Former Anti-Nuclear Activist Does A 180

palegray.net writes "Wired is running a story on how Gwyneth Cravens, a former nuclear power protester has changed her views on nuclear power as a viable solution to the world's energy needs. Said Cravens: 'I used to think we surely could do better. We could have more wind farms and solar. But I then learned about base-load energy, and that there are three forms of it: fossil fuels, hydro and nuclear. In the United States, we're maxed out on hydro. That leaves fossil fuels and nuclear power, and most of the fossil fuel burned is coal.'"

Mutant Powah!

[Gideon Fubar]

Hands up all those who read the headline as 'Former Anti-Nuclear Activist Dies at 180'..

if protesting against nuclear power will give me a lifespan like that, i'll look for a placard right now ;)

My First Time So Sorry

[explosivejared]

Your solution advocates a

(*) technical ( ) legislative ( ) market-based ( ) vigilante

approach to solving a looming energy problem. Your idea will not work as the current situation stands. Here is why it won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws which used to vary from state to state or country to country before a bad federal or international law was passed.)

( ) It will be fought by entrenched fishing interests
(*) It will be fought by entrenched energy corporations
(*) It will succumb to NIMBY Syndrome
( ) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once
( ) Technology doesn't work that way
(*) NIMBY Syndrome will prevent mass deployment
Specifically, your plan fails to account for:

(*) Extreme misunderstanding of the technology by the public
(*) A sensationalist press won't let mistakes die
( ) Idiots with boats
( ) International reluctance to engage in sweeping change
(*) Technically illiterate politicians
(*) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who vote
( ) A lack of support from famous Musicians and Actors
(*) Conflicting environmental interests
and the following philosophical objections may also apply:

(*) Meltdowns Suck!
(*) People have been trying for years to implement your solution and haven't succeeded
( ) The money could be better spent curing cancer
( ) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever been shown practical
( ) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem
(*) Your solution is expensive
(*) Your solution may be politically infeasible
( ) The money could be better spent implementing [other] solution
( ) It makes life harder, not easier
Furthermore, this is what I think about you:

(*) We're really close, but still no cigar. I agree with you're idea in general, so maybe one day in the distant future...
( ) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work.
( ) This is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid person for suggesting it.
( ) Nice try, assh0le! I'm going to find out where you live and burn your house down!

Re:Vanadium Redox

[calebt3]

go right to the source?

You want us to land on the SUN? ARE YOU MAD?!?! ;-)

Re:Unfortunately...

[YrWrstNtmr]

4. Hope you have good aim.

Re:Vanadium Redox

[ross.w]

That'll work for a good long while. But in Total Reality we are simply going to have to make OTHER PLANS. We live in a high energy society thanks to fossil fuels. This level of energy consumption is not sustainable, and I would argue, not desirable. We need to adjust our direction of civilisation away from more toys and gadgets to higher quality human interactions and more meaningful labour.

Sorry all you PR saps and admin assistants at hedge funds and nail salon operators. I would recommend you learn something useful, like FARMING. Or dismantling Las Vegas and Phoenix.

Pol Pot already tried this in the 70s. It didn't work, except it did reduce Cambodia's energy usage. And their population.

Re:Vanadium Redox

[krakass]

Well, we could go at night.

Re:Unfortunately...

[calebt3]

5. But not to good.

Re:"Activitist?"

[Cassius Corodes]

That means that she believes in the theory of activity. Activitist is a term made up by people who are anti-activity (i.e. the couch institute) to make it sound like a political cause. They propose an alternative "stationary activity" theory which in practice just an euphemism for sitting down.

Re:My First Time So Sorry

[Darby]

( ) A lack of support from famous Musicians and Actors

You should probably check that one too.

Re:How many pro-nukes have 180'd?

[SnowZero]

What can I say, it's late, my brain is shutting down and slashdot won't let me edit my posts.

So, what you're saying is that your renewable intelligence cannot provide the base-load thought required to post at night?

Just wait until tomorrow, use some hydro to wake yourself up in the morning, and post when the sun is shining. Either that or spend 6 months at alternating polar regions.
  - Hope this helps.

Combine thermal & wind = Solar Tower

[cheekyboy]

Build these god damn solar towers, basically they MAKE THE WIND , google it.

And a message to you environmentalists, especially greenpeace which is a front for coal (they stop all nuclear options in the 70s/80s) and the result?
Doubling of coal usage.... bloody morons greenpeace are, they are Pro Coal, pollute the earth idiots with zero brains.

Re:My First Time So Sorry

[AcidPenguin9873]

It will be fought by entrenched fishing interests

Who wants to try to make this phrase the next Slashdot meme? I do.

Re:Which will still get people's panties in a knot

[Eunuchswear]

So it's really only an option for the USA, USSR and other major nuclear power.

And I should worry about the opinion of someone who doesn't know that the USSR no longer exists?

Re:Unfortunately...

[joshv]

"Renewables don't produce pollution. Wind turbines don't produce pollution. Solar cells don't produce pollution. Biomass doesn't produce pollution ( carbon is cycled around the system, but the net output is zero )."

Yes, solar cells and wind turbines descend fully formed from the womb of Gaia, ready to magically convert wind and solar to electricity until the end of time.

Re:Unfortunate

[paeanblack]

Nuclear power leaves people's safety in the hands of distant, nameless technicians. People don't like that. They will never like it--at most they may tolerate it or head-in-sand ignore it. While it is possible for a nuclear plant not to kill people, surely you do agree that radioactive material is dangerous.

You get what you pay for.

Compare the salary of this job:
http://web.mit.edu/jobs/listings/02-0001076.html [mit.edu]

With this job:
http://web.mit.edu/jobs/listings/02-0000056.html [mit.edu]