Waxman described the pro-nukes this morning

[bananas]

Around 9:10 am PST during Gore's testimony, Waxman said,
"I also hear people say, well they've got a magic solution, nuclear power, <snip>
Nuclear power is an option, you don't want to rule it out, but it's certainly no magic solution.
It almost becomes a theological expression whenever I hear discussion of these environmental issues."

I originally mis-heard it as "theological obsession" http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=463405&mesg_id=463888

[NNadir]

1. Really? It's theological? Magic?

Your hearing must be excellent, because I missed this part. Or could it be that you only hear what you want to hear?

Hmmmmm... I wonder.

Was Waxman joining you and Al Gore in calling for a nuclear phase-out?

I wonder why you and Al Gore and Mr. Waxman haven't called for a coal phase-out? Not of much interest maybe, because of the vast number of people threatened by nuclear power, which unlike coal, kills continuously not only in accident mode, like the fucking dead Russians, but in normal modes as well. Every city near a nuclear power plant suffers lots of air pollution deaths, no?

Did Mr. Gore mention anything about the building of new coal plants? Since obviously you heard everything said at the hearings, far better than I did, did Mr. Gore and Mr. Waxman call for phasing out coal and nuclear?

I could be wrong, but when I watched the hearings, I thought the subject was dangerous fossil fuel waste. Please enlighten me further to how this hearing was all about nuclear energy issues.

[bananas]

2. Thanks for providing an example of what Waxman was talking about :)

:hi:

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[happyslug]

4. Hold off a few seconds here, this is getting to close to a personal attack

Step back for a few minutes. Rep Waxman apparently did say that people use Nuclear Power like a theological statement. Maybe a better wording would have been mantra, for that the impression I have when reading Rep Waxman's statement, Rep Waxman has heard to many people say Nuclear power almost in a knee jerk reaction whenever the topic of Energy comes up. He then goes on to say Nuclear power will be part of the Solution.

Anyway, your reply went beyond the need to address what was written about your statement. While your response addresses Nuclear Power you then go overboard and be-little the previous writer. This is a discussion board and we MUST avoid personal attacks. Lets discuss the ISSUES not insult each other or attack each other for disagreeing.

[madokie]

7. I believe ,pompous ass' fits the bill just find

not only do I agree with you, I agree with Mr Waxman too as well as Big Al.

[bananas]

5. They heard it at Grist Magazine, too

Al Gore's testimony to the House
Posted by David Roberts at 7:54 AM on 21 Mar 2007

<snip>

Waxman: I hear people worry about destroying the economy. That sounds like fear. I also hear an almost theological support for nuclear. I agree with your view -- let's unleash the ingenuity of the marketplace. But we have to insist on those reductions.

<snip>

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/3/21/64353/7250/?sourece=daily

[NNadir]

6. They hear about as well as you do.

Why don't you tell me how Greenpeace heard it as well?

Do you think that they heard it at DTE energy, where last week they filed for the 33rd Combined Operating License permit for a nuclear power plant in the United States?

http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070213/BIZ/702130338/1001

http://www.nei.org/doc.asp?docid=1460&format=insight

Note that the second link comes from a (gasp) nuclear lobby website. (It must therefore be untrue, no?)

That brings to 15 the number of utilities that have begun filing such COL's.

Each 1500MWe nuclear power plant with a 60 year lifetime produces (at 90% capacity loading) about 2.5 exajoules of electrical energy. Thus 33 such plants will produce, if built, will produce about 80 exajoules of electrical generation and at 40% efficiency, about 200 exajoules of primary energy, or about two times as much energy as is consumed in a single year by the United States. Taking the energy value of coal as 25000MJ/ton, this represents about 8.4 billion tons of coal that would otherwise be burned. Considering coal as 90% carbon and adjusting for molecular weight of carbon dioxide, this represents about 28 billion tons of carbon dioxide.

28 billion tons of carbon dioxide is just about a full year's worth of the dangerous fossil fuel wastes that are dumped into the atmosphere each year by the entire planet, not that editorial staff (and interpreters of Democratic policy statements) at Grist Magazine and elsewhere give a fuck about coal wastes.

Insignificant?

But clearly in your role - which is now shared by Grist - direct calculation like this are of no appeal, at least not at the same level of appeal as an oracle from Saint Waxman as interpreted by Grist et al.

This is not off topic at all:

I always love it when creationists link their "interpretations" of science and tell me that it has nothing at all to do with religion.

What do you think? By producing this link:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i2/acceleration.asp

am I "scientifically" proving that "creationism" is scientifically valid?

[bananas]

8. You can hear Waxman say it yourself - the webcast is online at science.house.gov

The part I quoted is at 2:40:35 in the stream.

Hearings :: March 21, 2007
Perspectives on Climate Change
Joint Hearing with Energy & Commerce Subcommittee on Energy & Air Quality
http://science.house.gov/publications/hearings_markups_details.aspx?NewsID=1726

Click here for the Webcast
http://boss.streamos.com/real/science/scitech07/032107.smi

[jpak]

9. It's also humorous to hear republics who deny global warming

(like Dick Cheney) proclaim that nuclear power is the solution to this "nonproblem"...