Nuclear power...

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Kwaipie

Originally posted by: Aegeon

Originally posted by: Kwaipie
<<snip>>

To repeat, that is completely MILITARY related nuclear waste used to make nuclear weapons and has effectively nothing to do with civilian nuclear waste storage.

Because military related nuclear waste isn't full of care bears and gummy worms like civilian nuclear waste? Or are you saying that the Yucca Mountain facility will only be used for civilian related high level nuclear waste? The DOE is responsible for the cleanup at Hanford, who do you suppose is in charge of Yucca Mountain? Regardless, the DOE is doing a bang up job. The DOE is projecting this as a hot spot for more than a million years. Come on, it sounds like a bad comedy.

You do realize military grade plutonium is of a much higher purity?
You also realize that a sustance with a longer high-life is less dangerous than a substance with a short half-life?

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: ntdz
Anyone against nuclear power is either an idiot or a hypocrite.

No no, you are a pig. I got here first with the absolutes.

So you want to curb global warming but refuse to use the only chance at that we have, nuclear power? That's a hypocite.

Only chance? Haha! Look at the facts. Nuclear waste was supposed to be safely stored. It has not been. Nobody will address the cost, the political reality that nobody wants it in their own back yard, and you the hypocrit AND FOOL, want to make more of it. The very definition of a fool is somebody who thinks that doing more of the same will have different results. You are a pig, and worse because you will not see who you are.

There are many ways to go, none of them so sexy or supported by such powerful special interests. One massive area is in the promotion of energy efficiency. Government sponsored wind and solar to the tune that nuclear is subsidized, could revolutionize the cost. The problem with solar, my friend, is that it is a one time sale. After that you have no electric bill, nobody who has an automatic tap into your wallet every month. America is the land of freedom where you're free to be an economic slave.

Quite frankly, I don't think it's a big deal if a little radiation leaks out in the Nevada desert, and it's very minimal. Wow, so I'm a fool for being for nuclear energy. How much greenhouse gases would we cut if we upped the % of power we get from Nuclear power to 50%, and get rid of the CO2 machines otherwise known as coal plants? Oh, and if you're gonna call people names, learn how to spell what you're calling them first (hypocrite), it makes you look like a "fool."

 

[k1pp3r]

Originally posted by: ericlp

The suns gravity is so great ... It would be like throwing a toothpick at it. There is no way the stuff would escape the suns gravity. And yes it would burn up in the suns atmosphere and never make it to the ground.

Ground? The sun is a giant ball of gas it would either consume or the matter would be spit back into space.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: SexyK

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: ntdz
Anyone against nuclear power is either an idiot or a hypocrite.

No no, you are a pig. I got here first with the absolutes.

So you want to curb global warming but refuse to use the only chance at that we have, nuclear power? That's a hypocite.

Only chance? Haha! Look at the facts. Nuclear waste was supposed to be safely stored. It has not been. Nobody will address the cost, the political reality that nobody wants it in their own back yard, and you the hypocrit AND FOOL, want to make more of it. The very definition of a fool is somebody who thinks that doing more of the same will have different results. You are a pig, and worse because you will not see who you are.

There are many ways to go, none of them so sexy or supported by such powerful special interests. One massive area is in the promotion of energy efficiency. Government sponsored wind and solar to the tune that nuclear is subsidized, could revolutionize the cost. The problem with solar, my friend, is that it is a one time sale. After that you have no electric bill, nobody who has an automatic tap into your wallet every month. America is the land of freedom where you're free to be an economic slave.

The only reason we don't have a safe, reliable way to store nuclear waste is because people like you are spreading unfounded fear and misinformation. I do agree with you that people should consider ways to be more energy efficient, but the reality is the world needs energy and nuclear is among the cleanest, most reliable ways to produce it. Please do us all a favor and try to actually learn something about the issues rather than just spreading misinformation and calling people pigs, you're just making yourself and your cause look foolish.

Ah great. My unfounded fears and misinformation will stop nuclear power. You can't know how happy that makes me. The poor piggies will always be pigs because of me.

 

[SexyK]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: SexyK

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: ntdz
Anyone against nuclear power is either an idiot or a hypocrite.

No no, you are a pig. I got here first with the absolutes.

So you want to curb global warming but refuse to use the only chance at that we have, nuclear power? That's a hypocite.

Only chance? Haha! Look at the facts. Nuclear waste was supposed to be safely stored. It has not been. Nobody will address the cost, the political reality that nobody wants it in their own back yard, and you the hypocrit AND FOOL, want to make more of it. The very definition of a fool is somebody who thinks that doing more of the same will have different results. You are a pig, and worse because you will not see who you are.

There are many ways to go, none of them so sexy or supported by such powerful special interests. One massive area is in the promotion of energy efficiency. Government sponsored wind and solar to the tune that nuclear is subsidized, could revolutionize the cost. The problem with solar, my friend, is that it is a one time sale. After that you have no electric bill, nobody who has an automatic tap into your wallet every month. America is the land of freedom where you're free to be an economic slave.

The only reason we don't have a safe, reliable way to store nuclear waste is because people like you are spreading unfounded fear and misinformation. I do agree with you that people should consider ways to be more energy efficient, but the reality is the world needs energy and nuclear is among the cleanest, most reliable ways to produce it. Please do us all a favor and try to actually learn something about the issues rather than just spreading misinformation and calling people pigs, you're just making yourself and your cause look foolish.

Ah great. My unfounded fears and misinformation will stop nuclear power. You can't know how happy that makes me. The poor piggies will always be pigs because of me.

No, I said that your unfounded fears and misinformation are preventing the deployment of a safe, reliable way to store nuclear waste. 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. 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.

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.

 

[k1pp3r]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: SexyK

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: ntdz
Anyone against nuclear power is either an idiot or a hypocrite.

No no, you are a pig. I got here first with the absolutes.

So you want to curb global warming but refuse to use the only chance at that we have, nuclear power? That's a hypocite.

Only chance? Haha! Look at the facts. Nuclear waste was supposed to be safely stored. It has not been. Nobody will address the cost, the political reality that nobody wants it in their own back yard, and you the hypocrit AND FOOL, want to make more of it. The very definition of a fool is somebody who thinks that doing more of the same will have different results. You are a pig, and worse because you will not see who you are.

There are many ways to go, none of them so sexy or supported by such powerful special interests. One massive area is in the promotion of energy efficiency. Government sponsored wind and solar to the tune that nuclear is subsidized, could revolutionize the cost. The problem with solar, my friend, is that it is a one time sale. After that you have no electric bill, nobody who has an automatic tap into your wallet every month. America is the land of freedom where you're free to be an economic slave.

The only reason we don't have a safe, reliable way to store nuclear waste is because people like you are spreading unfounded fear and misinformation. I do agree with you that people should consider ways to be more energy efficient, but the reality is the world needs energy and nuclear is among the cleanest, most reliable ways to produce it. Please do us all a favor and try to actually learn something about the issues rather than just spreading misinformation and calling people pigs, you're just making yourself and your cause look foolish.

Ah great. My unfounded fears and misinformation will stop nuclear power. You can't know how happy that makes me. The poor piggies will always be pigs because of me.

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.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: ntdz
Anyone against nuclear power is either an idiot or a hypocrite.

No no, you are a pig. I got here first with the absolutes.

So you want to curb global warming but refuse to use the only chance at that we have, nuclear power? That's a hypocite.

Only chance? Haha! Look at the facts. Nuclear waste was supposed to be safely stored. It has not been. Nobody will address the cost, the political reality that nobody wants it in their own back yard, and you the hypocrit AND FOOL, want to make more of it. The very definition of a fool is somebody who thinks that doing more of the same will have different results. You are a pig, and worse because you will not see who you are.

There are many ways to go, none of them so sexy or supported by such powerful special interests. One massive area is in the promotion of energy efficiency. Government sponsored wind and solar to the tune that nuclear is subsidized, could revolutionize the cost. The problem with solar, my friend, is that it is a one time sale. After that you have no electric bill, nobody who has an automatic tap into your wallet every month. America is the land of freedom where you're free to be an economic slave.

Quite frankly, I don't think it's a big deal if a little radiation leaks out in the Nevada desert, and it's very minimal. Wow, so I'm a fool for being for nuclear energy. How much greenhouse gases would we cut if we upped the % of power we get from Nuclear power to 50%, and get rid of the CO2 machines otherwise known as coal plants? Oh, and if you're gonna call people names, learn how to spell what you're calling them first (hypocrite), it makes you look like a "fool."

Actually it would be a fool who calls somebody a fool over a misspelled word. And of course we are not talking about the Nevada desert the the nuclear waste that's stored out in the open at reactor sites, etc, all over the world. My point is really really simple, even for somebody like you. We haven't cleaned up our nuclear waste and that proves we never will. We will do in the future exactly as we have in the past because we have demonstrated that we are pigs. We will know that nuclear is safe for the future what the mess we have now is cleaned up. Wait the thousands of years that will take and proceed. Or wake the f up.

 

[SexyK]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: ntdz
Anyone against nuclear power is either an idiot or a hypocrite.

No no, you are a pig. I got here first with the absolutes.

So you want to curb global warming but refuse to use the only chance at that we have, nuclear power? That's a hypocite.

Only chance? Haha! Look at the facts. Nuclear waste was supposed to be safely stored. It has not been. Nobody will address the cost, the political reality that nobody wants it in their own back yard, and you the hypocrit AND FOOL, want to make more of it. The very definition of a fool is somebody who thinks that doing more of the same will have different results. You are a pig, and worse because you will not see who you are.

There are many ways to go, none of them so sexy or supported by such powerful special interests. One massive area is in the promotion of energy efficiency. Government sponsored wind and solar to the tune that nuclear is subsidized, could revolutionize the cost. The problem with solar, my friend, is that it is a one time sale. After that you have no electric bill, nobody who has an automatic tap into your wallet every month. America is the land of freedom where you're free to be an economic slave.

Quite frankly, I don't think it's a big deal if a little radiation leaks out in the Nevada desert, and it's very minimal. Wow, so I'm a fool for being for nuclear energy. How much greenhouse gases would we cut if we upped the % of power we get from Nuclear power to 50%, and get rid of the CO2 machines otherwise known as coal plants? Oh, and if you're gonna call people names, learn how to spell what you're calling them first (hypocrite), it makes you look like a "fool."

Actually it would be a fool who calls somebody a fool over a misspelled word. And of course we are not talking about the Nevada desert the the nuclear waste that's stored out in the open at reactor sites, etc, all over the world. My point is really really simple, even for somebody like you. We haven't cleaned up our nuclear waste and that proves we never will. We will do in the future exactly as we have in the past because we have demonstrated that we are pigs. We will know that nuclear is safe for the future what the mess we have now is cleaned up. Wait the thousands of years that will take and proceed. Or wake the f up.

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? 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.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Shivetya

Originally posted by: Kwaipie
We don't have enough control over the waste product of such technology. I think it is ignorant and selfish of present day civilization making environmental decisions for the next 1000 generations. Waste cannot be safely transported and in this world of lowest bid contracts, I'll cast my "no" vote. thanks for asking though.

so is it more ignorant to be using sources of power more damaging than this type of nuclear reactor instead?

How damaging is turbines via wind or water? Just curious...

171,000 people died from the last major dam failure.

Wind is too expensive.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: Scribe
What are your thoughts? After seeing China's progress with Pebble Bed reactors, I don't see why we don't invest gazillions of dollars into the technology, since its returns are so great for the price.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble_bed_reactor

I?m conflicted on this. It has great benefits, but another Chernobyl is beyond unacceptable and there is always that risk.

Read up on why chernobyl happened, and compare it to 3 mile island, a similar facility that wasnt built and run by retards.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: ebaycj

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: Scribe
What are your thoughts? After seeing China's progress with Pebble Bed reactors, I don't see why we don't invest gazillions of dollars into the technology, since its returns are so great for the price.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble_bed_reactor

I?m conflicted on this. It has great benefits, but another Chernobyl is beyond unacceptable and there is always that risk.

Pebble bed reactors don't melt down like Chernobyl did.

No post 1960s reactor will.

They all have negative heat delta reactions.

If the system overheats, the reaction stops.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: Tango

Originally posted by: alien42

Originally posted by: Kwaipie
We don't have enough control over the waste product of such technology. I think it is ignorant and selfish of present day civilization making environmental decisions for the next 1000 generations. Waste cannot be safely transported and in this world of lowest bid contracts, I'll cast my "no" vote. thanks for asking though.

nuclear energy is by far the most clean, reliable and environmentally friendly source of energy as of now.

Incorrect. Wind, Solar and Hydro are obviously cleaner. Nothing is cleaner than zero emissions.

Expensive, unreliable, and unrealsitic.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
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.

Please Sheeplerot, save the planet. Off yourself.

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: BoberFett


Please Sheeplerot, save the planet. Off yourself.

Sorry, I don't take others words at face value and follow along, thats your deal.

 

[Acanthus]

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.

Because nuclear power costs 2.1 cents a kw/h to produce?

Edit: fixed post

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: ntdz
Anyone against nuclear power is either an idiot or a hypocrite.

No no, you are a pig. I got here first with the absolutes.

So you want to curb global warming but refuse to use the only chance at that we have, nuclear power? That's a hypocite.

Only chance? Haha! Look at the facts. Nuclear waste was supposed to be safely stored. It has not been. Nobody will address the cost, the political reality that nobody wants it in their own back yard, and you the hypocrit AND FOOL, want to make more of it. The very definition of a fool is somebody who thinks that doing more of the same will have different results. You are a pig, and worse because you will not see who you are.

There are many ways to go, none of them so sexy or supported by such powerful special interests. One massive area is in the promotion of energy efficiency. Government sponsored wind and solar to the tune that nuclear is subsidized, could revolutionize the cost. The problem with solar, my friend, is that it is a one time sale. After that you have no electric bill, nobody who has an automatic tap into your wallet every month. America is the land of freedom where you're free to be an economic slave.

Quite frankly, I don't think it's a big deal if a little radiation leaks out in the Nevada desert, and it's very minimal. Wow, so I'm a fool for being for nuclear energy. How much greenhouse gases would we cut if we upped the % of power we get from Nuclear power to 50%, and get rid of the CO2 machines otherwise known as coal plants? Oh, and if you're gonna call people names, learn how to spell what you're calling them first (hypocrite), it makes you look like a "fool."

Actually it would be a fool who calls somebody a fool over a misspelled word. And of course we are not talking about the Nevada desert the the nuclear waste that's stored out in the open at reactor sites, etc, all over the world. My point is really really simple, even for somebody like you. We haven't cleaned up our nuclear waste and that proves we never will. We will do in the future exactly as we have in the past because we have demonstrated that we are pigs. We will know that nuclear is safe for the future what the mess we have now is cleaned up. Wait the thousands of years that will take and proceed. Or wake the f up.

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.

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Because nuclear power costs 2.1 cents a kw/h to produce?

Edit: fixed post

I am fine with paying more if it is being invested into renewable energy infrastructure, not used to blight the land with potential bombs.

And people need to get their paws off of Yucca mountain, it is native american land, not a dumpsite for a outdated optional energy source.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Because nuclear power costs 2.1 cents a kw/h to produce?

Edit: fixed post

I am fine with paying more if it is being invested into renewable energy infrastructure, not used to blight the land with potential bombs.

And people need to get their paws off of Yucca mountain, it is native american land, not a dumpsite for a outdated optional energy source.

It is in no way optional, its fossil fuels or nuclear.

Nuclear is clearly the better path.

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: Acanthus

It is in no way optional, its fossil fuels or nuclear.

Nuclear is clearly the better path.

Both need to go, we have better options, which is why all the BS coming from the big corps as renewable energy in most cases is a build infrastructure and forget deal thus not anywhere near as profitable.

 

[Acanthus]

What do you declare can produce the same amount of power nuclear power can?

Especially when americas energy demand is expected to rise 50% by 2030?

Nuclear fuel rods can generate 3.5 million times as much energy as the same amount of "clean coal".

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: Acanthus
What do you declare can produce the same amount of power nuclear power can?

Especially when americas energy demand is expected to rise 50% by 2030?

Nuclear fuel rods can generate 3.5 million times as much energy as the same amount of "clean coal".

Wind, solar, tidal, plenty of acreage in the deserts for solar and coastline for tidal harnesses, we should be setting up infrastructure now and preparing to shut down all nuke plants like Germany, not falling behind and making new plants.

No need for Americans to be so wasteful either, time to crack down on consumption if we are to have a shot at a sustainable future.

Improved urban planning and development of new and existing housing/industry is a big step along with phasing out suburban sprawl and other wasteful American habits that will not last.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: Acanthus
What do you declare can produce the same amount of power nuclear power can?

Especially when americas energy demand is expected to rise 50% by 2030?

Nuclear fuel rods can generate 3.5 million times as much energy as the same amount of "clean coal".

Wind, solar, tidal, plenty of acreage in the deserts for solar and coastline for tidal harnesses, we should be setting up infrastructure now and preparing to shut down all nuke plants like Germany, not falling behind and making new plants.

No need for Americans to be so wasteful either, time to crack down on consumption if we are to have a shot at a sustainable future.

Improved urban planning and development of new and existing housing/industry is a big step along with phasing out suburban sprawl and other wasteful American habits that will not last.

Solar plants dont operate at night... They are used as supplemental energy during peak times during the day.

This would also drive consumer costs above 40c kw/h... Generation of solar power is inherantly very expensive.

Much like fusion power, tidal power is unproven technology. Wind is also expensive and simply cant crank out enough energy to meet american demand.

Even with our 103 nuclear facilities we have now, it produces over 1/4 of our energy in the US.

 

[k1pp3r]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Because nuclear power costs 2.1 cents a kw/h to produce?

Edit: fixed post

I am fine with paying more if it is being invested into renewable energy infrastructure, not used to blight the land with potential bombs.

And people need to get their paws off of Yucca mountain, it is native american land, not a dumpsite for a outdated optional energy source.

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

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: k1pp3r


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,

Famous last words.

 

[Aegeon]

Originally posted by: Acanthus
Much like fusion power, tidal power is unproven technology. Wind is also expensive and simply cant crank out enough energy to meet american demand.

Another major issue with wind is that you can run into situations where you suddenly don't have wind in an area, which can be the same time you're looking at it being cloudy or dark in the area as well, which put real limits on how much of your energy supplies can effectively rely upon wind and solar.