Barack Obama will win the 2012 electionFollow

No, I'm just amused that I can make a joke, have you spaz out and insist that I was REAL SERIOUS and then post again just to prove what a dipshit you are for not even getting your rant correct which leads to you spazzing out and insisting that I must have been REAL SERIOUS because you think I was defending my joke rather than just pointing out how you were not only spazzing out but not even vaguely accurate in your little rant.

Somehow I doubt you'll find it as funny but, trust me, it's pretty funny.

IN A STEEL CAGE

Carter has nearly eliminated a really awful parasite from the world, which could earn him a legacy that rivals the WHO's elimination of smallpox. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/25/jimmy-carter-guinea-worm_n_801252.html

Plus that Barack fella is just uppity to me.

Hehehe... seriously?

Just give up.

Gee, if only I thought there was a single culprit I could meet your demands

But sadly I live in the Big Boy World and, as has been said in previous threads, the culprits are a mixture of economic factors, political factors and good ole fashioned NIMBYism. I'll happily agree that the Democrats are traditionally more likely to be opposed (it'd only be the 50th time I've said this is a place where I part ways with traditional Democratic ideology) but I'm afraid I know too much about this big ole world to say "Haha! It's all them!" Or even primarily them. Obviously this is all pretty important to make you feel like you scored some sort of point out of looking like a ****** for the last page and a half so I hope this makes you feel at least a little tiny bit better.

It's funny that you honestly believe that.

I've cited the various barriers in past threads. I don't really give a fuck if you believe me or not because you're obviously deeply vested in the whole "Environmentalists & Democrats!" thing.

Shit, even in this thread, you have a couple of guys from the nuclear energy game agreeing that the immediate barrier to nuclear energy is that gas-fired turbines are just plain cheaper.

Edited, Mar 21st 2011 9:02pm by Jophiel

Cheaper only when the total cost of nuclear is calculated, which includes massively inflated costs involved with actually getting a nuclear plant up and running, pretty much all of which have to do with 40+ years of environmentalist fear mongering about nuclear power. Put the two side by side in terms of cost in materials to generate X amount of electricity and nuclear is far and away the most cost efficient means to do so.

When coal and gas turbine plants cost millions to build, and nuclear plants cost billions, it's going to have a significant impact on the total cost of energy generated over the lifetime of those plants, having nothing at all to do with the efficiency of the method used. And lets not kid ourselves here, from a design and safety perspective, a nuclear power plant is certainly more costly than other forms of energy, but not an order of magnitude or two more costly. Something beyond just the complexity of design and cost of materials is involved here, and it's not that hard to see that it has a lot more to do with politics than science or engineering.

I know which one you're talking about. They finally put a scrubber on it. It's still a nasty mess though. Oh, and that ash spill that happened two years ago and is still being cleaned up. Good ole coal!