SexyK: No, I said that your unfounded fears and misinformation are preventing the deployment of a safe, reliable way to store nuclear waste.
M: Good I am very glad to hear it. Me and nursing mothers will take away your toys. You plan ahead like Bush in Iraq. If it weren't for those damn Iraqis....Geez.
S: As a result, all of the nuclear power facilities that are operating 24/hrs a day without incident in the US are forced to store waste on-site in conditions that are most likely less secure than a national repository would be.
M: Most likely? You mean you aren't 1000% sure? Geez
S: You are not stopping the use of nuclear power, sorry, it is already being used and with great success. People like you are just preventing the US from leveraging technology to deploy updated, modern reactors that are safer and more efficient - the use of which could prevent the emission of millions of tons of CO2 every year. Congratulations.
M: My pleasure. Now shut them down and invest Apollo style in solar energy.
S: PS - If you think your personal insults have any effect whatsoever on my opinion of the issue, you are sorely mistaken. It's pretty pathetic that you have to stoop to personal insults rather than discussing the facts surrounding the issue."
M: You let your inferiority complex cloud your vision. You are a pig but because you feel insulted by that you deny. Perhaps I should have said you manifest porcine behavior.
==================
kipper: Dude, the spent fuel is stored in holding pools, your not going to turn pigs into flying pigs anytime soon. The loss of life from Nuclear power is far below cars, plains, trains, coal, hydro (damn collapse) it is the ONLY viable solution that will uses the least amount of space. It produces a lot of power and has 0 emmisions. It even helps the marine life of the body of water it is located near, and no, they do not suck fish into the reactor cooling loop like many people believe.
M: You are talking about handling down to generations yet unborn deadly toxic materials. You have no right to contaminate the world of people who are not alive yet. If the technology comes along that can freeze you and resurrect you for trial in the future, maybe then.
=======================
SexyK: LOL, you just dont get it. The reason we haven't moved all the spent fuel to its ultimate resting place is because ignorant people like YOU are too afraid to do it. If you're so worried about the fuel being stored at reactor sites, why don't you support competion of the Yucca project?
M: You are an elitist butt-hole and hypocrite. You want the materials moved to where somebody else lives. The state of Nevada says put your f-ing site in your own damn state. Divide it up into 300 million doses for each to bury in his own yard. People don't what it where they live, not trucks carrying it driving on their roads. It will be a case, again, where the powerful crush the will of the people.
S: And your contention that "we haven't cleaned up our nuclear waste and that proves we never will" is a complete fallacy. It's like saying "I have never cleaned out the trunk of my car and that proves that I never will." Yeah, that makes sense.
M: Of course it does. I told you that the definition of a fool is to continue doing the same thing with the anticipation of a different result. We shall know then by how they behave. The fact that the waste has not been safely cleaned up is proof positive it never will be. Past behavior is the strongest predictor of future actions. Clean up is not Sexy, mumK!
==================
Acanthus: 171,000 people died from the last major dam failure.
M: Those were old style Chernobyl type dams. The new ones are safe. Hahahahahahahaahahahaha!
A: Wind is too expensive.
Wrong!
"According to the March 31, 2006 London Daily Mail: - "The cost to the taxpayer of making Britain's nuclear power stations safe has soared to nearly £70 billion [US$122 billion], it emerged last night. Funding the cleanup of nuclear waste and decommissioning 20 civilian sites including Sellafield in Cumbria and Dounreay in Caithness, northern Scotland will cost far more than the original £48 billion estimate. The figure could be higher still because officials admitted they will not know the 'full costs' until 2008. And if the Government decided to reclassify plutonium as waste rather than as an asset, the costs would be pushed up by another £10 billion. The massive burden on the taxpayer was revealed as ministers confirmed the sale of British Nuclear Group, which will hand over control of Sellafield to the private sector". We thought this news item adds needed perspective to the notion that mitigating climate change with nuclear energy will be cost effective over the full life cycle. New sites will at some future point again have to be made "safe." Much of a wind turbine will have positive scrap value at the end of it's design life; while much of a nuclear generation station, and all of its uranium series waste will have a negative value."
Link
Another
link.
A: Expensive, unreliable, and unrealsitic.
M: So true of nuclear, yes.
A: Because nuclear power costs 2.1 cents a kw/h to produce?
M: Look carefully at this
link to expose this deception.
Local solar has no transmission costs.
A: Are you talking about the cooling beds at nuclear power stations?
That is a neccesary step in the process to make it safe for transportation. The half life of the dangerous isotopes of nuclear waste is short (by definition). Allowing those to decay on site allows for the "safer" long life waste to be transported to places like Yucca.
M: There is no such thing as the safe transportation of deadly toxins that remain so for thousands of years. It is hubris to think so. You can't gamble with this kind of risk nuclear poses.
A: It is in no way optional, its fossil fuels or nuclear.
Nuclear is clearly the better path.
M: More egotistical hubris from a nuclear engineer. Nursing mothers know vastly more than you. Shut down the nuclear industry and put the money in solar and we will all have a brighter future.
A: Nuclear fuel rods can generate 3.5 million times as much energy as the same amount of "clean coal".
M: And this from a nuclear engineer. Energy equals mass times the speed of light squared. A pound of any mass has identical energy.
These engineering types with their lack of human emotion don't think of stuff like that and that's why they forget, also , to install an off switch.
A: Solar plants dont operate at night... They are used as supplemental energy during peak times during the day.
M: There are many answers for that.
A: This would also drive consumer costs above 40c kw/h... Generation of solar power is inherantly very expensive.
Nuclear is inherently toxic for thousands of years....a much bigger problem than the present cost of solar energy. An Apollo program in solar could change that without the risk of long term disaster. It is the way sane people would proceed.
===================
kipper: You do know that the chance of a atomic plant blowing up like an atom bomb is nonexistanted, meaning there is not chance, at all, two totally different things. Russia messed up and did not have a containment dome which cause excessive steam to build up and in the end, blew up the structure, it was bad, but nuclear power is much safer than you think
Nuclear waste is much more dangerous than you think. More male toys-egotistical hubris. The mothers of the planet spit on you.