The No Nukes/ Global Warming Conundrum

Your circular logic knows no bounds, Boom.

I'll be honest -- I think nuclear should be on the table. Always thought it should be.

 

Eeeeexcellent.

 

The rejection of Global Warming by some has absolutely nothing to do with science or the idea that it could be false. The rejection is a direct result of individuals that don't want to change the way they do this.

It is a purely selfish reaction. "It isn't my fault. I am not doing anything wrong. The science must be wrong."

 

Ethanol does present major concerns.
The release of CO is less, but the release of CO2 is about equal.
The big concern should be increased release of preNOx emission, which lead to an increase in ground-level ozone.
That means smog, creating increased respiratory, not to mention aesthetic, problems.

This is what I was talking about a month or two ago. This argument is almost always oversimplified: Fossil fuels are bad. Let's stop using them.
That's a premise, not an actual solution.
Every alternative has immediate drawbacks and possible longe-rage, unforseen drawbacks. There are monumental costs.
And there's the possible problems of heading in too many directions at once. In California, they're talking hydrogen. In Iowa they're talking ethanol.
(Also, sugar beets are likely a better ethanol crop than corn.)

The No Nukes movement was about nuclear power, although I'm sure that the No Nukes people also favored nuclear disarmament.
If the U.S. were to increase nuclear power, there are drawbacks to that, too, obviously.

 

Soon we will all be driving De Loreans that need a nuclear reaction to generate the 1.21 gigawatts needed to spark our time travel.

 

Where will we get our flux capacitors from?

 

That's no problem, because in 1985 plutonium will be available at every corner drugstore.