| Message |
1. "there is a blatantly disproportionate amount of these failures and scandals in the "alternative energy" sector" .... You've offered nothing to back this up. You've cited one scandal and given some of your opinions.
2. "There are direct and blatant ties between the failing companies and the white house" ..... The implication here is that this is any different than any other industry, which as I said, it is not, and you offer nothing more than opinion here.
3. "with a net loss of billions and absolutely no return" ........ This is unsubstantiated and, by your own references, untrue. There has been some return.
Your first reference is from an organization that says on it's front page that it represents the global nuclear profession. This is hardly a neutral source. I wonder whether they included all the costs of the meltdown in Japan in their calculations. ..... I am not against nuclear energy. It could be the future. I just heard about a reactor that will produce much cleaner waste, which is promising.
The references to scandal mean little. As I've said, scandal is always there. I have to wonder whether numbers crunchers consider the costs of the environmental damage that will take decades to fix, costs of Iraq/Afganistan wars, oil spills, and tax subsidies along with direct subsidies in their calculations of the cost of oil. The problem with talk of fossil-fuel vs other energy sources is that it's really a non-debate. We're simply running out of fossil fuels. We have no choice.
|
 |
