Page 9 of 12
• posted on February 3, 2009, 2:02 am

When you have a 20,000 MW base load (like in my area), the solutions need a big hammer. Plants like the ones where 2 of my daughters work, are solving those kind of needs 3000MW at a crack. Nukes are big baseload machines, something that neither wind, or solar can offer. At least not in any way we can see. The geothermal thing, I'm not really familiar with, but at least that wouldn't be weather dependent.
It absolutely goes without saying that super-clean power such as solar and wind is preferred even over a nuke.
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on February 3, 2009, 2:16 am

When you have a 20,000 MW base load (like in my area), the solutions need a big hammer. Plants like the ones where 2 of my daughters work, are solving those kind of needs 3000MW at a crack. Nukes are big baseload machines, something that neither wind, or solar can offer. At least not in any way we can see. The geothermal thing, I'm not really familiar with, but at least that wouldn't be weather dependent.
It absolutely goes without saying that super-clean power such as solar and wind is preferred even over a nuke.
Now I'll agree with you.
All we have to do is get the solar converters up from about 16% to something more useful, the wind to be more consistent (the big vane generate in a 2 mph gale), the geothermal to be more cost-effective; and we will be able to let the coal lie (if we will stop turning coal into gas and tar),and the Arabs go dry.
Not a really big deal is it (he writ facetiously)? <g>
Let me know how you make out with your new wall.
P D Q
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on February 3, 2009, 4:21 am
Robatoy wrote:
... snip

I had Dr. Beckmann for my Intro to Probability course for my EE undergraduate degree. He was a very brilliant guy with a great sense of humor, but also a strong grasp of real world practicality.
--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on February 3, 2009, 1:18 pm

Did you understand anything he wrote on the hazards of not going nuclear?
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on February 3, 2009, 5:49 am
On Mon, 2 Feb 2009 16:00:43 -0800 (PST), Robatoy cast forth these pearls of wisdom...:

Now that is one of the stupidist statements I've seen you make. So sorry that those of us who live right next to nuclear plants are not as "informed" as you. Or maybe you're not as "informed" as you'd like everybody to believe.
--

-Mike-
snipped-for-privacy@alltel.net
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on February 3, 2009, 10:48 am
On Tue, 3 Feb 2009 00:49:31 -0500, Mike Marlow cast forth these pearls of wisdom...:

Here - I'll reply to my own comment before I even see if you do. That was not an appropriate reply to your statement.
--

-Mike-
snipped-for-privacy@alltel.net
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on February 3, 2009, 2:05 pm

No problem. This is a sensitive topic. As such, passions rise. Mine too. At least you didn't blame everything on Obama. <G>
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on February 3, 2009, 1:40 pm

That's right, Mike... you live close to a nuke and you know what you're talking about. Can you see Russia from your house too? Actually, in relative terms, I am quite well informed on the topic.
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on February 2, 2009, 6:27 pm

Compared to the cost and damage from our inability to deal with waste generated rom coal mining and burning, nuclear waste does not seem like such a terrible problem.
--
Better to be stuck up in a tree than tied to one.

Larry Wasserman - Baltimore Maryland - lwasserm(a)sdf. lonestar.org
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on February 2, 2009, 6:31 pm

Except that in a worst case scenario, nuclear waste has longer lasting and excessively serious health risks.
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on February 2, 2009, 7:12 pm

I certainly would not dispute that nuclear waste is dangerous and disposal is a real problem. However, by way of comparison, there is a single slurry impoundment it West Virginia that holds 9 BILLION gallons of sludge created from processing coal. Like most of those in the eastern coal mining states, it was created by damming up a valley between 2 hills where coal is being mined. This particular dam is close to an elementary school. It has been cited for engineering and design problems but no action taken.
In 1972 a similar dam failed and killed 125 people, as well as causing millions ( billions?) in property damage. In 2000 another coal waste dam failure released over 300 million gallons. Just recently, the fly ash spill in Tennessee illustrates that there is a disposal problem caused by burning coal, as well as from mining it. Since 1990 over 700 miners have died in US coal mine accidents. Take a look at an aerial photograph of mountaintop removal mines in W. Va or Kentucky, just seeing the damage to the environment is enough to sicken.
Personally, I would much rather see this country pursue research into safely using nuclear energy rather than continue to burn coal. We have already proven how dangerous coal is.
--
Better to be stuck up in a tree than tied to one.

Larry Wasserman - Baltimore Maryland - lwasserm(a)sdf. lonestar.org
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on February 2, 2009, 7:37 pm
On Mon, 2 Feb 2009 19:12:41 +0000 (UTC), Larry W cast forth these pearls of wisdom...:

The total of which does not even approach the impact to areas surrounding reactors and waste storage sites.

And we have not proven how dangerous nuclear is?
--

-Mike-
snipped-for-privacy@alltel.net
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on February 3, 2009, 12:13 am

You have to look at the comparison on a MW per environmental and human cost basis.... Coal kills people every day, all day. The death rate due to nuclear environmental impact barely registers in comparison. We are talking about power generators..not nuclear bombs. So many people think they're one and the same.... and the coal and oil bastards will do all they can to keep you believing that. Even hydro electric dams have a negative environmental impact. What do you think our children's children will say about Three Gorges by the time that mess rears its ugly head.
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on February 3, 2009, 6:05 am
On Mon, 2 Feb 2009 16:13:48 -0800 (PST), Robatoy cast forth these pearls of wisdom...:

Only to the point that the ineveitable will happen again. Three Mile Island was only a taste of what can be, and the issues of waste are far from resolved, let alone properly being dealt with.

Yes - but that one occurance will more than make up for it. But more important than the scare tactic is the question of what to do with the waste? It's great as long as you're not living next to it and someone else is. Tomorrow's news will just be a "so-sorry" for you, but it will present much larger problems for a lot of people than today's coal problems present.

Ugh - I live within 20 miles of 3 of them - I think I know the difference.

No - you've got it wrong. The advocates of nuclear like to accuse everyone arond them of not knowing the difference, but think about it - how many people do you really know who do not know the difference between the bomb and the reactor down the road? Answer - none.

It has nothing to do with coal and oil bastards. Nuclear is a very dangerous generator and we have not made one inch of progress in dealing with the waste over the past 20 years. This is not a problem that is going to magically go away just because you like to think it's better than fossile fuels.

For the love of Pete - you're not seriously suggesting that you are leaving a better earth behind for your grandchildren by advocating nuclear, are you? Talk about being brainwashed by the industry - you've lost all perspective at the hands of the nuclear industry. "Don't worry - those wastes are perfectly safe, and we have perfectly safe operations, with qualified and trained staff... and no financial motivation..."
--

-Mike-
snipped-for-privacy@alltel.net
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on February 3, 2009, 2:02 pm

[snip]
A lot better than "drill-baby-drill." That type of thinking has got to stop.

What I am advocating is to get off those fossil fuels. They are finite. They are controlled by enemies. They mess up the environment. So what do we know about solutions? Not much, but in the meantime, we can use a lesser of evils. I am in no way advocating that nukes are a panacea, but they are a nice alternative to a problem which certainly has no solutions at all. And NOBODY that I know has ever said that the waste is safe. I know I haven't said that. That shit will hurt you. What I have said, is that it it can be managed safely. Just like your country sits on thousands of nuclear warheads, safely. Radio-active materials are handled by thousands every day in medicine alone...safely. Sure nuke-waste is more intense, but we do know how to handle it. The stuff getting belched out by a thousand oil and coal fired power plants? Not so much.
The future holds many promises. I would like for my kids to get there. Fossil fuels ain't good for children and other living things, to paraphrase a line from the 60's. Nukes may not be much better... but they are better. I do appreciate where you're coming from, Mike, but your view of the nuclear industry is disproportionate to reality.
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on February 5, 2009, 11:02 am
On Tue, 3 Feb 2009 06:02:12 -0800 (PST), Robatoy cast forth these pearls of wisdom...:

I'm not so sure about that. Every alternative has its own drawbacks. As long as there are humans growing in population on earth, the basic human needs are going to have an impact on the environment. The potential for large scale disaster with nuclear waste is far greater than "drill baby drill".

Only the current forms. Shale oil still holds huge promise for us, at very high levels of abundance, and affordable means of extraction. Fossil is indeed finite, but it is not a four letter word.

So do nuclear wastes and nuclear accidents.

It's on that point of them being a "nice" alternative that we are not in complete agreement. I see greater risk in nuclear than you do.

Yet, it seems to be ignored by your position that nuclear is the prefered wave of the future.

I'd rather see more efforts to control emissions than wholesale chasing after nuclear energy.

Your last statement is baseless. I don't make assertions on this topic that are beyond my level of understanding and so far have only commented on concerns for waste and the recognized dangers of nuclear power. We have seen first hand the dangers of it. I think your position is missing the reality of the dangers of nuclear - both long term and in the immediate.
--

-Mike-
snipped-for-privacy@alltel.net
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on February 2, 2009, 10:32 pm
Larry W wrote:

And that's before anybody tries to capture the CO2 emissions and store them, as is the latest hare-brained scheme from the coal miners.
--
--
--John
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on February 2, 2009, 11:21 pm
"J. Clarke" wrote

Hey, they could use it to make a bunch of that trendy sparkling water!
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on February 2, 2009, 7:32 pm
On Mon, 2 Feb 2009 18:27:01 +0000 (UTC), Larry W cast forth these pearls of wisdom...:

That does not seem like a terribly well thought through statement.
--

-Mike-
snipped-for-privacy@alltel.net
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on February 2, 2009, 8:26 pm
I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.
Personally I'd much rather have a nuclear reactor in my back yard than a strip mine.
--
Better to be stuck up in a tree than tied to one.

Larry Wasserman - Baltimore Maryland - lwasserm(a)sdf. lonestar.org