Bruce said:

*sigh*

Mister Fisk, do you also oppose things like the $30 Billion for renewable development in the Stimulus package?

A terrible waste. $30 billion, or to put it in perspective $30,000,000,000.00 is a hell of a lot of money to be wasted on projects that are basically useless and don’t actually help our energy system or energy independence in any meaningful way. It’s a big missed opportunity.

If it were used straight out to build nuclear power plants, it could build a good 15 Ap-1000’s, which would mean a very large amount of coal would not be burned. If it were used to promote nuclear energy and to provide stimulus to build by industry, who knows how many could be built? 40? 50?

But even if it were not used for energy. Okay, given you’re against nuclear energy and there are enough supporters of anti-nuclear policy to stand in its way, it should have been used for something meaningful and beneficial. $30B could provide for a lot of educational improvements or better infrastructure or to beef up NASA’s budget. It could provide better care to veterans or better small buisiness opportunities.

It’s a tragedy to have so much money go to something that does nothing for the country when it could have done so much.

Not at all! I’m all for better primary education, for more opportunities for students to go to college, for more community-level healthcare clinics and centers, for safer and better highways, for better communications systems and more broadband internet and for better preparations for disasters and relief.

I believe that the government must make decisions that benefit the nation as a whole and as many citizens as possible and that it is wrong for the government to spend large amounts of money on projects that are of no use to anyone. I think it’s doubly-wrong that so much money is only going to benefit a few companies that make this “renewable” crap, and that is because they have been very effective politically in getting support, eventhough it only lines their own pockets at everyone else’s expense.

I also think it’s wrong that this legislation spends our federal money on something that will benefit sectors that have caused us a lot of problems and have made a lot of money off of everyone’s back. This crap is a hand-out to coal, and especially gas. Natural gas companies are now heavily invested in this sector because they know it’s their ticket to more gas burning.

        Matthew said:

I think we can safely say that people here are against things that don’t work, are based on blatant ignoring of basic physical reality, and are huge wastes of time and money. What does your objection to that stance say about your own philosophy, Bruce?

Bruce doesn’t have his own philosophy per se, he just mindlessly swallows everything he reads on the front page of DailyKos (unless of course it was written by David Walters or Nnadir).

Bruce,
I notice you failed to respond to my challenge in the “Shame On Slashdot” thread. Since you chose to bring the safety of spent nuclear fuel up in this thread, the question is still relevant:

You’ve had more than two weeks to find a reference for something that would back you ideological opposition to nuclear energy. Any luck yet?

        Bruce said:

It’s kind of amazing how many of the people here seem to basically be against everything.

I think we can safely say that people here are against things that don’t work, are based on blatant ignoring of basic physical reality, and are huge wastes of time and money. What does your objection to that stance say about your own philosophy, Bruce?

        Bruce said:

*sigh*

Mister Fisk, do you also oppose things like the $30 Billion for renewable development in the Stimulus package? It’s kind of amazing how many of the people here seem to basically be against everything.

*sigh*

Bruce, why do you advocate wasting taxpayer dollars on projects that provide no benefit but serve only to move money around and make you feel all tingly?

$30B on things that provide nothing of use? Yeah, I’d call that a waste.

Mister Fisk, do you also oppose things like the $30 Billion for renewable development in the Stimulus package? It’s kind of amazing how many of the people here seem to basically be against everything.

        Bruce said:

How do you feel about Obama ending the nuclear reprocessing review

Well, nuclear reprocessing has been a no-go in the US since Carter. That does not excuse Obama for being entirely against it, but I think realistically at this point, the fact that uranium is probably going to be cheap enough to make the once-through cycle just as economical for the next 30 years is the big issue.

Still, advanced fuel cycles are something the government should support and I was very hopeful when he appointed Steve Chu to run the DOE. That seemed to indicate to me he was willing to actually go with someone who had answers. I know Dr. Chu has been pro fast reactors and pro reprocessing, but he has to bow to the administration on some things.

So honestly, I’m disipointed on that.

Yeah, again, big disappointment, but not really an unexpected one. I know why he did it – politics. Plain old dirty politics. A lot of money went to convince people it was the devil so he promised to shut it for political reasons. It was clearly the wrong policy decision because of what it has done to the whole issue of the DOE’s commitment to handle spent fuel.

My major objection to Yucca Mountain is the same as most others who have looked at it. It’s, stronger, deeper, more secure and more expensive than it needs to be. It’s overkill. We spent more money on it than we need to.

It should be used now that we have it, but it is an unnecessarily expensive. I favored a plan which would have stored most of the spent fuel in a hallowed-out area less deep as Yucca Mountain and in a system of concrete vaults and casks that pretty much assumed that it would be reprocessed eventually. It would have been a lot cheaper. Really, we’re just warehousing the stuff.

Anyway, still a big disappointment and totally unjustified scientifically.

That’s because they’re smart and well informed.

That’s because you’re an idiot.

        Bruce said:

How do you feel about Obama ending the nuclear reprocessing review and shutting down Yucca mountain? A lot of people here, seem to believe that these were not rational decisions, but I think they are safe decisions and taking the safest route is the only rational thing to do.

See, that’s what we call assuming your result. How exactly do those decisions increase public safety?

        Mister Fisk said:

I’ve always considered myself a Democrat and I would say most of my views are more left of center than right. I’m not straight to the party line, but I could never really see myself a Republican. I don’t mind being called a liberal.

So when I see this alternative medicine and woo-woo mystical bull**** becoming more in vogue on the political left, it worries me. I’ve read plenty of very left-leaning publications like Huffington and those kind of things and it seems they’re more and more on the homeopathy bandwagon and many others.

Of course, I recognize some of the modern left has roots in the hippies and the newage stuff from the 60s and 70s.

It still bothers me.

If the party wants to set itself apart as being rational, this does not help one bit.

It’s almost as bad as the intelligent design stuff on the right, if it gets to that point.

It sometimes seems like some of these things run in cycles. They were really considered on the decline in the 80’s and 90’s but now it’s reemerging.

How do you feel about Obama ending the nuclear reprocessing review and shutting down Yucca mountain? A lot of people here, seem to believe that these were not rational decisions, but I think they are safe decisions and taking the safest route is the only rational thing to do.

So when I see this alternative medicine and woo-woo mystical bull**** becoming more in vogue on the political left, it worries me. I’ve read plenty of very left-leaning publications like Huffington and those kind of things and it seems they’re more and more on the homeopathy bandwagon and many others. Of course, I recognize some of the modern left has roots in the hippies and the newage stuff from the 60s and 70s.

It still bothers me. If the party wants to set itself apart as being rational, this does not help one bit. It’s almost as bad as the intelligent design stuff on the right, if it gets to that point. It sometimes seems like some of these things run in cycles. They were really considered on the decline in the 80’s and 90’s but now it’s reemerging.