The problem is, the United States is tying its own hands by not allowing the development of newer, safer, more efficient nuclear power plants. If we could, we would be able to retire the older, not-as-safe, less-efficient nuclear power plants - and the price of electricity would go down making it more affordable to use electric cars all while using less fossil fuels!

I'm all for having a cleaner, safer environment. But until people get over their "not in my backyard" emotions, and get rid of harmful environmental regulations, then we are forced to use the technology that that is more harmful to the environment.

What "harmful environmental regulations" are you speaking of?

Regulations that politicians pass after pressure from environmental groups that disagree with cleaner, safer technologies based on their beliefs.

If you ever manage to have a rational discussion with an environmentalist (extremely hard because they almost always turn to name-calling, change the subject, or other childish behaviors), you will discover that the root of their reasoning revolves around a belief rather than logic.

(On a side note, I find this humorous because almost all environmentalists I've met are atheists, and atheists claim they don't believe in a god because of logic than a belief. Thus I've concluded, people will almost always rationalize whatever they want to make themselves feel good.)

(People generally want the same thing - to be happy, safe, free, etc. Even people with extremely opposing viewpoints. Instead of discovering the real reason, they go with "well they're just a Democrat/Republican/religious/atheist/whatever" - the reason is usually much simpler/basic, it's just that most people don't want to the take the time to work to discover the root difference. Every Republican and Democrat I know both want everyone to be healthy, wealthy, and safe. Every atheist and religious person I know wants peace, goodwill, and to feel good about themselves. Every tree-hugger and gas-guzzler I know wants cleaner air, cleaner water, and not to kill polar bears. They all just disagree on how to get there.)

Do you have anything serious to add? If you want me to answer any questions, you have to show that you want a serious discussion. Just posting a cute question alone won't suffice. Doing so is a tactic to distract opponents which is pretty disingenuous.

> If you ever manage to have a rational discussion with an environmentalist (extremely hard ... >Do you have anything serious to add? If you want me to answer any questions, you have to show that you want a serious discussion. Just posting a cute question alone won't suffice.

Wow, that is defensive and ignorant - my question was short (or 'cute') because it didn't need extraneous lexicon. I'm simply curious about which environmental regulations are considered harmful so I could research them and educate myself. So no, I wasn't adding anything, but it was a serious question. Conversely, you went off on a huge tangent about atheists, deists, Republicans, and Democrats and still somehow did not answer my question. So I'll assume you don't know.

> Doing so is a tactic to distract opponents which is pretty disingenuous.

Well sailor Casseres, if you want to have a rational discussion without distracting yourself, how about you just genuinely answer the question.

I answered your question in the first line: "Regulations that politicians pass after pressure from environmental groups that disagree with cleaner, safer technologies based on their beliefs." If local communities pass local regulations, that no longer make it profitable to build a plant there, they won't build a plant there. If every community does that where it would be profitable for a plant to be built, the plant doesn't get built. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has renewed operating licenses and existing plants have purchased new reactors, but all of that is just about maintaining the plants that have already been around for decades.

The tangent was not about atheists, deists, Republicans, and Democrats. They were examples of "people with extremely opposing viewpoints."

I'm not sure where you got the idea that I'm a sailor. In my profile it does mention that I am a mariner. There is a difference in the maritime industry between the two terms. A sailor is an enlisted person or commissioned officer in the Navy. A mariner is not.

> If you ever manage to have a rational discussion with an environmentalist (extremely hard because they almost always turn to name-calling, change the subject, or other childish behaviors), you will discover that the root of their reasoning revolves around a belief rather than logic.

If you ever have a rational discussion with a human (or, for that matter, anything else that has a belief about what should be done), you'll find that -- its not limited to environmentalists. You can't get to a conclusion about what should be done without starting from an a priori belief about the criteria for what should be done, no matter how much logic gets used between the root belief and the conclusion.

Sure, but that assumes we already know how to build the fire escape, how much it costs, how long it takes, and what it's supposed to look like.

We do. It's called "nuclear power".

erm, it's time to at least start finding out!

Fortunately, we've been working on it for decades. The issue is not so much about whether or not to "do nothing" as it is about whether or not to devote how many more (and whose) marginal dollars toward it, and how.

The same logic applies to asteroid strikes, climate change and potential ecology collapses as well. Whatever the odds are, they are decidedly non-astronomic, and therefore should be taken seriously.

And the US had budget for things like asteroid strikes (at least until the sequester).

But it can only be taken seriously if the actors with sufficient power actually care about said future and not, for example, present profits to the exclusion of all else.

I feel the exact same way about global warming.

And zombies.

Agreed, which is why we should all believe in God, since although the possibility that he exists is slim to none, the risk of him actually existing is quite great to non-believers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager

Of course that's a bad analogy because we can define God any way we want; we could easily define him to be angry at people who do believe.

Whereas a fire escape or even peak oil is at least somewhat quantifiable risk.

Which is why the problem is being solved by a mix of pricing and development of alternatives by the free market.

The problem is some people don't think what the market is doing is enough and demand intervention from government based on a line of reasoning similar to Pascal's Wager.

Apparently, oil companies developing resources, and Tesla and others developing alternatives is 'doing nothing'.

You are correct that some private firms are beginning to hedge their bets (or in Tesla's case, directly offer a competing product), but I was referring to government...as you guessed.

We've seen numerous examples of abuse of the free market - I don't think that a few companies pushing us past the point of comfort with respect to oil production is a far-fetched scenario. Personally speaking, I would like some level of government intervention.

The identification of my argument as being analogous to Pascal's Wager is interesting (that was a great read, thank you for linking), but is not compelling enough to dissuade me. If I'm reading the tone of your posts correctly, you do not agree that peak oil is something to be concerned about; what is your counter-argument?

But which god though? Pick the wrong one and you're still classified as a non-believer.