South Carolina vs. US Plutonium

[justint]

MSNBC

 

[Harvey]

If plutonium has a big enough team, South Carolina will lose the game. In fact, we all will.

 

[Valinos]

At least someone in this country has the balls to stand up for their state and against the Feds. And a democrat no less....

I think I see pigs flying...

 

[shiner]

Pretty stupid if you ask me. How else do they expect to get fuel for their nuclear reactor?

 

[Valinos]

Plutonium isn't fuel for nuclear reactors...plutonium is the byproduct of uranium which is used in nuclear reactors.

 

[Amused]

Plutonium isn't fuel for nuclear reactors...plutonium is the byproduct of uranium which is used in nuclear reactors.

I wish people would read the article before commenting...

The U.S. Energy Department plans to move about 6½ tons of plutonium from the Rocky Flats weapons installation in Colorado, which is being cleaned up and closed, to the Savannah River Site, where the material would be converted into nuclear reactor fuel over the next two decades.

Anywho, SC has a long history of shooting themselves in the foot financially. I see they're still at it.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Six and a half TONS?

Man thats da bomb!

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Valinos
Plutonium isn't fuel for nuclear reactors...plutonium is the byproduct of uranium which is used in nuclear reactors.

Plutonium is fissile material that can be used for both bombs and power generation. About 60 kilograms of highly-enriched uranium was used in the bomb released over Hiroshima. About of 8 kilograms of plutonium-239 was used in the bomb released over Nagasaki.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Valinos
Plutonium isn't fuel for nuclear reactors...plutonium is the byproduct of uranium which is used in nuclear reactors.

Actually it can be used in nuke power plants, it just happens to weapons grade as well. We could take the nuclear waste from nuke plants and process it in a breeder reacter and create usable plutonium from it and reuse it. But since plutonium can be used for weapons, it is frowned upon more than the nuke waste.

what a crazy world it is....

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Valinos Plutonium isn't fuel for nuclear reactors...plutonium is the byproduct of uranium which is used in nuclear reactors.

Actually it can be used in nuke power plants, it just happens to weapons grade as well. We could take the nuclear waste from nuke plants and process it in a breeder reacter and create usable plutonium from it and reuse it. But since plutonium can be used for weapons, it is frowned upon more than the nuke waste. what a crazy world it is....

I believe this is why the French got grief over selling fast-breeder technology some years ago, which some (North Korea for example) used to make nukes. Someone please correct me if I am remembering this incorrectly.

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

US Plutonium will win.

 

[UltraQuiet]

Savannah River is a feed plant isn't it?

 

[HermitGuy]

At least someone in this country has the balls to stand up for their state and against the Feds. And a democrat no less....

I personally don't care where they store the Plutonium as long as it can be done safely. I do however think it's ironic to see a democratic governor trying to fight the federal government, since it's been they ( the democrats ) who have spent the last fifty years destroying the balance of power between the federal and state governments to achieve their own goals. Well as they say what goes around comes around.

 

[Valinos]

Originally posted by: AmusedOne

Plutonium isn't fuel for nuclear reactors...plutonium is the byproduct of uranium which is used in nuclear reactors.

I wish people would read the article before commenting...

The U.S. Energy Department plans to move about 6½ tons of plutonium from the Rocky Flats weapons installation in Colorado, which is being cleaned up and closed, to the Savannah River Site, where the material would be converted into nuclear reactor fuel over the next two decades.

Anywho, SC has a long history of shooting themselves in the foot financially. I see they're still at it.

I did read the article, yesterday. It hasn't been fresh in the mind, so I made a mistake. I didn't know plutonium could be used to fuel nuclear reactors, but apparently it can...after being "converted into nuclear reactor fuel."

Please, fvck off.

 

[shiner]

Please, fvck off.

What a mature response. I can see you went to the Pee Wee Herman School of Retort.

 

[PsychoAndy]

Originally posted by: HermitGuy
At least someone in this country has the balls to stand up for their state and against the Feds. And a democrat no less....

I personally don't care where they store the Plutonium as long as it can be done safely. I do however think it's ironic to see a democratic governor trying to fight the federal government, since it's been they ( the democrats ) who have spent the last fifty years destroying the balance of power between the federal and state governments to achieve their own goals. Well as they say what goes around comes around.

I, personally, see that you live in Florida, like me. We're about, oh, I dunno, several hundred miles away. You're not the one living near a whole bunch of radioactive material. Most don't care until it's in their backyard. And I love how everything here turns into some talk about politics. It MUST be the democratic governors fault for destroying this balance of power between federal and state governments, isn't it?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

All politics are local. He represents his state, and feels this is bad. I tend to agree, so I applaud him for all the good it will do.

 

[Chaotic42]

This is good for the United States of America.

Go South Carolina!

 

[shiner]

New Orleans Saints 2002-2003 NFL Champions

Only if every other NFL team decides to call it quits and move to the CFL.

 

[glen]

Nuclear energy is better for the environment than burning fossil fuels, or building dams.
All sources of power pollute one way or another.
SC is storing tons of nuclear waste anyway, so we might as well get paid to store more of it.
We have the facilities to store it, and we are losing millions not storing it.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: glen
Nuclear energy is better for the environment than burning fossil fuels, or building dams. All sources of power pollute one way or another. SC is storing tons of nuclear waste anyway, so we might as well get paid to store more of it. We have the facilities to store it, and we are losing millions not storing it.

Glen, I have to disagree. Knowing something about this stuff I can say that NO ONE has the facilities to store 6 and a half tons of it long term. The half life of Pu-239 is something just over 24000 years. You can bet that once the Feds wash their hands of it and dump it in SC, it will probably be a few half-lives before it is carted out.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: glen
Nuclear energy is better for the environment than burning fossil fuels, or building dams.

Bullsh8!!! :disgust:

That might be true if it didn't glow for millenia after it was useful, but that happens to be the situation. With current technology, there is absolutely nothing that can be done to de-radiate nuclear waste. We can use, and discard, and use, and discard only so long. When you keep throwing stuff away, away continues to get bigger and bigger, until away is HERE, and here keeps getting smaller and smaller.

We really do have to develop renewable power sources and get away from nukes as fast as possible, if not sooner.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

You hit nail on the head, Harvey.

 

[UltraQuiet]

We really do have to develop renewable power sources and get away from nukes as fast as possible, if not sooner.

I don't understand what a renewable power source is.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: DaveSohmer

We really do have to develop renewable power sources and get away from nukes as fast as possible, if not sooner.

I don't understand what a renewable power source is.

Renewable means sources like solar, wind, biomass, etc.