Your old SoCal raver buddy Greg checking in.

I saw your “Recent Comments” sidebar and it’s clear the Spammers have found your older postings’ comments section.

Time to Captcha-ize this Journal, perhaps.

Keep railing against old farts like Hatch amigo

We need a government that can budget our taxes effectively… I agree with ’swimming pool contractor’, we should be swimming in money.

and

Science based thinkers making decisions on what power sources we choose to develop.

Instead of our current and largely ignorant politicians on the marionettes strings of affluent people with ties to oil based companies.

The power of the oil based companies is the reason the US is now caught with it’s pants down. Having spent years suppressing developments in alternative power, we are now paying the price… literally.

And we’ll now take YEARS to catch up.

I’ll disagree with post above on nuclear power. I’m not exactly an expert, but my husband spent nearly 20 years as an anti-nuke activist and has a pretty good handle on what the nuke industry is like. I myself have heard over and over again from nuclear-energy worshipers about how great the stuff is, but I don’t buy it. Politicians *have* green-lighted nuclear. Bush and cronies are crazy about it and talked about pushing it during Cheney’s controversial energy conference (big warning sign right there! It means someone(s) stands to make a lot of money by pushing nuclear over safe alternatives).

I was pointed to good reading on this issue recently: http://www.ieer.org/carbonfree/ “Carbon-Free and Nuclear-Free” by Arjun Makhijani, Ph.D. The book can be downloaded on the site for free.

Incorrect that nuclear power is a “failed alternative.”

In the statement, proper credence is given to the development of technology in general, and the same philosophy should be applied in particular to the long-stagnant nuclear industry. Fast-breeding reactors will readily consume low-level nuclear waste, allowing the “billion dollar pile” in Moab (and others like it) to be recycled to the profit of energy companies. So yes, the nuclear companies will happily clean up such sites. First, politicians must green-light the development of modern nuclear energy. The hydrogen, ethanol, biodiesel, wind and solar are only partial solutions. They scratch the surface but leave us needing dangerous and dirty solutions like coal. Electricity is still needed in abundance if we are to be industrious as a society, use hybrid or electric vehicles, etc. Low level uranium is unlikely to be a big security risk. Security paranoia should be left to hawks who want big dollars for war to disguise the resource grab in oil rich countries, though this approach WILL NEVER benefit our economy. Mega-scale power production will! Bring our troops home. Invest in R & D. Evict the corrupt Bush administration. Let oil die it’s natural death by supplanting it; else, it will continue to be the #1 US economy suck.

Hatch just doesn’t get it. Tax breaks for renewable/alternate energy companies are good, but they’re not enough. There’s more tools in this toolbox than just hammers, but he insists that only hammers can be used, that the others tools are dangerous and bad for the market. He worships the invisible hand of the market too much to be effective at energy policy.