[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
oil supply sigint
- Subject: oil supply sigint
- From: skquinn at rushpost.com (Shawn K. Quinn)
- Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2016 03:10:39 -0600
- In-reply-to: <CAD2Ti28pFge0Dpv5_TanjGaeam7VhtR8QuVFJ_MoCbb=xty9Mw@mail.gmail.com>
- References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <CAD2Ti2_MoMauKaEy4y84YeKDF4vd=M=mtOc+XHNH3yXjFDaEMw@mail.gmail.com> <[email protected]> <CAD2Ti28pFge0Dpv5_TanjGaeam7VhtR8QuVFJ_MoCbb=xty9Mw@mail.gmail.com>
On 12/13/2016 02:34 AM, grarpamp wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 1:24 PM, #$%& <#$%&#$%&@gmail.com> wrote:
>> nuke is worse than oil and has the same 'geopolitical
>> dependencies'.
> I know it has sourcing and mining issues but we know
> safe open crowd reviewed plant designs and open
> inspections are possible for those bold enough to
> set aside secret corp profit bullshit, and obviously there
> are zero emissions, except for waste. And maybe
> similar source reserve timescales as hydrocarbon fuels.
The issues I have with nuclear energy, are that when things go wrong...
they go *really* wrong. Sure, they may not fail as often as they used
to, but that doesn't mean shit isn't going to *really* go sideways when
it does.
Seriously, the Fukushima disaster makes the Exxon Valdez and Deepwater
Horizon incidents look like a few guys pissed in the ocean. Nom nom nom
radioactive fish...
--
Shawn K. Quinn <skquinn at rushpost.com>
http://www.rantroulette.com
http://www.skqrecordquest.com