Why the world is doomed:

No this is a serious post (also known as a rant), and while I will try I'd rather not get hopes up. This is my first attempt at serious analysis (i.e. ad hominem), so bear with me. Or don't its up to you, I realise now this post is pretty, I mean, mindnumbingly long.

Some dude called Edmund Burke said something along the lines of "Evil happens when good men do nothing." Let us just make the convenient assumption that by 'good' Burke actually meant 'smart', because its good to be smart right, I think its not far fetched to extrapolate this idea to "Shit happens when smart people do nothing," which can then be extended to "Shit happens when dumb people do dumb things."

Now while not point the finger at anyone directly because that's politically incorrect, let me just quote those guys over at greenpeace for a bit:
"Even if it were 100% clean, 100% safe, and 100% foolproof, nuclear power can do little or nothing in the fight against climate change."
I mean, Greenpeace is THE internationally renown/recognized/acknowledged blah blah champion of world happiness and good right? I mean heck even the auto correct built into this 2nd rate blogging platform that is blogger won't even let me get away with greenpeace without showing that annoying red squiggly 'hey learn2spell' reminder unless I capitalize the G.

Now obviously the guys at Greenpeace aren't just going to throw out random unsupported catchphrases like our government (I feel bad for dissing the government actually, they get way too much shit for the job they have to do), so evidently they'll have a lot of evidence to back up their statement right? That was a rhetorical question of course they do what do you think Greenpeace is, trying to run a country or something?

I'll summarize their really long argument as impartially as I can (you be the judge): Nuclear energy only accounts for 6% of global energy production at present, and even if you quadruple that by 2050 it will still only count for 10%. And this would require building a new reactor every 10 days (by Greenpeace's reckoning I assume, since they haven't cited anything). But even assuming that you could and would do so, and that they are, I quote:"nuclear reactors are safe AND foolproof AND we've solved the waste problem AND they're not terrorist targets AND that we can build a new reactor every ten days from now." we still don't need them to replace fossil fuels to generate electricity because other renewable are sufficiently capable of generating enough electricity to support the needs of some countries, such as Spain (35%) and Portugal (45%). Germany also has enough solar energy to rival the Fukushima reactors. Thus nuclear power isn't necessary as people make it out to be.

Okay I hope now you're thinking 'hm that sounds good, we might not need nuclear after all, right?' because otherwise then I might be liable for misleading you guys by call my summary impartial. Don't worry if you are though, I'm not about to finish this post with a downer ending.
To begin with lets pick apart the statistics behind Greenpeace argument because thats what good analysis is about: nit picking. Greenpeace says that renewables supply a rather large part of Spain and Portugal's energy, relatively speaking, and thus everyone should be able to do it. A quick search on google netted me some stats here that I have yet to calculate as I type this but pretty sure will let you know why this argument is pure environmentalist fantasy.

Speaking nothing of the fact that the population of Spain and Portugal combined do not even constitute a single percent of the world's total population (0.7%) to be exact, I think you can already see where this is going. The more observant of you will realise this is kind of unfair since all those poor kids in Africa and the DPRK probably don't use any energy at all, lets just compare them to China and the USA, two largest energy consumers:

Portugal and Spain use energy equivalent to about 3.2 tons of oil per capita per year. (actually the Portuguese uses less, at 2.4 tons, but I'm lazy and I doubt it'll make a difference in the big picture.) They have a combined population of about 10.6+46.1~=56.7million. That translates to a gross energy usage of about 181.4 million tons of oil per year.

China has 1.34 billion people (you must be able to see the problem already) and they use 1.4 tons of oil, per capita/year which is about 1876 million tons of oil, or 1.88 billion tons. The USA has 311 million people who use an unsurprisingly high amount of 7.76tons of oil/person/year for a total of 2413.4 million tons. That's a combined of 4.29 BILLION tons of oil. Per year.
So, 181/4290=~0.042 that's 4% of the combined energy needs of the two biggest economies in the world. Now assuming I haven't failed elementary arithmetic somewhere in there I ask you Greenpeace, how do you propose to renewablelize such massive energy needs even if you could do it in such puny and basically insignificant countries (only in terms of energy usage of course, I have nothing against Spaniards/Portuguese)? And if there was a cheap and easy way, why hasn't it been done yet?

Obvious answer is obvious: its not easy. We could argue about the accuracy of the stats I pulled from wiki and google but franky it doesn't matter if its 5% or 8% or 10%. That status quo speaks volumes, and I for one would like to think that governments know what they're doing. Maybe they don't but that'll have to wait in a different story. I don't even need to address that last point that was probably tacked on at the last minute: The solar power of an entire nation, and that's Germany, the world 4th largest economy by GDP, is only equivalent to a single, aging nuclear powerplant. And you know what the biggest irony is? The sun generates power by nuclear fusion. Yes stars are nuclear furnaces I hope that wasn't a surprise to anybody.

Anyway, after all of that you must've forgotten the point of this article which I'll take time to remind you again: That the world is doomed. Why? Because its obvious: the people running greenpeace are all obviously caught up in their own fantasies about a green world where everyone lives happily with mother nature. And me, being reasonably intelligent as I like to fancy myself would want to have nothing to do with people who form arguments based on completely fallacious logic, I can't imagine any one reasonably smart, I mean, 'good' would want to either. Herein lies the heart of the problem: good people probably don't want to do dumb things, but the people trying their best to do 'good' things aren't very good at it. Thus we arrive at the logical conclusion that the world is doomed.

And if you want a scapegoat (I do) blame OJ. This is basically his bastard child.