Simon Posted February 1, 2010 Posted February 1, 2010 OK, I know that it's only loan guarantees and I'm not interested in the financial wizardry behind it. But potentially tripling a part of the budget is worth noting. This doesn't strike me as an administration that is particularly pro-nuclear. So what is going on that they've chosen to expand that budgeting by so much so fast? Is thorium technology approaching a point where we feel we can safely invest massive amounts of money in it? Does anybody know anything about this? I don't know squat and am curious if we have any lurking experts around.
uncle_chappy Posted February 1, 2010 Posted February 1, 2010 my guess is that GE will profit handsomely from this seeing that GE owns MSNBC and had a huge hand in electing obama. typical obama chicago politics.
Simon Posted February 1, 2010 Author Posted February 1, 2010 my guess is that GE will profit handsomely from this seeing that GE owns MSNBC and had a huge hand in electing obama. typical obama chicago politics. I'm more interested in the opinions of people who breathe through their noses.
uncle_chappy Posted February 1, 2010 Posted February 1, 2010 I'm more interested in the opinions of people who breathe through their noses. then why did you come here?
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted February 1, 2010 Posted February 1, 2010 then why did you come here? The tard has a point.
Alaska Darin Posted February 2, 2010 Posted February 2, 2010 my guess is that GE will profit handsomely from this seeing that GE owns MSNBC and had a huge hand in electing obama. typical obama chicago politics. I guess you figure that argument has legs, huh? Did you use the same wagging (drool covered) finger when the lefties were whining about Halliburton? Somehow I doubt it.
Alaska Darin Posted February 2, 2010 Posted February 2, 2010 OK, I know that it's only loan guarantees and I'm not interested in the financial wizardry behind it. But potentially tripling a part of the budget is worth noting.This doesn't strike me as an administration that is particularly pro-nuclear. So what is going on that they've chosen to expand that budgeting by so much so fast? Is thorium technology approaching a point where we feel we can safely invest massive amounts of money in it? Does anybody know anything about this? I don't know squat and am curious if we have any lurking experts around. That's an interesting question - I'm going to do a little research and see what I can find.
uncle_chappy Posted February 2, 2010 Posted February 2, 2010 I guess you figure that argument has legs, huh? Did you use the same wagging (drool covered) finger when the lefties were whining about Halliburton? Somehow I doubt it. http://www.topix.com/energy/nuclear-energy...dorsement-video http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-02-0...ama-budget.html nothing sucks worse than that moment during an argument when you realize you're wrong, eh alaskaman? i bet you know that feeling all too well.
LeviF Posted February 2, 2010 Posted February 2, 2010 http://www.topix.com/energy/nuclear-energy...dorsement-video http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-02-0...ama-budget.html nothing sucks worse than that moment during an argument when you realize you're wrong, eh alaskaman? i bet you know that feeling all too well. He didn't deny what you said, he was just pointing out some hypocrisy.
Alaska Darin Posted February 2, 2010 Posted February 2, 2010 He didn't deny what you said, he was just pointing out some hypocrisy. You'll have to forgive him, he doesn't have the ability to understand such deep philosophies.
Alaska Darin Posted February 2, 2010 Posted February 2, 2010 http://www.topix.com/energy/nuclear-energy...dorsement-video http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-02-0...ama-budget.html nothing sucks worse than that moment during an argument when you realize you're wrong, eh alaskaman? i bet you know that feeling all too well. Actually, nothing sucks worse than knowing that idiots on your side of the aisle and idiots on the other side of the aisle will continue to hold power until this country is no more. I'd ask you if you're mildly retarded but the question is so rhetorical that the word doesn't do it justice.
/dev/null Posted February 2, 2010 Posted February 2, 2010 The Federal Budget is expanding and Leon is getting Laaaarger
keepthefaith Posted February 2, 2010 Posted February 2, 2010 OK, I know that it's only loan guarantees and I'm not interested in the financial wizardry behind it. But potentially tripling a part of the budget is worth noting.This doesn't strike me as an administration that is particularly pro-nuclear. So what is going on that they've chosen to expand that budgeting by so much so fast? Is thorium technology approaching a point where we feel we can safely invest massive amounts of money in it? Does anybody know anything about this? I don't know squat and am curious if we have any lurking experts around. We have over 100 Nuclear power plants in the US now. Great safety record since the early days. Nuclear plants have the largest initial cost to build but produce electricity at the lowest long term cost. This equals more jobs (many union) due to longer construction cycles. Nuclear plants can be built in more locations than solar and wind. You get a nice recreation business in and around the cooling lakes. Politics has to have much to do with the recent change by this administration. Couldn't be just on the merits of these facilities. That would be way too common sense.
uncle_chappy Posted February 2, 2010 Posted February 2, 2010 Actually, nothing sucks worse than knowing that idiots on your side of the aisle and idiots on the other side of the aisle will continue to hold power until this country is no more. I'd ask you if you're mildly retarded but the question is so rhetorical that the word doesn't do it justice. look everybody another alaskan strawman temper tantrum. how cute. it still doesnt change the fact that GE is profiting handsomely off this. i'd ask you how it feels to be constantly wrong but the question is so rhetorical that the word doesn't do it justice.
Alaska Darin Posted February 2, 2010 Posted February 2, 2010 look everybody another alaskan strawman temper tantrum. how cute. it still doesnt change the fact that GE is profiting handsomely off this. Ooh, a company profiting off a politician getting elected. Obviously the first time in history that's ever happened. i'd ask you how it feels to be constantly wrong but the question is so rhetorical that the word doesn't do it justice. Do everyone a favor and try coming up with an original thought.
TheMadCap Posted February 2, 2010 Posted February 2, 2010 We have over 100 Nuclear power plants in the US now. Great safety record since the early days. Nuclear plants have the largest initial cost to build but produce electricity at the lowest long term cost. This equals more jobs (many union) due to longer construction cycles. Nuclear plants can be built in more locations than solar and wind. You get a nice recreation business in and around the cooling lakes. Politics has to have much to do with the recent change by this administration. Couldn't be just on the merits of these facilities. That would be way too common sense. In addition to thier excellent safety record, I would add that I am a bit skeptical on the argument that anti-nuclear groups throw around that these facilites are an easy target for terrorists to exploit. My older brother is an engineer for one of the reactors at a plant near Cleveland, and he says that it would be suicide for anyone to think they can just waltz in and do as they please. He says there are armed guards (I think they are private contractors, not miliatry) with automatic weapons ready to blow your head off if proper procedures are not followed. While this is only ONE plant out of approximately 100 in the mainland US, I do not buy the anti-nuclear argument that is thrown out there that the terrorists can easily obtain nuclear materials for terror weapons...
DC Tom Posted February 2, 2010 Posted February 2, 2010 In addition to thier excellent safety record, I would add that I am a bit skeptical on the argument that anti-nuclear groups throw around that these facilites are an easy target for terrorists to exploit. My older brother is an engineer for one of the reactors at a plant near Cleveland, and he says that it would be suicide for anyone to think they can just waltz in and do as they please. He says there are armed guards (I think they are private contractors, not miliatry) with automatic weapons ready to blow your head off if proper procedures are not followed. While this is only ONE plant out of approximately 100 in the mainland US, I do not buy the anti-nuclear argument that is thrown out there that the terrorists can easily obtain nuclear materials for terror weapons... It's arguably easier to get nuclear materials from a junkyard (improperly disposed of medical devices). And I know of one rather reliable story where a teenager built a rather energetic nuclear pile (it melted down and caused a rather significant incident) in a backyard shed using the Americanium gathered from a shitload of old smoke detectors. Any terrorist who tries to get nuclear material from a nuclear power plant is suicidally stupid... ...but then, they also try to blow up planes by holding a Bic lighter to their nuts, so I wouldn't put it past them.
TheMadCap Posted February 2, 2010 Posted February 2, 2010 It's arguably easier to get nuclear materials from a junkyard (improperly disposed of medical devices). And I know of one rather reliable story where a teenager built a rather energetic nuclear pile (it melted down and caused a rather significant incident) in a backyard shed using the Americanium gathered from a shitload of old smoke detectors. Any terrorist who tries to get nuclear material from a nuclear power plant is suicidally stupid... ...but then, they also try to blow up planes by holding a Bic lighter to their nuts, so I wouldn't put it past them. hahaha, what a !@#$ing dumbass!!!! I agree, it would be infinitely easier to obtain radioactive material elsewhere, but I felt compelled to point out the inherent dumbass-idness in claiming that we shouldn't build nuclear power plants because a terrorist might want to attack it...
DC Tom Posted February 2, 2010 Posted February 2, 2010 hahaha, what a !@#$ing dumbass!!!! The Radioactive Boy Scout Anyone who can managed to build a breeder reactor in his backyard out of smoke detectors that turns his mom's house into a Superfund site and requires an NRC response is not someone I would call a !@#$ing dumbass, myself. Anyone who does it twice, on the other hand... I agree, it would be infinitely easier to obtain radioactive material elsewhere, but I felt compelled to point out the inherent dumbass-idness in claiming that we shouldn't build nuclear power plants because a terrorist might want to attack it... And I felt compelled to further reinforce their inherent dumb-assedness by pointing out how much less their understanding is than even that.
Recommended Posts