Obama pledges 8B for nuclear power plant

[meazza]

I wouldn't blame the unions for this one. Granted they came out of in pretty good shape, however they were raked through the coals throughout the whole process.

 

Bondholders > Anyone else.

 

Not in this case though.

[Magox]

Ooooooh 30 years. Whats the half-life of various plutonium and uranium isotopes? You're going to need an exponent. 30 years. Give me a break.

Those are awful big stakes you're ok with. And what's the upside here? Producing enough power so that a bunch of lazy spoiled marshmallows can sit in their 78 degree houses in February, leave their lights on all day, run their AC all night and have street lights every 100 feet.

Yeah, pouring poisons into our air and water is definitely worth it for all that.

Ya, 30 years, which means they've advanced technology enough to make it safer not only to produce more nuclear energy but to secure it's waste disposal. There are new coolant distribution systems, new plants that have longer shelf lives, and there are reactors now that require fewer safety features, not to mention the endless sets of new regulations and training courses that weren't nearly as stringent as they are today.

 

In regards to the waste disposal, the fuel rods of today can stay where they are for an estimated 50 to 100 years, which most likely by then we will be able to determine a permanent place to store it.

 

"Producing enough power so that a bunch of lazy spoiled marshmallows can sit in their 78 degree houses in February, leave their lights on all day, run their AC all night and have street lights every 100 feet."

 

What is that, a Connerism?

 

What's the upside?

 

You mean other than lessening our dependence on fossil fuels, and emitting relatively low amounts of carbon dioxide CO2, I guess there isn't too much upside.

 

Edit: For the record, I didn't notice DC Tom's reference of Conner until after I typed my post

[IDBillzFan]

Conner, is that you?

What is that, a Connerism?

 

Edit: For the record, I didn't notice DC Tom's reference of Conner until after I typed my post

Dudes...I'm telling ya. Don't poke the bear. He'll break out his wit, start channelling Jesse Ventura, and then it's on like Donkey Kong.

 

(Oh, relax, Bar Sinister. I'm just busting nuts.)

[Simon]

Yes. You think there's no difference between an operational, maintained plant and a deactivated one?

For the purposes of this discussion, not really. Any new plants are inevitably going to exist in both states anyways, so it's sort of a moot point.

 

Actually, glow-in-the-dark watches don't use tritium any more. It's also not toxic, and only a minor radiation hazard. If your biggest worry is tritium in the ground water, you are leading a truly charmged life.

I look at the tritium issue as more of a symptom than a disease.

 

What a truly idiotic set of statements. Following up "does it really matter?" with "coal may be worse overall" is a clear statement by you that it DOES really matter.

 

If A sucks. And B sucks slightly less but in a different way. The bottom line is that they both still suck, so does it really matter that much which one sucks more? It still sucks.

 

You don't know...but you'll still make bald statements of "fact" despite your admitted ignorance? Conner, is that you?

Are you seriously suggesting that because it's impossible to precisely quantify how much tritium a given person needs to ingest before they develop cancer, that it shouldn't be discussed as a potential problem?

[Simon]

Ya, 30 years, which means they've advanced technology enough to make it safer not only to produce more nuclear energy but to secure it's waste disposal.

Yeah, and 30 years ago a bunch of overly proud scientists and citizens were sitting around talking about how much more they know know than the people who first started working with these elements 30 years ago. Believing that a scant 30 years of frequently retarded research is anything more than an incremental advance in our overall understanding and ability to control these processes is a ridiculous hubris.

In regards to the waste disposal, the fuel rods of today can stay where they are for an estimated 50 to 100 years, which most likely by then we will be able to determine a permanent place to store it.

 

So your solution to this problem is "let's create more unstable hazardous waste because we'll probably be able to figure out what to do with it someday"? I'm thinking I might be more comfortable with this if our plan was maybe just a little more well-defined than that.

 

What is that, a Connerism?

Suggesting that maybe it's not worth it to continue to shlt where we eat is now a Connerism?

Think of it like federal spending. Maybe instead of focusing on how we can generate more revenue/power, maybe we'd be wise to first explore how we can cut spending/usage.