I hear you. This was exactly the reason why I said it is a "different"
design instead of saying that it is a "new" design. I used this term
to mean that it is "different" from the conventional nuclear power
plants that we normally see in US.
Glad to hear that people is open to the idea of using nuclear power. I
was wondering if someone might jump in and lecture me about the
"evils" of using nuclear power.
1. A terrorist will crash a plane into it and we will all go ka-boom-boom.
2. A diddly-dip will accidentally crash his car/boat/plane into it and
we will all go ka-boom-boom.
3. There is no where to store the leftover waste (NIMBY!) so it will be
left in piles along side the road and we will all glow in the dark and
die of bippy cancer.
4. There is no where to store the leftover waste (NIMBY!) so it will be
used by terrorists to make dirty bombs and we will all glow in the dark
and die of bippy cancer.
5. There will be an accidental melt-down all the way to China which will
piss them off enough to launch missles and we will all go ka-boom-boom.
Stuff like that, eh?
Not gonna happen. The containment buildings are significantly harder than,
say, an office building tower.
Oh no, not my bippy. OK, you're right, no nukes for me then.
Dang again. See above.
Only happens in Jane Fonda movies, and I've heard that she has a
bit of a bias on an issue or two.
Yup, that's pretty much it. The anti-nuke folks have to resort to
spreading FUD (fear, uncertainty, and doubt) to scare people away from
the most logical power production method we could go to for power generation.
Just think - nukes for the electric, bio-fuels for the mobile stuff.
The Arabs could try to sell oil to each other. The capacity is there,
but instead of spending money making bio-fuels practical, and instead of
building the nuke plants to get us away from foreign oil, and instead
of using domestic oil in the meantime, we keep giving lots of money to
people who are neutral to us at best, and who mostly want to kill us.
If you take the coal we have and process it with the abundant energy of the
reactor, you don't need to use productive land for "biofuel."
Not to worry about the money. As long as the press and candidate X continue
to savage those friendly to us and make friendly with those who savage us,
it's wasted regardless.
But the productive land we're not using for biofuels is sitting idle.
Trust me on this one, I've got 30 acres of it that they're paying me
not to farm. If I had soybeans on it, I could make more in a good year
than I get paid to not farm it, the extra demand would balance out the
extra production, and we could stop giving money to people who hate us.
Nuke and Coal don't help make a vehicle go down the road, at least
not yet. The infrastructure isn't there for electric cars, and the
culture isn't ready for same either. Too much change at once,
y'see. Give 'em a fuel that's grown locally, that they can buy at
the same places they go to now for fuel, _that_ will be accepted and
Yeah, it's interesting how he keeps doing that, and his supporters
don't seem to notice and/or care.
You're a couple centuries behind in your knowledge of synfuels.
Not to mention IG Farben and the boys over there in Berlin making petrol for
Then you could farm that 30 and feed "the children" somewhere else. I'll
keep my homestead in forest.
How so? I'm saying "let's start using them more", not "they never
existed before today" or whatever you're trying to say I'm saying.
Yes, I'm aware of it.
I never brought up feeding "the children", I made the point that I'd
rather we support USA'n farmers with our money, than give that same money
to a bunch of Arabs who want to kill us.
Maybe you're responding to a different message than the one I wrote?
That'd make more sense than thinking it's actually about my post.
Nope, I'm certainly not responding to what you _think_ you wrote, but rather
what you wrote.
I merely pointed out that heat and coal have been making fuel suitable for
vehicles for a long time.
Even the same fuel the culture is used to.
Further, I didn't attribute "feed the children" to you. It's a stock
liberal phrase. And a better use for land than growing and blowing it
through a tailpipe, even though ****CAUTION NEW INFORMATION*** the park
service vehicles they're fuelling with grease from fast food frycookers
hereabout do have an intriguing smell. ***END NEW INFORMATION***
Are your dyslexic or just dyspeptic?
Ah, I see. Since you didn't, you know, include that context, I didn't
know that that was what you were talking to.
The problem with coal gasification (I'm familiar with it; my grandfather
was a chemical engineer in a coal gas plant in Milwaukee for decades -
google "Milwaukee Solvay" and my last name for confirmation). The thing
is, that's (a) just transforming one fuel into another, and (b) not something
that will run in unmodified vehicles of today. Contrast this to biodiesel
and/or gasoline/alcohol blends, where the same people can fill their same
cars at the same stations using the same pumps, with a product that is at
least partially domestically produced. Changing too much of consumer's
pattern at once is going to result in a technology not being widely adopted.
This is why hydrogen cars continue not to happen, but why hibrid/electrics
are more viable and available.
How does coal gas work in a current unmodified automobile? Where can
I fill up on it today? Use that chemical energy for something it's more
suited for; stationary applications. It's not a good fit for wide
mobile distribution and point-of-use combustion.
I wouldn't know, not being one.
First of all, your attitude is getting in the way of presenting your
point, which I'm _still_ not sure what the hell it is. Secondly, I am
very familiar with the current state of biodiesel and the various sources
from which it can be obtained.
As far as "feeding the children" with my land, if that's what your point
is saying I should be doing (rather than growing soybeans for oil, or letting
it sit in the Clinton-era contracts to lay fallow rather than farm), well,
I guess that's a choice I get to make. Once those contracts expire, I can
either choose to continue to grow the trees on it, or to do whatever else
is economically feasable, and/or technically interesting and or possible with
Yawn. I'm sure if you have an actual point and/or value to add to this
conversation, you could do better than whatever that was. Couple of
questions: are you disagreeing that the arabs don't like us? Do you agree
or disagree that it is preferable to spend money supporting USA'n farmers,
as compared to sending that same money to people in arabic countries?
If you agree that the local farmers are more deserving than the people who
want to kill us, then would you agree that a solution which improves both
aspects of that equation would be one to pursue?
Not possible. Worst that can happen from this is an unintentional
release of radioactivity at a scale much closer to TMI than Chernobel.
Certainly won't explode.
Not possible (the ka-boom-boom part).
Reprocess the waste into more fuel. Known and available technology
(although the US shutdown its reprocessing facilities in the 70's, other
countries still reprocess their spent fuel rods).
Reprocessing creates useful fuel from the waste. The waste from
reprocessing is fairly low-level (half life in the 100 year range
rather than 100,000 year range) and occupies little volume.
A dirty bomb is much overrated. The contamination produced by the
explosion of a typical dirty bomb (medical isotopes or old fuel rods)
will provide a radiation dose pretty close to background (its within
the noise) outide of the immediate proximity (100's feet) of the
explosion. [See the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists for details].
Anyone close enough to the explosion to be affected by any exposure
to radiation is probably dead from the blast effects anyway. Granted
decontam will need to be done, but on a fairly small (a block ortwo)
Sure it sucks, but it ain't the end of the world, or even a singificant
problem (excepting the inevitable irrational mass panic from the uneducated
Note that the core of a dirty bomb is still conventional explosive and
even a ton of TNT going off is relatively minor on the scale of a city.
watching those stupid fonda flix again are you? SNL had it right with
the Pepsi Syndrome.
Same reason John Kerry says's it's a bad treaty. Take a look at the
interviews of both candidates in this months Field and Stream magazine.
Here's a link.
You'll have to paste the whole thing together or just go to
and take a look. It's a pretty even handed look at both candidates but
I'm in the already decided catogory myself. The other thing to read is
the Theodore Roosevelt Editorial from 1927 (obviously published after
his death) well worth a read.
That's all very well, Allen, but saving the planet means sacrifices,
both jobs and money, and you can't expect politicians to support such
ideas with an election looming.
But one thing is certain : our children and grand-children will hate us
for our utter selfishness and complacency.
This one seems like another political red herring. I know it used to
happen all the time, but none of the manufacturers I've worked for in
the last 14 years have taken a devil-may-care attitude towards the
environment. They've all invested in keeping the air and water clean,
partially because of the EPA, and partially because they don't care to
mess up their own backyards.
you crack me up.......I am not an economist and I consider myself a
conservative. I am betting you are niether. But do you really believe
there are any sane, honest and hardworking american citizens who prefer bad
air...bad water...desolate forests....wildlife confined to a zoo etc?
Everyone, but for the nutcases recognize that environmental issues are
important. The difference, it seems, has to do with our beliefs a solution.
Any solution that costs US jobs has to be considered carefully. Nothing can
wreck the environment faster than poverty. A simple glance around the world
will show that.
Does anyone else find it ironic that in a thread discussing the loss of US
manufacturing and therefore the loss of mfg jobs, that failure to sign the
Kyoto treaty should be bemoaned.
PS: Mark my words --the biggest news story immediatly AFTER the election
will be the UN/oil for food scandal. The story won't change between now and
then, but the coverage certainly will.
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.