Gno Schitt

Definitely presents a different perspective of energy densities of the various power options than you typically hear.

Generally whenever the nuclear power debate kicks up I find myself playing the devil's advocate against whoever has the strongest opinion. There are certainly pluses and minuses to it.

In the end your dealing with an enormous amount of energy, respect it and manage it properly or stay the hell away from it. Half assed implementations get half assed results.

A very interesting article, thank-you for linking it here.

I'm concerned though that the site is pro-industry under the guise of pro-science. Nobody _doesn't_ have an agenda.

The thing about carbon emissions and anthropogenic global warming, in my opinion, is this (a variant on Pascal's Wager):

case a: I choose to believe that global warming is horse-shit and keep driving my H3 Hummer and fuck how much I contribute to emissions and if I'm right, it doesn't matter, and if I'm wrong, the world is destroyed

case b: I choose to believe that we can have a negative impact on climate and our environment, and as a result I support legislation to clean up our act, looks seriously at clean energy alternatives etc... and if I'm wrong, we have a clean world - but if I'm right, I have a clean world that has been saved from ruin.

Pascal argued that if you have two options, and one of them is a better bet, it's the bet you should make. Clearly, case b is a better bet in the long run.

NOTE: I'm not naive and I see that 'carbon-trading' or 'carbon credit swapping' could corrupt efforts to actually clean anything up, and I'm not saying that case b doesn't carry with it some significant social and economic costs. I'm just saying that assuming that driving my Hummer and leaving the car running all winter when I'm shopping in the mall for high performance power gobbling electrical devices might not be a good bet, even if it's got a chance of being right.

oh and I'm fairly neutral on nuclear I think - although I'm sure I would be extremely NIMBY if Saskatoon was selected as a site (I'm pretty sure all of you would be too)

The problem with the theory that we as individuals have to make a difference is that there are far to few people with the discipline to look past the immediate. And its not like our fast food / entertain me culture is promoting that sort of discipline.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to hold myself out as someone with discipline. My lack of discipline is likely my greatest weakness. As such, I need someone with some foresight and discipline to figure out some ways to force me to do less damage to the environment. That's why the article and the idea of nuclear energy appeals to me.

If someone doesn't get on my ass and force me to change my energy sucking, carbon producing ways soon, we're going to be in trouble.

P.S. Do you think the oil industry has a hand in the anti-nuclear movement?

Agreed that we tend not to change until actually forced. It sucks but its true.

While it wouldn't surprise me I doubt the oil industry has had much of a hand in the anti-nuclear movement. I think old cold war fears and the nuclear industry's tendency for massive cost overruns have given the ant-nuclear movement more than enough ammunition.