Ace Boobtoucher
Founder and Captain of the Douchepatrol
We keep trying but he keeps spouting Neocon this and Neocon that. It's enough to make me...........................
The ignorant, liberal environmentalists must be hating Obama now!
- Thread starter Member2019
- Start date
-
- Tags
- nuclear shilling 4 nukes
We keep trying but he keeps spouting Neocon this and Neocon that. It's enough to make me...........................
Here's another way to blow off steam, just print out this dart board, throw whatever you want at it or just bang your noggin on this fiscal hypocrite and war criminal:
http://th08.deviantart.net/fs29/300W/i/2008/164/3/9/Target_Poster__Bush_by_Panzerfire.jpg
http://th08.deviantart.net/fs29/300W/i/2008/164/3/9/Target_Poster__Bush_by_Panzerfire.jpg
Ace Boobtoucher
Founder and Captain of the Douchepatrol
Aside from the war criminal hyperbole that was actually kind of funny.
Jagger69
Three lullabies in an ancient tongue
What BI said and I agree! I'm one of them thar (social) liberals and I have no problem with modern nuclear energy. This shouldn't be a partisan issue at all but, unfortunately, like most things, it somehow is. I guess we just need to make every issue a right or left thing, huh?
Obviously you haven't seen a good wing of Greenpeace that has made it an issue, let alone a good percentage of the DNC. Obama purposely downplayed it during the election because he knew it would hurt him with that significant percentage.
BTW, understand I'm referring to the ignorant portion of liberals. If you are a liberal that understand why all real leaders are pro-Nuke, then you're not ignorant.
Of course, there are exceptions.
Speak for yourself! Not only does Obama not mind, he grew up in the greatest concentration of them in the US -- Chicago!
Unlike fossil fuel plants, you don't get particles in the air and what not. I would much rather be near a nuclear power plant than fossil fuel, especially coal as they exist today -- even the cleanest of designs with scrubbers.
Wow! What a totally sterotypical argument. And you consider yourself a "liberal"? That's what always gets me. People like you complain about the ignorant mid-westerners and the south who allegedly stereotype others, yet you're doing it yourself! Have you been to Atlanta? Savanah? Athens? Elsewhere in Georgia?
Actually, it does!
First off, 99% of nuclear waste in the US was produced from weapons production. I cannot repeat this enough times. Ignorant liberals like yourself don't recognize that coal outputs more radioactive waste than nuclear in fine particles in coal that are nearly possible to completely remove prior to ignition (the solution is to scrub and capture after ignition, which is the future). Nuclear waste from nuclear power plants is small. Over 50 years and it's still minor compared to weapons production over just 25 years.
Secondly, the newer, smaller (45-500MW), modular units are 60 year, self-containing, self-sealing waste containers. When they are used up, they are re-transported to the end staging area (e.g., Yucca Mountain, should the fucker ever be opened). Nuclear waste isn't a problem if it's properly planned for. Which brings me to ...
Lastly, the more ignorant liberals fucks that cause lawsuits and other things that ignore the fact that we already have aging nuclear power plants that need to be replaced, the worse it gets. It's the same, stupid California non-sense which blocked new power plant creation, while people like yourself still consume! Existing nuclear, like fossil fuel plants, need to be upgraded and replaced -- to meet growing supply while reducing environmental footprint.
For all that continue to argue solar power -- here's a "1st grade energy experiment":
- Energy source #1: Wait for the hottest day of the year, go outside, hold your hand up to the sun
- Energy source #2: Take a lighter, hold your hand at the tip of the flame
Which transfers energy faster? Now you know why solar isn't viable for mass power generation. I know stupid engineers like myself make such arguments and we are just stupid, but we still understand basic concepts better.
Nuclear fission continues to be the most efficient power source we know of, along with hydroelectric. But unlike hydroelectric, which destroys biological ecosystems in damning, nuclear fission does not. If you are a liberal and recognize this, you're not ignorant. I'll call ignorant conservatives out on their faults just as quickly too.
Actually, there is a new engineering proposal for coal power plants that uses carbon capture to feed algae farms, which then create not only oxygen but produce a JP-1 (jet fuel kerosene) replacement for $3/gallon (with as low as $1/gallon projected).
In such case, coal power plants could be a net neutral impact solution, at least for the US. Unfortunately for the EU, this is far less of an option with their dwindling reserves of coal.
Prof---It's nice that you come here, from time to time, and try to show off how great of a scientific mind you have. I usually wonder why and come to the conclusion that whenever you carpet bomb the site with your science, you must've spent too many work days typing up memos which nobody reads? All that pent up frustration...gotta come out sometime and someplace...
Nuke energy is not environmentally sound and is questionably safe. Nuke power plant construction plans get defeated all the time all over the nation. Nobody wants them in their backyards. Except Georgia. :dunno: When everyone's water supply in Georgia starts to glow green, I guess Georgians will "find their environmental Jesus" :bowdown:
If states around the nation embrace these little reactors...at best Nuke power would be a stopgap tech. At worst it is just another dangerous fuel source for which we, as a nation, and certainly all the poor state gov'ts around the nation, will try to build and operate "on the cheap". :hatsoff:
I will then design a water filter which masks glowing green water....
Nuke energy is not environmentally sound and is questionably safe. Nuke power plant construction plans get defeated all the time all over the nation. Nobody wants them in their backyards. Except Georgia. :dunno: When everyone's water supply in Georgia starts to glow green, I guess Georgians will "find their environmental Jesus" :bowdown:
If states around the nation embrace these little reactors...at best Nuke power would be a stopgap tech. At worst it is just another dangerous fuel source for which we, as a nation, and certainly all the poor state gov'ts around the nation, will try to build and operate "on the cheap". :hatsoff:
I will then design a water filter which masks glowing green water....
Thank you for proving you don't know jack ...
Such people are absolutely rabid and illogical. They always have been. They always will be. They protest RTG usage by NASA as well. Understand I've been shaking my head at such fools since high school. It drives why I became an engineer as well -- to actually understand what the fuck energy is, and to provide actual solutions for consumers like yourself who ... well ... consume (but don't provide).
So, in the context of my post, what do you now think of Obama? Frankly, Obama is turning out to be a much, much better President on several items than I assumed he would, and I'm glad. Then again, W. impressed me on several items as well.
Understand these energy policies are not "made in the dark." So ... is Obama "just another puppet?" Or is Obama actually just another leader who has been re-enforced by the reality of what economists and scientists are telling him?
I sincerely await your rebuttal there.
BTW, you should research why Tennessee has some of the worst environmental issues. Hint: It has nothing to do with nuclear power. Nuclear weapons production is the worst thing a nation can do to itself long-term.
There is no "safe energy" that is "high yield." Honestly, visit your old high school physics teacher or talk to another engineer than myself (an actual, degreed engineer -- not a tech).
Or maybe I'm just another screaming electrical engineer that wants people like yourself to actually pull your head out of the sand with your assumptions, and actually recognize basic, scientific and economic realities.
Hey, analyze me all you want. It still doesn't make what I say "wrong."
I hope you recognize these two statements go hand-in-hand -- the assumption and the result of that assumption by select people.
Some people don't want them in their backyards. Those are the same people who are behind the first two statements. They are not everybody, and often a minority of special interests.
Such people are absolutely rabid and illogical. They always have been. They always will be. They protest RTG usage by NASA as well. Understand I've been shaking my head at such fools since high school. It drives why I became an engineer as well -- to actually understand what the fuck energy is, and to provide actual solutions for consumers like yourself who ... well ... consume (but don't provide).
So, in the context of my post, what do you now think of Obama? Frankly, Obama is turning out to be a much, much better President on several items than I assumed he would, and I'm glad. Then again, W. impressed me on several items as well.
Understand these energy policies are not "made in the dark." So ... is Obama "just another puppet?" Or is Obama actually just another leader who has been re-enforced by the reality of what economists and scientists are telling him?
I sincerely await your rebuttal there.
I rest my case. Illinois has a great concentration of them. It's obvious that you don't know jack.
BTW, you should research why Tennessee has some of the worst environmental issues. Hint: It has nothing to do with nuclear power. Nuclear weapons production is the worst thing a nation can do to itself long-term.
Obviously you failed science, or didn't absorb the material. You have absolutely no comprehension that any high yield energy source is dangerous!
There is no "safe energy" that is "high yield." Honestly, visit your old high school physics teacher or talk to another engineer than myself (an actual, degreed engineer -- not a tech).
I thought it was pretty common knowledge that the vast majority of people in the “green” or “environmentally friendly” movement have become much more open to nuclear power over the last decade or so because it is very clean energy and carbon neutral.
Jagger69
Three lullabies in an ancient tongue
Obviously you haven't seen a good wing of Greenpeace that has made it an issue, let alone a good percentage of the DNC. Obama purposely downplayed it during the election because he knew it would hurt him with that significant percentage.
BTW, understand I'm referring to the ignorant portion of liberals. If you are a liberal that understand why all real leaders are pro-Nuke, then you're not ignorant.
Of course, there are exceptions.
In this debate from the campaign, Obama is the ONLY candidate who speaks on the issue that does not dismiss nuclear as a possible energy option.
Obama's take on nuclear is at approximately the 1:15 mark:
I clearly recall those remarks, hence, I am not suddenly taken aback by this development.
^^ Oh, perhaps the President deserves an apology from the thread starter.
I am a natural gas fan, plenty of it and very little pollution, why are we passing on this? Clean coal and Nuclear have too many issues and costs.
No one is "passing" on natural gas. Furthermore, natural gas still produces greenhouse gases. Lastly, have you checked the cost lately?
In the US, there are some reserves, but not enough to continually provide what we need. Compared to coal, it's far more costly.
In the EU, they have the reserves for neither. The two continuing, biggest strategic energy issues in the EU are the amount of natural gas imports from the east, especially Russia, as well as its 80% reliance on oil from the Middle East (twice as much as the US -- both percentage and aggregate).
I never said he didn't talk about it, I said he downplayed it in front of the ignorant liberals. But if asked, he admitted he was for it, and why. It's now those same, ignorant liberals that say they are now disenfranchised by Obama, as if Obama changed.
That's what I was talking about.
Re: Thank you for proving you don't know jack ...
You know, your condescending and arrogant tone and your insults wear a bit thin after a while.:dunno:
In any event, you're not the only engineer to have an opinion on these matters.
Consider this guy:
David Lochbaum
I graduated in June 1979 from the University of Tennessee with a degree in nuclear engineering. The meltdown at Three Mile Island had occurred less than three months earlier. For the next seventeen years, I worked at nuclear power plants in Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Kansas, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, New York, and Connecticut. This prompted me to join the Union of Concerned Scientists, where, as their nuclear safety engineer, I monitor safety performance of all US nuclear power plants.
Much more here:
http://old.disinfo.com/archive/pages/article/id2165/pg1/index.html
To say the least, he's pretty skeptical of nuclear power, for many reasons. Watch him speak here:
http://video.google.com/videosearch...sult_group&ct=title&resnum=4&ved=0CBcQqwQwAw#
He's also testified before Congress as a relevant expert on nuclear safety issues.
Another thing that shouldn't be forgotten is the absolute Achilles Heel of the nuclear industry, which is the Price-Anderson Act. This is basically the taxpayer-backed insurance scheme to cover the plants in the event of a major accident. The industry wouldn't be able to afford insurance coverage if they had to get it in an actual open-market environment, so the government (translation: you and me) subsidizes it. Read more about that here:
http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q...RSoCwu&sig=AHIEtbSbdqEFrtlinZz9_2_JbwBHwSH6-Q
and here:
http://www.citizen.org/cmep/energy_...r_plants/cost/priceander/articles.cfm?ID=9995
Price-Anderson should make anyone - ESPECIALLY free-market libertarians - think twice before endorsing nuclear power.
Also, can we please drop the worship of nuclear as though it's some sort of NEW innovation? It isn't, it's OLD. It's an old technology for boiling water to turn a turbine to generate electricity. That's all it is...
:hatsoff:
You know, your condescending and arrogant tone and your insults wear a bit thin after a while.:dunno:
In any event, you're not the only engineer to have an opinion on these matters.
Consider this guy:
David Lochbaum
I graduated in June 1979 from the University of Tennessee with a degree in nuclear engineering. The meltdown at Three Mile Island had occurred less than three months earlier. For the next seventeen years, I worked at nuclear power plants in Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Kansas, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, New York, and Connecticut. This prompted me to join the Union of Concerned Scientists, where, as their nuclear safety engineer, I monitor safety performance of all US nuclear power plants.
Much more here:
http://old.disinfo.com/archive/pages/article/id2165/pg1/index.html
To say the least, he's pretty skeptical of nuclear power, for many reasons. Watch him speak here:
http://video.google.com/videosearch...sult_group&ct=title&resnum=4&ved=0CBcQqwQwAw#
He's also testified before Congress as a relevant expert on nuclear safety issues.
Another thing that shouldn't be forgotten is the absolute Achilles Heel of the nuclear industry, which is the Price-Anderson Act. This is basically the taxpayer-backed insurance scheme to cover the plants in the event of a major accident. The industry wouldn't be able to afford insurance coverage if they had to get it in an actual open-market environment, so the government (translation: you and me) subsidizes it. Read more about that here:
http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q...RSoCwu&sig=AHIEtbSbdqEFrtlinZz9_2_JbwBHwSH6-Q
and here:
http://www.citizen.org/cmep/energy_...r_plants/cost/priceander/articles.cfm?ID=9995
Price-Anderson should make anyone - ESPECIALLY free-market libertarians - think twice before endorsing nuclear power.
Also, can we please drop the worship of nuclear as though it's some sort of NEW innovation? It isn't, it's OLD. It's an old technology for boiling water to turn a turbine to generate electricity. That's all it is...
:hatsoff:
I think building nuke plants is a great idea that's long overdo, so kudos to BHO on that one. The problem is exactly as stated in this thread: many in his own party (and his administration) don't get it. Here's an interesting article highlighting this problem I read the other day:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/baracks_bipolar_nuclear_policy.html
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/baracks_bipolar_nuclear_policy.html
Oh yeah, forgot to mention - another thing that is frequently left unmentioned by the pro-nuke people is that the uranium doesn't just magically appear in the reactor core. There's an enormous amount of fossil fuel that must be spent in order to mine, mill, process and transport the uranium and get it into the reactor core in usable form.
While the plants themselves produce very little in the way of CO2, the fueling process certainly does....
While the plants themselves produce very little in the way of CO2, the fueling process certainly does....
That is the most pathetic argument I've ever heard!
Besides the fact that it doesn't take much to power a fission reactor, most of the uranium/plutonium production in the US has been geared towards weapons! Heck, many of the materials used in the past have been by products of weapons production -- "less refined" uranium. If you understood this you'd also understand why the whole world is pissed at Iran. Only people who don't have at least a high school level background in physics think otherwise.
Also, have you checked out how many radioactive materials are produced in this country just for commercial applications? Nuclear fission power plants are hardly the issue. And if the grid is "green" and the machines are "green," then don't you recognize then most of this "extraction cost" to the environment would also be green? And just where do you think solar panels come from? Compare how much "energy" we get from it per panel compared to how much per kilo fissioned, even after the thermo-generator process. Unless Einstein was wrong, this is reality.
Watch your step as you keep digging that hole deeper.
As far as "nuclear waste," do you understand what "nuclear waste" is? Most of it is no different than lead. It's a poison that should not be allowed to seep into water lines and should never be digested. But besides that, it's pretty uninteresting. This is physics 101, radioactivity. You can stand right next to nuclear waste and not get sick. Why? Because it's not remotely as radioactive as its original form. Physics 101 here.
People say Yucca Mountain is inadequate. Here's the deal, Yucca Mountain provides a holding area that can always be replaced by another facility in 50+ years. But right now, the make-shift containers we've had all over the US were never designed for such. We need to open Yucca Mountain. It has been bogged down by "states' rights" litigation. I thought Democrats didn't like the concept of "states' rights"?! Nevada took the money, and now they don't want it. So we all suffer.
Also, have you actually been to a radioactive dump site? You might be surprised you've driven by them, many times, coming within yards of the material! We could run our nuclear power plants for another 1,000 years and never equal the waste we've created from weapons production already! So that argument continues to be yet another bunch of non-sense. We already have a waste problem that will not remotely be impacted by addition fission plants.
Now with all that said ...
I don't deny the US has had its "issues" with nuclear plant design. After all, all nuclear power plants in the US were designed the '50s and '60s. Many are one-off designs as well. However, virtually all new equipment comes from France, where they didn't stop building them after the '70s. The French learned that you build a single design, and stick with it. They've learned.
Honestly, this is one area where I praise the French over the US or anyone else. They have shown how to build a better, nuclear industry. Nine (9) other nations are following the French lead, including the US and Japan. You have ten (10) western nations that are all shifting to the French model.
The problem in the US is that we have fission plants that were designed 50+ years ago, based on only 5-15 years of experience! Yes, they are fucked up! That's why we need to replace them as soon as possible! You will get 0 argument from me on this. But the concept of nuclear fission is not the problem, it's just old plants that should be replaced.
The US is still incapable of having a Chernobyl event, period. We already had the worst, Three Mile Island. With our current designs in use, we could always have another. Hence why we need to upgrade the designs!
Now answer this question once-all-for-all and STOP DODGING IT!
To meet the needs of consumers, just like yourself ... now ... what would you do?! What magical pixie dust do you have to offer that will provide the energy needed?!
Give one damn solution for once! Just one! Tell me how you'd renovate this country's grid! Stop bitching and offer solutions!
-- PV
P.S. I am well aware of FirstEnergy's issues. I would have shut them down long ago. FirstEnergy is a chronic fuck-up on many levels. First hand talking here. No argument.
damn 10 minute limit
Let's see here ... put the existing nuclear waste in a facility that others argue won't last more than 50-100 years? Or just leave it in all those makeshift containers all over the US that weren't designed to last even five?! Pretty fucked up logic, eh? I mean, at least in Yucca Mountain, we have another 50-100 years to figure out something better. Although many people will argue that it will last thousands of years because ... well ... there have been stable, natural, radioactive material concentrations near homes!
People think radioactivity is a "discrete" and "man made" concept. Buzz! Wrong! And people like you think radioactive by-products only come from power plants, or even weapons production. Buzz! Wrong! That's the problem. People don't understand the problem.
Our existing waste is the problem, because we produced virtually all of it with nuclear weapons and commercial usage production! The the commercial needs for radioactive materials aren't going away either, so we still need to contain those too. Instead of putting them in barrels and dumping them in areas that aren't ideal.
Wake up man! Nuclear fission waste is a major, red herring! It is so over-blown by gross ignorance. We already have a huge problem due to other uses!
Obama has spoken on nuclear power. I still think he's fucked up on Yucca Mountain, but hopefully he'll come around.
Let's see here ... put the existing nuclear waste in a facility that others argue won't last more than 50-100 years? Or just leave it in all those makeshift containers all over the US that weren't designed to last even five?! Pretty fucked up logic, eh? I mean, at least in Yucca Mountain, we have another 50-100 years to figure out something better. Although many people will argue that it will last thousands of years because ... well ... there have been stable, natural, radioactive material concentrations near homes!
People think radioactivity is a "discrete" and "man made" concept. Buzz! Wrong! And people like you think radioactive by-products only come from power plants, or even weapons production. Buzz! Wrong! That's the problem. People don't understand the problem.
Our existing waste is the problem, because we produced virtually all of it with nuclear weapons and commercial usage production! The the commercial needs for radioactive materials aren't going away either, so we still need to contain those too. Instead of putting them in barrels and dumping them in areas that aren't ideal.
Wake up man! Nuclear fission waste is a major, red herring! It is so over-blown by gross ignorance. We already have a huge problem due to other uses!
I hope that you are using a hand crank to generate power for your computer when you made this post instead of sapping up electricity you goddamn consumer!
Or are you Dr. Manhattan now?
