...But TWO Blog Posts Today!

This one is straight-out opinion, with which you are free to disagree.



Be warned, though, that in the event of disagreement I will reply with a huge volley of facts and figures. The only reason I'm not trotting them out is because I'm currently exhausted and therefore lazy. (BAD blogger! BAD!!!)



So, ok.



Is there an actual REASON that so many people are retarded over power generation?



I'm referring to electrical power, of course. The overwhelming majority of our power generation, not just in the U. S., but globally, is oil-based.



For those of you "the sky is falling EVERYBODY PANIC" eco-warriors, you really ought to be hot on this.



Why, oh why, are we all so terrified of nuclear power?



When I ask this question, usually I get one of two responses. Either my victim says "because of the danger of meltdown," or, and sometimes ALSO, "nuclear waste."



Mmmmmkay.



First: meltdown has happened in the past. OOOOooooooo, scaaaaaary. However, the terror and hysteria over the half-life of radioactivity and its horrible legacy... has simply not been borne out by fact. Three Mile Island is not only inhabitable, but INHABITED, today. Those folks aren't scary Hills Have Eyes twitchy mutant freaks, either.



However, this isn't really relevant. If we had spent the intervening years developing reactor technology instead of spending time with our heads in the sand, our reactors would be safer, more efficient, cheaper, and smaller, by a huge margin, than they are today.



Maybe we'd be better off trying to solve safety issues than screaming that they exist and using them as an excuse not to use a proven technology.



Secondly, there's reactor waste.



This is a problem that utterly mystifies me.



Not as to how to solve it - I'll explain that in a second - but as to WHY IT'S A PROBLEM AT ALL.



Here's how to deal with nuclear waste, guys.



Take solid rocket boosters - cheap and easy to build, especially if they don't need a WHOLE lot of guidance. Or a huge railgun, but rockets would be easier.



Load your toxic OMGWTF reactor crap into them.



Shoot them bitches into the sun.



OMG! WTF! THERE ARE NO MOER TOXIC WAEST!!

If you are REALLY WORRIED that we might figure out how to recycle the stuff at some future day and be desperately in need of it, try shooting it at, say, Mars, or Venus, or even the Moon - somewhere where we can still go get it if we REALLY REALLY NEED IT but otherwise can safely ignore. None of the three places listed above HAVE ecosystems; no known forms of life exist on any of them. We can contaminate to our hearts' content.



Suddenly, you've reduced petrochemical pollution, averted the dangers of peak oil ("Everybody panic!!!!1!") and prevented radioactive leaks into our ground water.



At the same time, you've reduced our oil consumption by a huge amount, created much more stable, long-term generating capacity, and since nukes like the pebble-bed reactor can be clustered, done so much more cheaply than you might expect.



So why the hell aren't we using more?



The Governator - Arnold Schwartzenegger, for those of you not pop-culture literate - was presented with this problem when he took office in California. The eco-warriors had prevented any nukes for decades because of the "danger" and the radioactive waste, and yet demanded reduction in petrochemical pollution from conventional power stations. The result? Rolling blackouts. Waaaaaaay to go.



In California, the land of never coming to their senses, they still haven't come to their senses.



Hopefully we can manage it in the rest of the United States, at some point. Just think, if we close the oil-fired and coal-fired power plants in favor of nukes, prices at the pump will drop, because they will no longer be propped up by gigantic bulk purchases of oil by the power utilities.



Maybe it's time someone with some sense had a look at the problem, you think?