Nuclear power?

[nathan]

Nuclear power?

[dwayner79]

Love TED

I am for, so let em just comment on the second gentlemen's comments.

Weapons are here, and they are not going anywhere. Its the "wish we could uninvent" mentality, but too bad. I do not see how helping make nuclear power facilitates nuclear weapons is a valid point since bad guys who want them, will get them.

The second concern he said for the length of time to make the power plants. My brother works for Uncle Sam on one of his large ships. He is a Nuclear Engineer. When Uncle Sam decides to make a new ship, 4 nuclear reactors are created and delivered in 7 years (well I assume the reactors take significantly less, since 7 years is the sea worthy timeframe). These reactors need to move a floating city of 6000 people, sustain the steam catapult to launch an entire air force larger then most countries, and as an aside, generate electric to run the city. Not to mention they need to function in rock and roll conditions on the water, and withstand enemy attack.

Why in the world a stationary nuclear facility needs to take 20 years to complete is beyond me. It's is simply the bureaucratic BS that holds it up.

[ggeezz]

Let me ask the question TED won't.

Should we spend $2T transitioning from fossil fuels sooner rather than later, or should we spend $2T on research, education, infrastructure, and help for the developing world?

[dwayner79]

Depends on whether waiting means significant climate change and end of the world predictions.

Further, as Americans, it makes sense to get off of foreign oil sooner rather then latter, because of the global politics involved with funding Islamic nations that are bent on hurting us. Solving the national issue as well as helping the global issue sounds like a positive investment, with lasting payback.

I am not sure is Research, education (which has way too much money already) infrastructure, and help to developing countries would be a better investment. Too many unknowns, obviously. But I think we are at the "have to" stage on getting off foreign oil.

[Grog]

How much money would we have spent in Afghanistan and Iraq if it weren't for oil? That would seem to affect that $2T number.

[ggeezz]

Depends on whether waiting means significant climate change and end of the world predictions.

Further, as Americans, it makes sense to get off of foreign oil sooner rather then latter, because of the global politics involved with funding Islamic nations that are bent on hurting us. Solving the national issue as well as helping the global issue sounds like a positive investment, with lasting payback.

I am not sure is Research, education (which has way too much money already) infrastructure, and help to developing countries would be a better investment. Too many unknowns, obviously. But I think we are at the "have to" stage on getting off foreign oil.

The quickest and cheapest (by a long shot) way off foreign oil for the US is coal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fischer%E2 ... ch_process

that or using our oil shale resources.

[ggeezz]

How much money would we have spent in Afghanistan and Iraq if it weren't for oil? That would seem to affect that $2T number.

I don't know, but IF there was a conspiracy with oil companies to invade Afghanistan and Iraq for oil, it wasn't to make oil cheaper for the American consumer.

Oil companies make more money when oil is expensive, not when it's cheap.

[Grog]

I don't know why you'd assume the oil companies would be involved. It would be more about those (democratic) nations owing us and opening up oil to us.

[ggeezz]

I don't know why you'd assume the oil companies would be involved. It would be more about those (democratic) nations owing us and opening up oil to us.

Mostly because the price of oil has generally went up because of the wars. If they weren't involved, they should have been. And if our leaders were trying to bring prices down on our behalf, it turns out their inept, since they actually caused the opposite. And perhaps this is just hindsight talking, but I don't think wars in the Middle East are a good way to subsidize oil.

Perhaps I shouldn't assume they're inept?

[nathan]

I do not see how helping make nuclear power facilitates nuclear weapons is a valid point since bad guys who want them, will get them.

Has there ever been a case of someone obtaining nuclear weapons without first having nuclear power?