OT: Nuclear Energy

Page 4 of 7  
stu wrote:

Probably. It's been a long time since I had to compute the cosine of anything.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
nuclear was sold in the begining as being so cheap no meter would be used.
the troubles are accidents ands spent fuel wastes.
they spent gazillions building yucca mountain to hold spent fuel only to find its seismically active, volcanoe in area, similiar to mt st helens. currently tremors are occuring in nevada area.
the spent fuel is highly dangerous for millions of years
another risk is every current reactor and some closed ones have spent fuel cooling pools.........
they arent hardened, contain much more waste than chernobly, and make excellent terrorist targets. most just standard steel buildings. cooling water must be maintained at all times, if the water gets too hot evaporates, the cores tightly paced would get hot enough to burn, building would likely explode and a big part of america becomes uninhabitible for a thousand years minimum
heres some info on chernobly today, amazing story and photos
http://www.angelfire.com/extreme4/kiddofspeed/chapter2.html
if bush recomends anything it should be approached like a loaded bomb, he has the kiss of failure on nearly everytthing he has tried to do as president
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@aol.com wrote:
Snip a load or rubbish... :(
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

So, who is the obstructionist now?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

I have no idea.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
we shouldnt build more plants till a safe effective and affordable system is in place and operational for nuclear waste.
greed to sell more plants will give things a kick in the butt
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@aol.com wrote:

It is in place, it's just in places like France, South Korea, ...
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Well, there's that, too! LOL
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@dog.com wrote in wrote:

Ted Kennedy; he blocked construction of a windfarm many miles offshore of his Hyannisport Kennedy compound. AFTER positioning himself as a environmentalist/greenie.
how is it "obstructionist" to note the negatives of a posed "solution"?
winds do not blow all the time,either.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Well one reason is the resulting energy is more expensive than other sources and that does not include the cost of decommissioning the radioactive plant when it reaches the end of it's life. So far we have let to decommission a single plant. A few have been shut down, but it appears it is cheaper to keep staff and maintenance up on them than to do a decommissioning.
In other words, it cost too much.
--
Joseph Meehan

Dia \'s Muire duit
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

well there was one plant decommisioned, near beaver pa, it was the first demo plant, very small. little remains at the site, the reactor vessel was cut up and hauled away to a ultra safe nuclear graveyard in nevada somewhere.
nuclear proponents keep saying waste problem will be solved but never have, so far.
and the reactors that eat fuel rent they breeder reactors? with a by product of weapons grade pluntonium?
i believe that why the us decided not to use that technology
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
well there was one plant decommisioned, near beaver pa, it was the first demo plant, very small. little remains at the site, the reactor vessel was cut up and hauled away to a ultra safe nuclear graveyard in nevada somewhere.
nuclear proponents keep saying waste problem will be solved but never have, so far.
and the reactors that eat fuel rent they breeder reactors? with a by product of weapons grade pluntonium?
i believe that why the us decided not to use that technology ----------------------------------------------------------------------
Europeans are dealing with it...many other countries too. How come they aren't shaking in there boots? I just feel we aren't trying hard enough...to make it more safe.
It reminds me a bit of medicine in this country. We think we have the greatest medical system in the world. On the other hand we have one of the highest infant mortality rates in the world. Americans don't live as long. Oh, but we are the greatest! We have the latest and greatest medical technology...only available to those with lots of money or incredible insurance. Sorry guys...
it's just...well instead of why we shouldn't, we need some gifted scientists who can make it nuclear happen.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
bonnie wrote:

Our infant mortality rate is on a par with other industrialized nations - even better - if you compare apples and apples. In socialized medicine countries, France, UK, Canada, for example, NO effort is made to survive extremely premature infants. Their death is counted as "still born," not infant morality. In the U.S., herculean measures are applied and, regrettably, sometimes fail. These failures are counted as part of the infant mortality statistic.
But care is free in those countries. For example, abortion costs nothing in a Canadian facility. There is, however, an eleven-month waiting list...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The other side of that is societal. Low birth weight babies (and accompanying higher rates of infant mortality) are more prevalent in off spring of teenage pregnancies. Guess which country has the highest rate of teen pregnancies in the developed world? Don't know how you can put the entire burden for high infant mortality on the health care system when so much of the teen pregnancy issue is really driven by society. (BTW: US teen birth rate is 52.1 births to women under 20 per 1000 15-19 year olds. Next highest is UK at 30.8 and about twice the EU average rate.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 4/29/2008 7:56 PM HeyBub spake thus:

I'm going to have to ask you for a cite for that ridiculous assertion.
--
The best argument against democracy is a five-minute
conversation with the average voter.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
David Nebenzahl wrote:

"[MANITOBA] Lewis says there's currently a four-week waiting list for abortions at the Health Sciences Centre. It's often too long a wait to proceed."
http://www.cbc.ca/news/story/2000/06/12/mb-abortions.html
That was eight years ago. What with inflation and all...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 4/30/2008 5:57 AM HeyBub spake thus:

Well, I was just impressed by how far your claim dropped, from *eleven months* to four weeks. Do I hear two weeks?
Plus, I don't think this is something that can be attributed to the mythical weaknesses of the Canandian single-payer system, as you were obviously trying to do, but rather should be laid at the doorstep of the usual anti-abortion nutcases (who have caused the same results here in the U.S., where more than half the country has no abortion provider at all).
--
The best argument against democracy is a five-minute
conversation with the average voter.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
thanks for the stimulating conversation guys.
b
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@aol.com wrote: ...

Well, that's simply not so. The French, South Koreans, etc., etc., have been reprocessiong fuel for 30 years or so. It is only that Carter mandated no reprocessing owing to a failure to understand commercial fuel reprocessing and nuclear proliferation were (and still are) unrelated issues. Hence we still have an open fuel cycle and no effective nuclear proliferation controls over "rogue" states, either.

The reason the "US" decided against the breeder was Carter's failed nuclear proliferation policy wherein he killed the CRBRP (Clinch River Breeder Reactor Project) in a misguided attempt to demonstrate that the US was "for non-proliferation". It had nothing to do w/ weapons and did nothing to halt proliferation.
While a breeder generates Pu, so does a conventional fission reactor; just different amounts. A "breeder" is that because it actually generates more fissionable material than it consumes.
The Pu is no more "weapons grade" than a spent fuel assembly from another nonbreeder reactor--it is only the process of reprocessing and refining that does that.
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

SoCal nuke due to complete decommissioning this year http://www.sce.com/PowerandEnvironment/PowerGeneration/SanOnofreNuclearGeneratingStation/Decommissioning.htm
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Site Timeline

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.