RE>C

[Scomagia]

You really suck at this whole "reliable sources" thing.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/01/opini ... .html?_r=0

Lets not have any pretending that someone who supports mainstream sources will have a problem with the new York Times.

That's an opinion piece.

[Atomic Utopia]

You really suck at this whole "reliable sources" thing.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/01/opini ... .html?_r=0

Lets not have any pretending that someone who supports mainstream sources will have a problem with the new York Times.

That source is OP/ED in other words, an opinion piece, not actual news.

EDIT: ninga'd

[Norstal]

According to this RE<C, a google program to study the possibility of renewable energy at a cost less than coal, has failed to show that, not only that but failed to show renewables as usable.

For those too lazy to read it said that renewable energy cannot meet demand without us going back to pre industrial standards of living. It also stated that what the world needs is a dispatchable, carbon free, as expensive as natural gas, energy source if we intend to tackle climate change.

So what say you, the denizens of NS? Is does this mean that we are all doomed? Is nuclear here to save the day? Or is this report not correct and renewable energy can still succeed?

Well, will you look at that, you say we need a dispatchable energy source, that is cheap and carbon free. Hmm... I wonder what that could be.

You cant possibly be referring to the one that has been around from the late 1950s and that everyone hates, nuclear energy.

Nuclear energy is not cheap, but not terribly expensive, it is also extremely safe (compared to fossil fuels) and generates no CO2. Plus with fast reactors and uranium seawater extraction we could be powering ourselves for the next couple of hundred million years or so.

To put it simply this, I think, is merely another nail in the coffin for renewable energy, and more support for nuclear.

Google is probably not the best measure for this. They have several failed projects, more than any successful projects they have now. That doesn't mean it's impossible.

I do agree with you, especially on nuclear power, but I am just saying Google have a lot of failed projects themselves.

[Seno Zhou Varada]

Actually, it doesn't. The list is pretty fucking short.

The effects of nuclear power, which is a fascist tool of central global control, is this:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/new-book-c ... ncer/20908

1st you just lost your credibility with 'fascist'
2nd. Chernobyl was outdated and not properly maintained nowadays they are way better.
3rd you need a better source that's not an opinion.