"Energy Independence"

Energy independance is an oxymoron :D

He's seems to be discounting what attempts to keep the current status quo will bring. There's no doubt in my mind that if you leave it to the oil industry, things will change at their pace, and they aren't hurting at the moment, and we all know how far bean counters think ahead.

Save a penny today to spend 10 next week makes sense to them.

How long our ecomonies can afford the level of profiteering they think is their just desert is another question entirely.

When you here all the waffle about energy independance particularly in terms of oil. It's only some voters that see value in that. Oil Companies certainly don't and teh politicians they fund can't, if they want to mount an election campaign that will get noticed.

Maybe something will happen when we hit $100 a barrel, aside from the big fella's producing really good end of year reports that is.

Energy independance for the US can happen now. It is only a matter of money. Foreign oil is by far the cheapest energy source we have. Biodiesel is a viable option now. We can keep our big cars and trucks. And we can keep our interstates and Walmarts. As long as you are willing to pay $8 per gallon.

But then again, if we are paying $8 per gallon for fuel, then we may want to turn to hydrogen fuel cells for our short commutes. This is also a vailbe option now. But adds about $4,000 to the price of a car, and recharging fuel cells is not much cheaper than gasoline.

Nuclear power would be a lot cheaper if groups like Greenpeace stopped interfering.

I live in a small city. We looked at building a light rail system. It would be cheaper to take a taxi to work. Because the population is so spread out most people would have to drive almost as far to get to a train station as they would to drive to work.

We may run out of oil some day, but there are plenty of more expensive alternatives.

Mass transport, definitely being one of them.

Any reduction is private transport hit's the oil companies and requires a massive infra structure spend.

It's a double whammy for the politicians, they have to go for higher taxes and take a cut in their campaign budget to sell the idea.

He trashed truckers (right-wing Republican zombies); he trashed Wal-Mart; he trashed Interstate Highway travel; he advocates farm subsidies for the "little guy" farmer; he trashed suburbs; he trashed (money grubbing) Republicans; he trashed (Reagan-Bush1-Bush2) Republicanism; and he's dripping with pessimism.

Yep, he sounds like the typical leftist wingnut to me.

"But there's nothing I would like more."

Nothing?

In that case, we may speak the same language after all. Please elaborate: which concessions from the political left would be necessary? [b]I[/b] "would love to see" [b]your[/b] "serious and non-political idea exactly how the USA could achieve energy independence."

Environment is social issue, a lifestyle one and an economic one. How could it be anything but political. In fact there is no such thing as an apolitical issue. If it matters to more than two people a politician will take a position on it.

I don't agree with everything Greenpeace advocates come out with any more than I do any other person or group. Sometimes I even disagree with myself :D

In the main I do agree with the main stream green parties, possibly easier for me as I'm left of centre, but our right wingers are shouting green green green now. It's an issue that now crosses political parties it's always crossed political issues.

Decrying everything they say because some of it is left wing, would be was stupid as me saying everything right wing was 'wrong'.

but you highlighted the problem, some concessions from the right would necessary as well wouldn't they?

After all at least in the short to medium term, you'd be advocating things that were less economic, whereas 'we' would be advocating policies that allowed some freedom to make a profit at the tax payers expense.

For instance I've no objection to private industry making a profit building mass transit infrastructure. I've no objection to them running the infrastructure for a profit, are you happy to be taxed to pay for it though?

Are you happy with the legislation required to stop those rare unscrupulous businessmen taking the urine with what would be an effective monopoly?

If you want an example of a big infra structure screw up, look at Eurotunnel, or the Humber bridge, neither one can ever compete economically with alternatives while it carries the burden of the initial investment.

political one!

Meh, they all sound the same. No viable solutions and very little in the way of substance.

How do we get off oil and onto other products? How do we ramp up bio-diesel to an be on the same economy of scale that oil is? How do we move off oil and onto wind power, nuclear power, solar power, etc without breaking the bank?

.....gaining political power for their preferred left-wing, collectivist, money-transfer, socialist-leaning, leftist party. Their goal IS NOT to "protect the environment", but to use it as a ploy to achieve power. I'm absolutely convinced of it. And you're buying into it, lock, stock, and barrel with your "human-caused global warming" position.

On one hand, you see these people for what they are. On the other hand, you let yourself get sucked into it all. I can't believe how gullible you are. And you're arrogant enough to never admit you're wrong -- so on you go, claiming "human-caused global warming" is real.

You might as well suggest that human activity is causing the earth to change its orbit. You might as well suggest that human activity is causing the earth to wobble on its rotation. You might as well suggest that human activity is causing the earth to warm -- OH, that IS what you ARE suggesting! You're an "absolute fool, Absolutely!

The taxes aren't paid by the companies anyway... they are passed along to the consumer. Not to mention several hundred thousand long-term, high-paying jobs that would be created. You're right though... this is the ME generation at its finest... no inmmediate gratification... no sale.

While the author is intent on writing a political article, there is some reality that should be seen but it is so easily dismissed as having a political motive.

As Max pointed out quite quickly, he sees this as yet another ploy to target people that are buying into human caused global warming.
He took a pretty quick stand on the issue based on the lefty whiners view, which I will neither agree nor disagree with. What I can agree with is that this is politically targeted and in doing so, completely removes validity from the comments.

First of all, people such as Max who continue to parrot against "Man caused global warming" are too quick to dismiss reality because he(they) STILL ignore the facts that human emissions are causing detrimental effect on the world around us, not to mention our planet's many life forms. That goes without saying for most, but bring it up around an American and it is instanty confused to mean man has caused a natural phenomenon. We haven't but we HAVE increased the natural effects as well as created an unfriendly atmosphere at living elevations (not just up in the ozone layer).

A few things that are way off: America becoming energy independant. America sells nuclear power to Canada, we sell hydro electric power to America. This is a codependency. Canada's hydro dams can be shut down at night, thus we import nuclear power from the US grid as it is not being utilized, nuclear power can't be shut down nightly. In the daytime, Canada supplies the US when their energy demands surpass the energy created by nuclear power.

This is a codependency and financial benefit to both nations, it actually saves us from wasting power.

The freight issue, nothing new, in fact it's an idea promoted by David Suzuki for a few decades now. Buy locally and it removes the need for as many trucks driving long distances; that's no new news at all. The electric rail etc, well that would be a spin-off of buying locally, one would create a need for the other, as well as boosting local business. It's also healthier to buy local produce, in most cases, as long distance shipping of produce means the produce generally has a higher level of pesticides and preservatives.

WalMart going to the wayside and making room for smaller cottage industry growth? Good luck with that, consumers are too cheap and to stupid to realize that WalMart is (in most cases) more expensive that the store it replaced/foprced out of business. That's a fact rgardless of energy.

WalMart is not going to die, they will not go out of business, but consumer trends dictate that this current trend will change once again from big box to local buying. It always does when people get tired of being "Customer 83645283" and not "Mr. Jones", personal service always comes back into style.

Now if the writer had only focused on reality and not turned it into a political pi$$ing match, then such articles would gain mroe credibility.

While it is right vs left, we will always have radical lefty's vs the repulbicans, and that will never resolve anything, just look at your government, there's no cooperation or communion, just a forced effort to be absolute opposites.

Getting people to accept the plan is the hard part.

Brazil has already done it. Switching all automobiles from gas to ethanol. The US can do the same, and it should take less than four years.

But then there's that cost thing getting in the way again.

First of all, we all know that industry caters to the needs of the people. So reduce teh needs of the people and we reduce the output from industry. Easier said than done, I know.

So do WE make the first move or do we wait for someone else to?

If we start looking more responsible as public, if WE start driving less, buying locally grown produce, start wearing a sweater instead of turning up the heat etc. (there are countless ways of being more energy efficient ourselves, without requiring electric cars or other major industrial changes).

Once public is trained to think differently, public will become concious of energy use and will react to waste more effectively. Once WE change, industry is forced to change and recapture a marketshare.

HOW? By accomodating the needs and wants of the consumer.

As it is right now NOTHING, of any helpful proportion, is being done by anyone. Why? Because some people are caught up in the politics of GW, not understanding that we are also polluting our breathing air on Earth, regardless of GW. Political ranting has taken the real issue of pollution and energy efficiency and turned it into a political pi$$ing contest where nobody gets the real picture anymore. Nothing gets done because the right doesn't believe the left and vice versa.

Ocne the reality and fact was focused on GW and whether or not we started it, contribute to it or whatever..he focus was gone from personal responsibility and turned to the government and major industry instead.

FACT: CO kills people, WE emit CO with our vehicles, thus WE are killing each other. NO speculative GW scares but a reality that is ignored because of unrealistic GW ranting.

It's too bad that the people that run our countries keep throwing trees in front of us so we can't see the forest around us.

I assume pepople wouldnt see that as a solution either, "it wasn't imposed by teh government so why should I make sacrifices?"

If we ever manage to inhabit another planet, those who refuse to see the reality of what we have done here should be forced to stay here and live with it.

Of course nobody wants to take personal reponsibility, if they did there would be fewer law suits, fewer fake accident claims, fewer mass murders, fewer poor people, fewer people gripng about the government etc.

Yes, all in all it would be a better world, wouldn't it?

I've worked at soup kitchens & I can understand how difficult it would be to "get back on one's feet" - lack of a mailing address on a resume makes the job search prohibitively difficult, for example. So, I'd be in favor of free, clean but minimalist housing, with a free cafeteria and individual mailing address [i]with no stigmatizing "HUD" or the like[/i], to anybody who wants to live in the clean but minimalist housing provided. It would be the responsibility of the providers (taxpayers) to ensure that the assistance provided does not exceed the incentives of the free market to live elsewhere, buy one's own food, etc.

Since by my estimate it creates more cost in bureaucratic red tape than it saves, I'd like to get rid of requirements to prove "little or no income", and just make the facilities available, but not attractive enough to use any longer than absolutely necessary -- say, not more than what a lower/middle-class income can buy.

Poverty is not a crime and nobody should die for lack of money, but neither should anybody be given a free pass to wealth & luxury.

Clinton's time limit on gov't assistance was similar to the right idea, but it doesn't directly address the root of the problem. Which is, as long as cash or cash equivalent (food stamps, checks for rent or oil drilling subsidies) is paid by the government to individuals or corporations, some will defraud the government, either through lack of oversight or through favors by corrupt bureaucrats. We know such people exist, therefore we should anticipate their behavior and give aid only in the form of the actual necessities: food, clothing & shelter. If people want to [i]decide for themselves[/i] what to wear, where to live, what to eat, they need to earn their own money on free but unsubsidized markets. But nobody should have to live on the street. That's both unusual & cruel, plus it often punishes simple bad luck.

But why not level the playing field by allowing no subsidies to anybody, instead of this terminal back-and-forth game of increasing regulations for leftist agenda items, then increasing other regulations for rightist agenda items? Seems to me like you want to continue wasting money coming and going.

After all it is your thread :D

I started my career on a welfare to work program, before that, I used to do people's gardens, work the local markets and even land work (picking potatoes). None of it payed too well, but it was mine.

That's the attitude we need to build, not work or starve or you too can be as successful as Richard Branson if you get a phone and badger vulnerable people.

It's one thing to support somebody on welfare with my taxes, quite another to subsidise the overheads of some git with three cars and two houses. One of those situations irritates me, the other makes me livid.

Subsidies are counter-productive stupidity in our economy with the current rules. Bugger subsidies, if it's in the national interest, nationalise it. If it's not, don't nationalise and don't subsidise.

When I say the tax payer, coughs up for a massive infra-structure investment, that means we as taxpayers own it. It's ours, it's not a gift, it's a lease, and if you start screwing it up we'll cancel your lease and offer it to someone more deserving.

I'll lease you a forest, you can harvest it, you can hunt in it, you can do educational tours in it, you can do paintball in it, you can sh*t in it if you want, you can't chop it down though.

At the end of the lease I want my forest back, not a pile of dead animals, some crap land and warehouse full of dead vegetable matter.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/14/AR2006041401209.html

"In the early 1970s when I helped found Greenpeace, I believed that nuclear energy was synonymous with nuclear holocaust, as did most of my compatriots. That's the conviction that inspired Greenpeace's first voyage up the spectacular rocky northwest coast to protest the testing of U.S. hydrogen bombs in Alaska's Aleutian Islands. Thirty years on, my views have changed, and the rest of the environmental movement needs to update its views, too, because nuclear energy may just be the energy source that can save our planet from another possible disaster: catastrophic climate change.

Look at it this way: More than 600 coal-fired electric plants in the United States produce 36 percent of U.S. emissions -- or nearly 10 percent of global emissions -- of CO2, the primary greenhouse gas responsible for climate change. Nuclear energy is the only large-scale, cost-effective energy source that can reduce these emissions while continuing to satisfy a growing demand for power. And these days it can do so safely."

...

"What nobody noticed at the time, though, was that Three Mile Island was in fact a success story: The concrete containment structure did just what it was designed to do -- prevent radiation from escaping into the environment. And although the reactor itself was crippled, there was no injury or death among nuclear workers or nearby residents. Three Mile Island was the only serious accident in the history of nuclear energy generation in the United States, but it was enough to scare us away from further developing the technology: There hasn't been a nuclear plant ordered up since then."

The politicans (all of them left and right) are to hooked on the tax money that gasoline brings in to fund transportation..If we were to start using alternatives that were not tired to oil then the politicans would have to make some very uncomfortable decisions regaring what the heck they are going to tax the piss out of to make up for the lost reveue without causing a major ruckus. Most people dont like the assorted gas taxes, but we all relalize that it is a use tax...the more you drive and use the more tax you pay..simple...now what happens if motorists start using say hydrogen from water....not intirely impossible...but you get the picture...something the motorist can do them selves...then they would be forced to seriously raise taxes on the water you use..and rural users with wells would probably be forced to install water meters (at their cost) so they can be taxed as well. This is just one example of the problem that politicans dont want to have to face...as far as $100 a barrel for oil..its coming but only in short spurts so at to not jump start a massive influx of money into alternative fuels...kind of like the frog in a pot of boiling water..turn it up gradually and he will die without ever knowing he was being cooked.

Other times, you just look like your grudge and your fury are completely beyond your ability to control. I look the same way, I know, when religion, and especially state-funded religious observance, are the issue. I recognize my tendency to overreact on that subject. On that one, I'm frequently wrong and/or out of line. Similarly, for the illiterate, lying traitor George Walker Bush, I tend to say too much. Not that he wouldn't deserve it, just that it doesn't benefit me to say so!

On global warming, however, I have no motive to invent a calamity when I could so much more conveniently go about my business, confident that pollution is no big deal now that modern cars emit so little smog-causing particulate matter. What's more, I can imagine no such motive, nor project it onto anybody else. I simply find it unimaginable, with all the other [b]things to worry about[/b] in the world, that somebody would make this up. Sure, pure malice exists, but with the discipline to learn chemistry, physics, collect all the data, program and run all the atmosphere & ocean circulation models? I have never seen malicious people behave industriously to concoct such a conspiracy!

If you're able, I'd like you to consider the possibility that one or more persons believes that global warming is a fact, [b]and[/b] that humans have caused it, and that she believes this solely on the basis of quantitative research in the natural sciences. I don't ask you to assume that [i]I[/i] believe that, as I already know you consider me a traitor. I won't bother trying to change your opinion of me as a person. There are more important things to discuss than one dude's opinion of another.

But, can you entertain the possibility that somebody does believe the same things about global warming, absent the leftist political motivations of Al Gore? After all, he didn't [i]perform[/i] the research, but [i]somebody did[/i].

If you're able to consider the hypothetical possibility of that rational person who believes that global warming is a fact because of the scientific process of measurement, comparing measurements to hypotheses, peer review, etc., what would you tell such a person to convince her that she's wrong and you're right? Do you have anything other than your assertion of a political [b]motive[/b] to support your position?

[i]Their real goal is the whining AND ........... gaining political power for their preferred left-wing, collectivist, money-transfer, socialist-leaning, leftist party. Their goal IS NOT to "protect the environment", but to use it as a ploy to achieve power. I'm absolutely convinced of it. And you're buying into it, lock, stock, and barrel with your "human-caused global warming" position.

On one hand, you see these people for what they are. On the other hand, you let yourself get sucked into it all. I can't believe how gullible you are. And you're arrogant enough to never admit you're wrong -- so on you go, claiming "human-caused global warming" is real.[/i]

I don't believe it's arrogant to hold to my belief until convinced by rational argument that I am mistaken. I do believe it is arrogant of you to presume to know others' motives, and substitute that presumption for debate of the data they present.

By suggesting you're a fool? There's no "grudge or fury" involved? I just call em' like I see em'. You come across as very foolish much of the time. As time goes by, you'll realize more and more how wrong you were. And then you'll even feel foolish.

You know who "these people" are -- the ones advancing such a silly notion -- but you choose to believe them anyway, all based on junk science.

"CO2 is very unlikely to be a substantial driver of climate change and is not a pollutant."

http://www.nrsp.com/strategy.html

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris110706.htm

The production of Hydrogen is extremely wasteful. Something like 80% of the energy is wasted. Think of Hydrogen as a grossly inefficient battery.

NRSP is the quintessential example of a predetermined conclusion with NO supporting evidence. Who are you trying to convince with THAT?

Maybe when/if it hits the $1.50 theaters.

No one, really, and especially not you. I won't convince you that humans are not causing (or contributing to) global warming, just like you won't convince me that we are. I was merely pointing out how wrong you were (again) with your silly "rage and fury" comments.

A person (me) can see another person (you) as a fool without being filled with "rage and fury", and I merely provided some support (another person in the very least, "proof" or no "proof") who thinks that believing in human-caused (or aided) global warming is utter nonsense. You're in good company (well, make that just company), however, because I read recently that 90 percent of Europeans believe it. And in my opinion, 90 percent of Europeans are fools -- for more than just this reason, of course.

I also think that only a fool would dismiss EVERYTHING "these people" claim, believe in, and strive for (and you know who "these people" are), but buy into that one thing. As for you not seeing Al Gore's movie as reason to withold comment, well, only the most uninformed wouldn't have any idea what it -- or he -- is all about. (He's another fool, by the way, just like you -- and you and he believe all the same things! Good company you've got there, dude!)

http://www.explosafe.ch/

I saw a demo in the 70s - an aluminum mesh designed originally for gasoline containers.

James

As Nuke sites are nto shut down at night, BC buys power form the US west coast nuke reactors while we shut down our hydro plants at night. IN the daytiome we get the Hydro turbines spinning again and then sell our own overabundances to teh US west coast, as the US uses more power than it generates in the daytime.

Sop are you thinking you need MORE nuclear power plants? Because the ones you have now dont really generate enough for your own use at peak times and are exporting power in the off peak times.

I'm talking about converting from a coal-economy to a nuclear-economy. Only then will we have abundant energy.

"I could live with nuclear fission if certain of it's proponents were somewhat less blase about the dangers, not disaster scenarios, but the day to day disposal of all the toxic waste they produce. Anything from overalls to control rods."

The problem is that anyone who tries to speak some common sense is discounted as "blase". No one said Nuclear is easy is free or easy, we're just pointing out that it's the cleanest form of an abundant form of energy.

The vast majority of the waste can be recycled if we didn't have the nuclear crazies blocking shipment of the material to recycling sites. Those shipment containers are so strong that you could probably drop one of them at any height to terminal velocity and they won't break open even if they landed on rocks.

As for the amount of waste, the total amount of nuclear waste used in the life time of a family fits in a shoe box.

The costs you cite are mostly due to the ridiculous regulations that were deliberately implemented to prevent nuclear power from seeing the light of day. Here in the US, we have the anti-nuclear Gestapo trying to implement 100,000 year guarantees.

It isn't just a matter of putting up a few mirrors here and there. One of the most efficient means of solar energy is to heat up water for home use which reduces energy consumption that otherwise would have been used to heat the water up. You don't have to worry about concentrator sun tracking and you don't have to worry about converting the energy using a very inefficient process.

One day.

Is that based on their math proficiency compared to Americans? Science? Foreign languages? Not if you've compared their students' abilities to ours. Once again, I'm sure your opinion is based on a silly personality issue of yours and not on data.

Yawn.

In other words, even nuclear power is not [i]perfect[/i]. But, it is much better than the [i]dispersed toxicity[/i] of the alternatives.

George has already explained the details of my argument. "Ditto."

Tony: not every issue revolves around class warfare. Read something other than Kapital sometime, please.

Capitalization implies something I didn't see explained. Please explain. Thanks. And, whatever it was, congratulations. "I take all Challenges Seriously!"

?

I just read this morning that they are going to build a full size fusion reactor in souther France. They being the European Union, China, Russia, Japan and the US.

"You are talking about the difference in drinking downstream from a river while I'm upstream having a p*ss, or taking it direct from the source. "

There is less pollution PERIOD and it is concentrated in a small space that DOES NOT leak out. You DO NOT get any doses of it. The amount leaked in the three mile incident was less radio activity than people normally get living in Denver from the sun.

It's already gathered in one place, not burnt, pulverized, and emitted to the atmosphere. Even if the [i]amounts[/i] were the same - although George has shown that they aren't - but even if they were, the [i]more concentrated[/i] version is better for minimizing the danger.

"Fission is a short term easy stop gap with long term consequences."

Every action has consequences, but in this case the consequences of nuclear energy are less bad than the consequences of the current alternatives. Until we have Fusion, this is as good as it gets.

http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2006/1121/1?eaf&eaf

As bad and stupid as Chernobyl was, it's damage pales in comparison to the dangers of any other energy source like Oil, Coal, or even Hydro. In China during the late 70s, a Hydroelectric dam broke and an estimated 60,000 people perished! Less than 100 people died as a result of Chernobyl.

are the BEST reasons for mentioning Chernobyl occasionally. It WAS a disaster, but Chernobyl also has a context, which is large power plants in general. Within that context, it serves as persuasive anecdotal evidence that nuclear power is THE SAFEST available.

3 mile island was a accident, a containment failure.

Stop sidestepping, tell me how collecting all the waste, contaminating the environment with it generating more toxic waste, then storing it for forty years until it's safe to process. Then contaminating a load more stuff turning it into glass beads, then wrapping up and dropping it on the ocean in a container predicted to last 200,000 years which will still contaminate the ocean bed around to the point it sterilises it.

Clean compared to what?

Why is this economic, because of our dependency on fossil fuels, without that it would never even be considered would it?

That's not counting land filling all the other stuff, dropping what won't vitrify in containers that won't last 200,000 years. Oh and we still haven't got rid of the plant when it's sell by date expires.

This is not a viable alternative, it's an apparently unobtrusive and quick one.

I aren't against nuclear power, I'm against nuclear waste, the only safe place to dump that is in the back gardens of the people making money out of producing it. Lets have a little imagination here.
We can do a lot better, it's just less profitable.

"Clean compared to what?"

Cleanest compared to every other form of abundant energy. Clean as in zero leakage in our water, zero leakage in our air, zero leakage in our atmosphere. Answer your question?

"Why is this economic, because of our dependency on fossil fuels, without that it would never even be considered would it?"

Probably true. But [i]in the real world[/i] petroleum & coal are [i]the[/i] other alternatives. Like it or not, that is reality and nuclear power, including the waste, are as good as it gets.

C'mon, give us a link.

While I agree that our current energy consumption rate cannot be supported in the long term, I strongly disagree with your ideas on suburbia. Suburbia is not a new phenomon. I lived in suburbia when I was growing up 50 years ago. My father commuted from our suburbian home into New York City. The federal policy of increasing home ownership started under FDR as a way to ease the deporable housing conditions of the post-Depression cities. This policy has been popular ever since, regardless of which party controlled the White House or the Congress.

I feel that home ownership fills a basic need of the majority of Americans. Our forefathers left Europe for many reasons, but one of the overriding ones was the opportunity to own your own land. Any government policy which does seeks to undermine home ownership will probably cause the party who proposes it to pay a very heavy price in the next election.

The only solution is to recognise that suburbia is here to stay and to establish a mass transit system in which people can commute from their home in one suburb to their job in another suburb. The model of mass tranist only from the suburbs to the central city has become outmoded by the spread of jobs to the suburbs.

Effective, efficient, low-cost mass transit is a necessity, not only for the comming oil crisis, but also to slow down the production of "greenhouse gasses". Looking at the environmental changes already taking place, I am beginning to believe that global warming will cause us to make massive changes years before the oil crisis hits. It, through changes in the weather, may even be the catalyst which cuts off the flow of imported oil.

I believe there may also some evidence that Fossil fuels are still being produced naturally.

To be able to use hydrogen, one of several energy-intensive processes is required to put the hydrogen into a form from which the energy can be extracted easily.

Some body invent an energy shield against gamma rays while I wasn't paying attention.

'Less toxic' (cover alls for instance) is landfilled. As I said you might have a point about containment, you sure as hell don't have one about clean, by which I mean ecological, not hygienic .
Not even vitrification is zero impact, even discounting the process of doing it.

I aren't stumpy the tree hugger you know, try reasoning instead of BS.

I'd be happy to fund further (actually some) research, but me and the boys allocating the funds aren't on the same page.

They are trying to reduce the impact of pollution, so they can keep making a profit producing it, I want them to produce less of it.
George I'm not talking tonnes here either, as far as my grand children are concerned there's little difference between a gram of plutonium and a tonne of uranium.

Neither is my goal, at least in the biosphere anyway.

My magic wand is broken in terms of a solution off the top of my head, I'd just like the people with the money, to look for one.

They aren't looking at minimising the risk to their environment, they are looking at minimising the risk to their business.

If that's they way they want to go, it's their money, it isn't going to be mine though, well apart from what they are gouging out of me now.

"George I'm not talking tonnes here either, as far as my grand children are concerned there's little difference between a gram of plutonium and a tonne of uranium."

No difference between a ton and a gram eh. That pretty much sums up the "logic" of the anti-nuclear crowd when you lose the ability of common sense.