All the worst contamination is at old AEC-DOE/DOD sites.
He's confusing old military nuclear efforts with our ongoing civilian program.
Originally posted by: QuantumPion
Originally posted by: Steeplerot
Originally posted by: k1pp3r
Sshow me where a company has release any unsafe amounts of radiation, besides russia,
http://www.epa.gov/radiation/cleanup.htm
The total number of sites contaminated with radionuclides in the United States is in the thousands. Contaminated sites range in size from corners of laboratories to sprawling nuclear weapons facilities covering many square miles of land. The contamination extends to all environmental media, as well as to onsite buildings and equipment.
What is your definition of contaminated?
Originally posted by: QuantumPion
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
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.
I would like to invest in your magical matter-to-energy conversion device. Who should I make the check out to?
Originally posted by: WHAMPOM
Fusion not fission.
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: QuantumPion
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
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.
I would like to invest in your magical matter-to-energy conversion device. Who should I make the check out to?
What have we got here another nerdy engineer who can't see the forest for the trees?
Originally posted by: Scribe
FYI folks... the Hindenburg didn't explode because of Hydrogen. While Hydrogen is dangerous, it's is SO light that it's difficult to ignite, because the gas escapes almost immediately. The Hindenburg was painted with rocket fuel. You can Google it.
Sorry, back on topic. This is the longest thread I've ever started on AT
Originally posted by: Scribe
FYI folks... the Hindenburg didn't explode because of Hydrogen. While Hydrogen is dangerous, it's is SO light that it's difficult to ignite, because the gas escapes almost immediately. The Hindenburg was painted with rocket fuel. You can Google it.
Sorry, back on topic. This is the longest thread I've ever started on AT
Originally posted by: K1052
Originally posted by: Steeplerot
Originally posted by: CPA
Originally posted by: bdude
Originally posted by: CPA
I'll probably get slammed for this, but I think we should send our nuclear waste out into space.
go ahead and laugh, if you like, but I'm serious.
Except if it goes kaboom as our flying fuel bombs often do.
If it goes boom, it would probably due so so far away that it wouldn't impact us. It's not like there isn't any radioactive waves already in space.
Take a look sometime at the scientists projections of what would have happened if cassini probe blew up just about where the shuttle right before it did in the atmosphere (Challenger), pretty much terminal cancer for the whole planets population, whee!
We as a species dodged a bullet bigtime with cassini, no thanks, time to phase out nukes and spend on something renewable.
I could care less what BS G&E and friends are telling you, ofc they are feeding you that crap, same old lines "it's totally safe" NOTHING could go wrong!
My ass, and the titanic was unsinkable. If these energy corps would spend some of this money they use on feeding "It's safe comrade" propaganda on developing more solar/wind/tidal infrastructure we would already be ahead of the game.
But solar/tidal/wind doesent need fuel, or expensive storage for waste, so whats the point of moving away from their gravy train, and you all eat it up.
The risk of Cassini's RTGs rupturing even in such an event were quite minimal. They are designed for such an eventuality. The worst case scenarios were greatly overstated and not even realistic, just more fearmongering.
The fact is that we already derive a substantial amount of our electricity from nuclear power. Renewables are currently nowhere close to being able to replace it at anything remotely approaching current costs. It is historically safe (the US generates more MWh than any other nation on the planet and has the oldest civilian nuclear program) and the waste can be adequately dealt with (preferably via reprocessing).
Originally posted by: QuantumPion
Originally posted by: Scribe
FYI folks... the Hindenburg didn't explode because of Hydrogen. While Hydrogen is dangerous, it's is SO light that it's difficult to ignite, because the gas escapes almost immediately. The Hindenburg was painted with rocket fuel. You can Google it.
Sorry, back on topic. This is the longest thread I've ever started on AT
Actually the Mythbusters covered this on one of their shows and demonstrated that while the material used to cover the blimp may have contributed some what to the fire, it was the hydrogen itself which was responsible for a majority of the combustion.
Originally posted by: QuantumPion
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: QuantumPion
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
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.
I would like to invest in your magical matter-to-energy conversion device. Who should I make the check out to?
What have we got here another nerdy engineer who can't see the forest for the trees?
No, but apparently what we have here is a high-schooler who read a layman's science book and thinks he knows it all, but is in actuality a fool. I use fool in the literal sense, in that you are acting extremely arrogant and make yourself look like a jackass due to your ignorance.
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: K1052
Originally posted by: Steeplerot
Originally posted by: CPA
Originally posted by: bdude
Originally posted by: CPA
I'll probably get slammed for this, but I think we should send our nuclear waste out into space.
go ahead and laugh, if you like, but I'm serious.
Except if it goes kaboom as our flying fuel bombs often do.
If it goes boom, it would probably due so so far away that it wouldn't impact us. It's not like there isn't any radioactive waves already in space.
Take a look sometime at the scientists projections of what would have happened if cassini probe blew up just about where the shuttle right before it did in the atmosphere (Challenger), pretty much terminal cancer for the whole planets population, whee!
We as a species dodged a bullet bigtime with cassini, no thanks, time to phase out nukes and spend on something renewable.
I could care less what BS G&E and friends are telling you, ofc they are feeding you that crap, same old lines "it's totally safe" NOTHING could go wrong!
My ass, and the titanic was unsinkable. If these energy corps would spend some of this money they use on feeding "It's safe comrade" propaganda on developing more solar/wind/tidal infrastructure we would already be ahead of the game.
But solar/tidal/wind doesent need fuel, or expensive storage for waste, so whats the point of moving away from their gravy train, and you all eat it up.
The risk of Cassini's RTGs rupturing even in such an event were quite minimal. They are designed for such an eventuality. The worst case scenarios were greatly overstated and not even realistic, just more fearmongering.
The fact is that we already derive a substantial amount of our electricity from nuclear power. Renewables are currently nowhere close to being able to replace it at anything remotely approaching current costs. It is historically safe (the US generates more MWh than any other nation on the planet and has the oldest civilian nuclear program) and the waste can be adequately dealt with (preferably via reprocessing).
Yup, tomorrow we are going to clean up but not today. Hehehehehe the same old bull sh!t self deception. Look at the past and you will see that future. It's all about fun and games and engineering challenge, never about the real work of cleaning up. Only talk about cleaning up is all we ever hear. Clean up. Clean up totally and then proceed. Show you are not a liar. You are a one-eyed jack, Dad, and I seen the other side of your face.
Originally posted by: Steeplerot
Originally posted by: Acanthus
That isnt commercial nuclear power, thats experimental and military facilities.
Kudos to Germany for getting ready to shut down all of them.
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Originally posted by: Steeplerot
Originally posted by: Acanthus
That isnt commercial nuclear power, thats experimental and military facilities.
Hey, just the guys you all want protecting the plants :roll:
Anyhow, nice try guys. Not buying what you are selling, nor is the rest of the world luckily.
Kudos to Germany for getting ready to shut down all of them.
Yes, Kudos to Germany
Not only are they shutting down nuke plants, but they are also building coal plants in their stead. GREAT! Replace a concentrated hazard with a dispersed one! Instead of containing radiation in small areas (since coal is radioactive thus it's particulates are too), and containing emissions to a small area, lets just spew it over tens of thousands of square miles while spewing greenhouse gasses.
Great job for congratulating them on further destroying the *WHOLE* planet while saving some barrels.
You wonder why your opinion is so marginalized.
Originally posted by: Scarpozzi
Great....that's all we need is to give the Chinese nuclear technology. Next thing, they'll have nuclear weapons and then we'll be in trouble.
Originally posted by: BrownTown
I would like to point out to those arguing with MoonBeam (a known troll), that in theory the point of making an argument should be to try to convince the other side of your belief. However, in this case we have someone who will not EVER believe what you want them because they are for whatever reason too committed to the other side. Arguing with Moonbeam therefore has no point and only helps his case as it will likely eventually lead to name calling. IF someone with an open mind asks a question in this thread then answer them, but answering Moonbeam is more or less equivalent to arguing against a recording that continually loops over and over again.
ON TOPIC: I believe that one or more of Duke energy's plants currently use MOX fuel, although that is down blended from nuclear weapons and not reprocessed. However the point is that MOX fuel can be used even in current reactors and hopefully some day will be. However thorium and U238 are what we really needed fuel our reactors given that they are hundreds of times as available as U235. I just worry that the worlds easily accessible supplies of uranium will run out before we can get breeder reactors back online and that people will think nuclear power id dead again even before it has even begun (according to the roadmaps we should have gone to breeder reactors 20 years ago, but the enviros succeeded in setting that back for probably at least 35 years which means 35 more years of coal burning for their troubles).
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: BrownTown
I would like to point out to those arguing with MoonBeam (a known troll), that in theory the point of making an argument should be to try to convince the other side of your belief. However, in this case we have someone who will not EVER believe what you want them because they are for whatever reason too committed to the other side. Arguing with Moonbeam therefore has no point and only helps his case as it will likely eventually lead to name calling. IF someone with an open mind asks a question in this thread then answer them, but answering Moonbeam is more or less equivalent to arguing against a recording that continually loops over and over again.
ON TOPIC: I believe that one or more of Duke energy's plants currently use MOX fuel, although that is down blended from nuclear weapons and not reprocessed. However the point is that MOX fuel can be used even in current reactors and hopefully some day will be. However thorium and U238 are what we really needed fuel our reactors given that they are hundreds of times as available as U235. I just worry that the worlds easily accessible supplies of uranium will run out before we can get breeder reactors back online and that people will think nuclear power id dead again even before it has even begun (according to the roadmaps we should have gone to breeder reactors 20 years ago, but the enviros succeeded in setting that back for probably at least 35 years which means 35 more years of coal burning for their troubles).
What an ignorant ass you are. I have said from the beginning I am for nuclear power just as soon as we clean up the nuclear mess we have already made. I am simply opposed to nuclear jokers who provide technical solutions with no real serious intention to clean up. You fools have only one intention, to buffalo the public into the assumption that your historical record of failure is suddenly now going to change. Prove it you troll. Let's see the mess disappear. You nuclear jokers are lying our your asses. You will leave your mess for your children because you are worthless self deceiving assholes.
Originally posted by: ADDAvenger
Originally posted by: Scarpozzi
Great....that's all we need is to give the Chinese nuclear technology. Next thing, they'll have nuclear weapons and then we'll be in trouble.
They've had their own home-grown weapons program since the days of Mao, and have had nukes since then as well.
Originally posted by: k1pp3r
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: BrownTown
I would like to point out to those arguing with MoonBeam (a known troll), that in theory the point of making an argument should be to try to convince the other side of your belief. However, in this case we have someone who will not EVER believe what you want them because they are for whatever reason too committed to the other side. Arguing with Moonbeam therefore has no point and only helps his case as it will likely eventually lead to name calling. IF someone with an open mind asks a question in this thread then answer them, but answering Moonbeam is more or less equivalent to arguing against a recording that continually loops over and over again.
ON TOPIC: I believe that one or more of Duke energy's plants currently use MOX fuel, although that is down blended from nuclear weapons and not reprocessed. However the point is that MOX fuel can be used even in current reactors and hopefully some day will be. However thorium and U238 are what we really needed fuel our reactors given that they are hundreds of times as available as U235. I just worry that the worlds easily accessible supplies of uranium will run out before we can get breeder reactors back online and that people will think nuclear power id dead again even before it has even begun (according to the roadmaps we should have gone to breeder reactors 20 years ago, but the enviros succeeded in setting that back for probably at least 35 years which means 35 more years of coal burning for their troubles).
What an ignorant ass you are. I have said from the beginning I am for nuclear power just as soon as we clean up the nuclear mess we have already made. I am simply opposed to nuclear jokers who provide technical solutions with no real serious intention to clean up. You fools have only one intention, to buffalo the public into the assumption that your historical record of failure is suddenly now going to change. Prove it you troll. Let's see the mess disappear. You nuclear jokers are lying our your asses. You will leave your mess for your children because you are worthless self deceiving assholes.
No, we will end up leaving a nuclear mess for our children only because our fathers will not let us clean up.
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: k1pp3r
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: BrownTown
I would like to point out to those arguing with MoonBeam (a known troll), that in theory the point of making an argument should be to try to convince the other side of your belief. However, in this case we have someone who will not EVER believe what you want them because they are for whatever reason too committed to the other side. Arguing with Moonbeam therefore has no point and only helps his case as it will likely eventually lead to name calling. IF someone with an open mind asks a question in this thread then answer them, but answering Moonbeam is more or less equivalent to arguing against a recording that continually loops over and over again.
ON TOPIC: I believe that one or more of Duke energy's plants currently use MOX fuel, although that is down blended from nuclear weapons and not reprocessed. However the point is that MOX fuel can be used even in current reactors and hopefully some day will be. However thorium and U238 are what we really needed fuel our reactors given that they are hundreds of times as available as U235. I just worry that the worlds easily accessible supplies of uranium will run out before we can get breeder reactors back online and that people will think nuclear power id dead again even before it has even begun (according to the roadmaps we should have gone to breeder reactors 20 years ago, but the enviros succeeded in setting that back for probably at least 35 years which means 35 more years of coal burning for their troubles).
What an ignorant ass you are. I have said from the beginning I am for nuclear power just as soon as we clean up the nuclear mess we have already made. I am simply opposed to nuclear jokers who provide technical solutions with no real serious intention to clean up. You fools have only one intention, to buffalo the public into the assumption that your historical record of failure is suddenly now going to change. Prove it you troll. Let's see the mess disappear. You nuclear jokers are lying our your asses. You will leave your mess for your children because you are worthless self deceiving assholes.
No, we will end up leaving a nuclear mess for our children only because our fathers will not let us clean up.
Our mothers, you mean. You wouldn't have raped them had they not worn a skirt. Yup, your nuclear strategy was as brilliant and well executed as Bush in Iraq. The contempt people feel for the nuclear industry is richly deserved. A bunch of adolescent boys playing with their dicks oblivious to the interests of others.
Originally posted by: k1pp3r
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: k1pp3r
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: BrownTown
I would like to point out to those arguing with MoonBeam (a known troll), that in theory the point of making an argument should be to try to convince the other side of your belief. However, in this case we have someone who will not EVER believe what you want them because they are for whatever reason too committed to the other side. Arguing with Moonbeam therefore has no point and only helps his case as it will likely eventually lead to name calling. IF someone with an open mind asks a question in this thread then answer them, but answering Moonbeam is more or less equivalent to arguing against a recording that continually loops over and over again.
ON TOPIC: I believe that one or more of Duke energy's plants currently use MOX fuel, although that is down blended from nuclear weapons and not reprocessed. However the point is that MOX fuel can be used even in current reactors and hopefully some day will be. However thorium and U238 are what we really needed fuel our reactors given that they are hundreds of times as available as U235. I just worry that the worlds easily accessible supplies of uranium will run out before we can get breeder reactors back online and that people will think nuclear power id dead again even before it has even begun (according to the roadmaps we should have gone to breeder reactors 20 years ago, but the enviros succeeded in setting that back for probably at least 35 years which means 35 more years of coal burning for their troubles).
What an ignorant ass you are. I have said from the beginning I am for nuclear power just as soon as we clean up the nuclear mess we have already made. I am simply opposed to nuclear jokers who provide technical solutions with no real serious intention to clean up. You fools have only one intention, to buffalo the public into the assumption that your historical record of failure is suddenly now going to change. Prove it you troll. Let's see the mess disappear. You nuclear jokers are lying our your asses. You will leave your mess for your children because you are worthless self deceiving assholes.
No, we will end up leaving a nuclear mess for our children only because our fathers will not let us clean up.
Our mothers, you mean. You wouldn't have raped them had they not worn a skirt. Yup, your nuclear strategy was as brilliant and well executed as Bush in Iraq. The contempt people feel for the nuclear industry is richly deserved. A bunch of adolescent boys playing with their dicks oblivious to the interests of others.
So i'm wondering, whats your solution if you think the rest of us are stupid. Mind you i have not mentioned a single long term storage idea (I support the idea, but i'm not an engineer or a politician)
And no, i ment fathers, the grumpy old me on capital hill do not see any lining of their pockets if they tackle this issue, so that is why it will not happen.
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: k1pp3r
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: k1pp3r
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: BrownTown
I would like to point out to those arguing with MoonBeam (a known troll), that in theory the point of making an argument should be to try to convince the other side of your belief. However, in this case we have someone who will not EVER believe what you want them because they are for whatever reason too committed to the other side. Arguing with Moonbeam therefore has no point and only helps his case as it will likely eventually lead to name calling. IF someone with an open mind asks a question in this thread then answer them, but answering Moonbeam is more or less equivalent to arguing against a recording that continually loops over and over again.
ON TOPIC: I believe that one or more of Duke energy's plants currently use MOX fuel, although that is down blended from nuclear weapons and not reprocessed. However the point is that MOX fuel can be used even in current reactors and hopefully some day will be. However thorium and U238 are what we really needed fuel our reactors given that they are hundreds of times as available as U235. I just worry that the worlds easily accessible supplies of uranium will run out before we can get breeder reactors back online and that people will think nuclear power id dead again even before it has even begun (according to the roadmaps we should have gone to breeder reactors 20 years ago, but the enviros succeeded in setting that back for probably at least 35 years which means 35 more years of coal burning for their troubles).
What an ignorant ass you are. I have said from the beginning I am for nuclear power just as soon as we clean up the nuclear mess we have already made. I am simply opposed to nuclear jokers who provide technical solutions with no real serious intention to clean up. You fools have only one intention, to buffalo the public into the assumption that your historical record of failure is suddenly now going to change. Prove it you troll. Let's see the mess disappear. You nuclear jokers are lying our your asses. You will leave your mess for your children because you are worthless self deceiving assholes.
No, we will end up leaving a nuclear mess for our children only because our fathers will not let us clean up.
Our mothers, you mean. You wouldn't have raped them had they not worn a skirt. Yup, your nuclear strategy was as brilliant and well executed as Bush in Iraq. The contempt people feel for the nuclear industry is richly deserved. A bunch of adolescent boys playing with their dicks oblivious to the interests of others.
So i'm wondering, whats your solution if you think the rest of us are stupid. Mind you i have not mentioned a single long term storage idea (I support the idea, but i'm not an engineer or a politician)
And no, i ment fathers, the grumpy old me on capital hill do not see any lining of their pockets if they tackle this issue, so that is why it will not happen.
I don't think those who push nuclear power are stupid. Some are misguided and some are air headed smart. Nuclear power is, I think, a bargan with satin. What you get you will pay for many fold it the future. I see it as dangerously reckless to mortgate the future of children unborn who can have no say it what we pass on to them today. The Native Americans have this saying about doing no damage out for 7 generations,,,something worth thinking about.
The answer, for the future, I think, should be a massive push to solar, combined with maybe hydrogen storage for fuel cells and maybe compressed air also to power cars. Silicon valley is gearing up to take off on the solar thing.