<DrumBeat: January 23, 2008The Oil DrumDrumBeat: January 24, 2008>

436 comments on Is Relocalization Doomed?: A Response to Staniford’s "Fallacy of Reversibility"

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

jokuhl on January 23, 2008 - 12:04pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

You seem resistant to considering the idea that while some of our Reactors, as recent as they are to HUMAN history, are today a couple generations old and facing 'Advanced Decrepitude'. They are now OLD sources in terms of the 2008 Energy Supply.

As a solution to our present energy situation, they are not at the head of the list (speaking of chronology, not priority) not the new kid in class, as ways have been developing to make other sources both increasingly economical, and less politically objectionable. In that conversation, Nuclear is not a NEW item on that agenda, and it's advocates are not the Avant Garde. They are an 'established' and 'historical' provider. This is the point Astyk seems to be making as well.

Meanwhile, the US installed 5gw of Wind Capacity last year. That's by all rights NEW, even if it's an age-old power source. Are proponents of Windmills and Solar Panels 'Reversalists' or 'Technophiles'? The point is that the term is overly vague, and most likely divisive.

Computers are 'New' and 'Modern'.. but if you're running Win3.1, you are clearly a wierdo who is stuck in the distant past. Right?

Bob

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
crobar on January 23, 2008 - 12:10pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

I'm not resistant. Nuclear fission is more modern than fossil fuel based technology. I don't see how you can argue this. I'm referring to the technology, not individual reactors. I'm aware that time passing makes things age.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
jokuhl on January 23, 2008 - 1:13pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

I'll try again.

Advocating for the 'Resurgence of Nuclear Energy Development in the US' would be a 'Reversalist' position, since we've had a full generation's lull in New Reactors. It's an OLD position in the energy choices we face. It's soo 1960. Is that what makes it a bad (or good) choice? No,

The AGE of the technology does not describe its usefulness. IF Nuke is really right, then MAYBE we should 'Go Back' to building that out. IF wind is right, then let's GO BACK to that.

Calling someone, ANYone who wants to 'go back' to a previously discarded approach some kind of euphemism of a 'Retard' is unhelpful.

Bob

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.