Pine Barrens Mafia Posted September 13, 2006 Share Posted September 13, 2006 We need Nukes to stop global warming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuntheDamnBall Posted September 14, 2006 Share Posted September 14, 2006 JSP, there are reasonable people in the environmental community that have been positing nuclear power as part of the solution for awhile. And you're certainly aware in an age of terrorism about the other, non-environmental risks of putting all our faith in nukes. I'm not saying the guy's right or wrong at this point. Certainly, it's a debate. Debate doesn't make those who disagree whackos. There are simply differing opinions. They may or may not be right and there certainly are issues, but what's your point? Do you agree with this scientist that global warming is a problem, overdependency on fossils is a problem, and that something (nuclear or otherwise) should be done about it? I'd be happy to hear that. Better to be part of the vision than to be part of the chorus of people covering their ears and pretending things aren't happening to keep the status quo going for the good of American Industry™ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted September 14, 2006 Share Posted September 14, 2006 JSP, there are reasonable people in the environmental community that have been positing nuclear power as part of the solution for awhile. And you're certainly aware in an age of terrorism about the other, non-environmental risks of putting all our faith in nukes. I'm not saying the guy's right or wrong at this point. Certainly, it's a debate. Debate doesn't make those who disagree whackos. There are simply differing opinions. They may or may not be right and there certainly are issues, but what's your point? Do you agree with this scientist that global warming is a problem, overdependency on fossils is a problem, and that something (nuclear or otherwise) should be done about it? I'd be happy to hear that. Better to be part of the vision than to be part of the chorus of people covering their ears and pretending things aren't happening to keep the status quo going for the good of American Industry™ 772548[/snapback] You're stretching a little. I don't think most Americans disagree with anything you wrote - the problem is the politicians on BOTH sides are unreasonable. Figure out how to change that, will ya? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuntheDamnBall Posted September 14, 2006 Share Posted September 14, 2006 You're stretching a little. I don't think most Americans disagree with anything you wrote - the problem is the politicians on BOTH sides are unreasonable. Figure out how to change that, will ya? 772638[/snapback] Would that I could, Darin. I'd start by breaking up the info-tainment industry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted September 14, 2006 Author Share Posted September 14, 2006 JSP, there are reasonable people in the environmental community that have been positing nuclear power as part of the solution for awhile. And you're certainly aware in an age of terrorism about the other, non-environmental risks of putting all our faith in nukes. I'm not saying the guy's right or wrong at this point. Certainly, it's a debate. Debate doesn't make those who disagree whackos. There are simply differing opinions. They may or may not be right and there certainly are issues, but what's your point? Do you agree with this scientist that global warming is a problem, overdependency on fossils is a problem, and that something (nuclear or otherwise) should be done about it? I'd be happy to hear that. Better to be part of the vision than to be part of the chorus of people covering their ears and pretending things aren't happening to keep the status quo going for the good of American Industry™ 772548[/snapback] I've been trumpeting nuclear for YEARS. My thinking is that even though you have radioactive waste, it can be relegated to a small space, unlike carbon waste that spews into the atmosphere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UConn James Posted September 14, 2006 Share Posted September 14, 2006 I've been trumpeting nuclear for YEARS. My thinking is that even though you have radioactive waste, it can be relegated to a small space, unlike carbon waste that spews into the atmosphere. 772849[/snapback] Like Yucca Mountain? I don't disagree about nuclear --- indeed, it's the most efficient answer to our future energy needs --- but the problem of waste isn't as small a problem as you're making it out to be. Everybody says NIMBY, and how can you really blame them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted September 14, 2006 Share Posted September 14, 2006 Like Yucca Mountain? I don't disagree about nuclear --- indeed, it's the most efficient answer to our future energy needs --- but the problem of waste isn't as small a problem as you're making it out to be. Everybody says NIMBY, and how can you really blame them? 773340[/snapback] I don't think he was arguing it's a small problem; I think he was arguing it's a smaller problem than fossil fuel emissions, and then from the technical perspective of being able to localize a far smaller amount of pollution. The political issue of nuclear waste is, of course, a much larger one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UConn James Posted September 14, 2006 Share Posted September 14, 2006 I don't think he was arguing it's a small problem; I think he was arguing it's a smaller problem than fossil fuel emissions, and then from the technical perspective of being able to localize a far smaller amount of pollution. The political issue of nuclear waste is, of course, a much larger one. 773362[/snapback] I can see that, of course. It replaces one problem with another that some people think is easier to control and contain. But, enter the phenomenon of God laughing at mens' plans. I think it was Newton who said that as time goes on, the breakdown and conversion of energy spirals things more and more into chaos. I'm pretty sure he was talking physically or chemically, but in another sense you could argue socially too. An interesting aside.... My uncle was a nuclear engineer at the CT Yankee plant. My dad worked in an industrial supply warehouse. So one day, my uncle calls and asks if my dad has an EZ-Out for drilling out a bolt.... My dad says, "Sure. What size bolt do you need it for?" Uncle: "Uhhh.... three feet." Dad: "Mmm... lemme get you a phone number!" One of the bolts holding the reactor core broke. They had guys swimming around in the coolant water. Guess what they died of.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted September 15, 2006 Author Share Posted September 15, 2006 Like Yucca Mountain? I don't disagree about nuclear --- indeed, it's the most efficient answer to our future energy needs --- but the problem of waste isn't as small a problem as you're making it out to be. Everybody says NIMBY, and how can you really blame them? 773340[/snapback] Yucca Mountain is in the middle of NOWHERE. I believe Nuclear energy and electric cars could completely wean us off of oil. But hey, that's just me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted September 15, 2006 Share Posted September 15, 2006 The nuclear waste debate is the problem with nuclear. Safety changes and new reactor designs including smaller sizes have made managing them much less of a risk. Yucca mountain from everything that I read about it while on Capitol Hill doesn't work. Yes, it is in the middle of nowhere, but cracks in the structure of the mountain, the fact that the mountain sits on an active earthquake fault unknown previously, and the fact that it sits near one of the largest aquafirs (sp?) in the U.S. makes it risky. That is why there has been such a hold up. I am not sure where there would be a better place to put it, and NIMBYs will sure make any alternative problematic, but ignoring the waste problem with Nuclear makes Nuclear an unviable alternative until it is solved. The air quality benefits would be wonderful if it was. There is a reason CAL is raising its CAFE standards, unless you are right on the coast, air quality sucks and even on the cost sometimes it is bad. DC is no better, too many cars and downwind of PA and West Virginia plants. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted September 15, 2006 Author Share Posted September 15, 2006 The nuclear waste debate is the problem with nuclear. Safety changes and new reactor designs including smaller sizes have made managing them much less of a risk. Yucca mountain from everything that I read about it while on Capitol Hill doesn't work. Yes, it is in the middle of nowhere, but cracks in the structure of the mountain, the fact that the mountain sits on an active earthquake fault unknown previously, and the fact that it sits near one of the largest aquafirs (sp?) in the U.S. makes it risky. That is why there has been such a hold up. I am not sure where there would be a better place to put it, and NIMBYs will sure make any alternative problematic, but ignoring the waste problem with Nuclear makes Nuclear an unviable alternative until it is solved. The air quality benefits would be wonderful if it was. There is a reason CAL is raising its CAFE standards, unless you are right on the coast, air quality sucks and even on the cost sometimes it is bad. DC is no better, too many cars and downwind of PA and West Virginia plants. 773714[/snapback] This is an interesting point: We're always harping about "enriching" uranium. The uranium used in American plants is used just once. There are reactors out there that could continue to use said uranium until it was virtually used up. This "recycling" of uranium is what's commonly called enrichment. The Environmentalists are hypocrites. On one hand, they say they're anti-carbon-emissions and that we need to move away from fossil fuels. Then, when presented with a viable alternative THAT ACTUALLY WORKS, they're against that because of a localized waste issue. They think that pie-in-the sky solar and wind generation that's far less efficient is the answer to replacing the massive portion of our power that's generated with fossil fuels. I call bull sh--. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuntheDamnBall Posted September 15, 2006 Share Posted September 15, 2006 This is an interesting point: We're always harping about "enriching" uranium. The uranium used in American plants is used just once. There are reactors out there that could continue to use said uranium until it was virtually used up. This "recycling" of uranium is what's commonly called enrichment. The Environmentalists are hypocrites. On one hand, they say they're anti-carbon-emissions and that we need to move away from fossil fuels. Then, when presented with a viable alternative THAT ACTUALLY WORKS, they're against that because of a localized waste issue. They think that pie-in-the sky solar and wind generation that's far less efficient is the answer to replacing the massive portion of our power that's generated with fossil fuels. I call bull sh--. 773775[/snapback] The folly is in thinking that there's one answer, one solution. That is the kind of thinking that is killing us right now. Yes, standardization is nice, but being flexible is far more important. We should continue pursuing ways to make solar and wind more efficient, and we should probably proceed with nuclear technologies while researching for the best way possible to deal with the waste. And we should certainly look to make our use more efficient, instead of continuing to rely on a waste-based economy and looking for the best way to support that. Conserving, remember? Stop thinking means-end. Start thinking about what's going to make life possible for a long time here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UConn James Posted September 15, 2006 Share Posted September 15, 2006 Conserving, remember? 773859[/snapback] Common occurance in my house to be down in the basement and suddenly have the lights go off. Which always elicits a, "Hey Lyndon! Turn the light back on!!" (LBJ used to turn off lights all the time....) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted September 15, 2006 Author Share Posted September 15, 2006 The folly is in thinking that there's one answer, one solution. That is the kind of thinking that is killing us right now. Yes, standardization is nice, but being flexible is far more important. We should continue pursuing ways to make solar and wind more efficient, and we should probably proceed with nuclear technologies while researching for the best way possible to deal with the waste. And we should certainly look to make our use more efficient, instead of continuing to rely on a waste-based economy and looking for the best way to support that. Conserving, remember? Stop thinking means-end. Start thinking about what's going to make life possible for a long time here. 773859[/snapback] I disagree with nothing you say there. Rather, I'd like to see the technology we HAVE implemented asap to get us off the oil and coal-driven power generation. At the same time, I'd like to see more distributed generation. And conservation is big with me too. If people lived within their means, this wouldn't be an issue. But unfortunately, most don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted September 15, 2006 Share Posted September 15, 2006 This is from memory, so don't jump down my throat if I'm wrong. IIRC, you would have to cover Rhode Island (Erie County in size) with solar panels and have the sun shining directly overhead 24/7 to replace the electricity produced by one nuclear power plant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted September 20, 2006 Share Posted September 20, 2006 Yucca Mountain is in the middle of NOWHERE. I believe Nuclear energy and electric cars could completely wean us off of oil. But hey, that's just me. 773691[/snapback] I came home late last night to watch a PBS (WTTW-11) docu on Nevada... Pretty interesting... Believe it or not, NV has some of the most biodiversity in union. I really learned a lot about NV to say the least... What an amazing and beautiful state! I Liked the term... "sky islands." Send it to the sun! Yet, it leaves no room for mistake... Imagine a Challenger type mistake!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts