Discuss this story in our blog, Gristmill. We still have other issues. For eight years in the White House, every weapons-proliferation problem we dealt with was connected to a civilian reactor program. And if we ever got to the point where we wanted to use nuclear reactors to back out a lot of coal -- which is the real issue: coal -- then we'd have to put them in so many places we'd run that proliferation risk right off the reasonability scale. And we'd run short of uranium, unless they went to a breeder cycle or something like it, which would increase the risk of weapons-grade material being available. When energy prices go up, the difficulty of projecting demand also goes up -- uncertainty goes up. So utility executives naturally want to place their bets for future generating capacity on smaller increments that are available more quickly, to give themselves flexibility. Nuclear reactors are the biggest increments, that cost the most money, and take the most time to build. In any case, if they can design a new generation [of reactors] that's manifestly safer, more flexible, etc., it may play some role, but I don't think it will play a big role. grist.org

To: RetiredNow who wrote (307842)	10/26/2006 9:50:33 PM
From: steve harris	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1571929

In my opinion, Clinton and Carter's performance would carry more weight today as an indication of today's democrat party, than what Roosevelt did 65 years ago. I have Churchill's six volume set, The Second World War, originals from 1948 to 1953. It has a lot of correspondence between Churchill and Roosevelt as well as other leaders. Great stuff. I don't see the current crop of democrats remotely resembling Roosevelt in those letters. I won't waste time listing Clinton's foreign policy disasters or Jimmy Carter's. Regarding algore and nukes, I've posted his position before, in his own words. Message 22606928 "However, I do not support an increased reliance on nuclear power." Clear enough Gore is against nukes? Or has he changed his rhetoric to meet today's voters "hopes"? I agree, I would like more nukes. Even hydropower. To hell with the tree frogs and albino crawdads. France has 80% of their electricity from nukes while I think we're stuck at 20%. Nuke could provide hydrogen or electricity. Either way, better than what we have now. Unfortunately, too many politicians are in front of cameras screaming "not in my back yard". The biofules here in Arkansas are catching on bigtime. Maybe an intermediate step toward nukes and hydrogen.