RE: McCain wants 45 new nuclear plants by 2030

RE: McCain wants 45 new nuclear plants by 2030 (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

kittinSol -> RE: McCain wants 45 new nuclear plants by 2030 (6/18/2008 6:51:10 PM)
Before worrying about terrorists, it would be advisable to ask ourselves what should happen to the nuclear waste that would be generated. Sellafield - nuclear recycling plant . By the way, I'm not particularly anti-nuclear - just aware of the risks. I'm not convinced the States, with their tradition of privatising everything and leaving industrial and product safety and other pesky concerns in the hands of private business, should undertake such a venture at this stage. It would require, oh the horror! strong centralised care and watch, in my opinion.

TheHeretic -> RE: McCain wants 45 new nuclear plants by 2030 (6/18/2008 6:54:37 PM)
I honestly have no idea just what the French do with their nuclear waste. Anybody know? The leftovers are my main concern with nuclear power. We may have to just bury it in Nevada, at least until the oil runs out in the middle east, and we can pour it down the old wells, while charging them $150 a bushel for wheat.

kittinSol -> RE: McCain wants 45 new nuclear plants by 2030 (6/18/2008 6:58:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic I honestly have no idea just what the French do with their nuclear waste. Anybody know? They pay England to get rid of it [:D] . Seriously... Greenpeace Report . I figured you'd be more interested in the opposition rather than to read some pro-nuke propaganda. That's easily available.

TheHeretic -> RE: McCain wants 45 new nuclear plants by 2030 (6/18/2008 7:03:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kittinSol quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic I honestly have no idea just what the French do with their nuclear waste. Anybody know? They pay England to get rid of it [:D] . Seriously... Greenpeace Report . I figured you'd be more interested in the opposition rather than to read some pro-nuke propaganda. That's easily available. Thank you very much, Kitten. And a very good call on the kinds of sources I like. Perhaps you are getting to know me after all. [:D]

slaveboyforyou -> RE: McCain wants 45 new nuclear plants by 2030 (6/18/2008 7:11:46 PM)
quote: By the way, I'm not particularly anti-nuclear - just aware of the risks. I'm not convinced the States, with their tradition of privatising everything and leaving industrial and product safety and other pesky concerns in the hands of private business, should undertake such a venture at this stage. It would require, oh the horror! strong centralised care and watch, in my opinion. Nuclear waste can be recycled. Granted it's expensive, but it can be done. We have plenty of uninhabited places to store it. The U.S. has been in the nuclear energy game longer than any other country. We regulate it well; it's not just left up to the power companies. If you want to see some hardcore, scary, men-in-black types.....look no further than the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. We don't fuck about with nuclear power.

Irishknight -> RE: McCain wants 45 new nuclear plants by 2030 (6/18/2008 7:18:49 PM)
Slaveboy, you aren't kidding about those folks. There are regulations on everything that takes place concerning a nuke plant.

DomKen -> RE: McCain wants 45 new nuclear plants by 2030 (6/18/2008 11:13:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Irishknight Slaveboy, you aren't kidding about those folks. There are regulations on everything that takes place concerning a nuke plant. For damn good reason. Ever hear of SL-1? I think building new plants is a good idea but I really doubt that 45 in the next 22 years is feasible. We are going to have issues with who will own and operate the plants. ComEd used to be a major nuclear power producer but they cut too many corners and ignored safety concerns too many times for me to trust them or their corporate descendants running building or operating new plants.

jlf1961 -> RE: McCain wants 45 new nuclear plants by 2030 (6/19/2008 1:45:52 AM)
45 new nuke plants by 2030..... Sounds great, but one question, if we cant figure out what we are doing with the waste we have now, what are we going to do with the waste from the new ones? You know something, we wouldnt have this problem if, during the 80's when people were screaming no nukes, no nuke research etc, and the government pulled the plug on Fusion research. Right now, Cambridge University, Cambridge England has the only fusion reactor in the world. Granted, at present it is not economically feasable, but with more research, it could be and soon. A few real neat possibities about fusion, other than no nuclear waste, you could build what ever mineral you need. Where do you think iron and all the other eliments on the periodic table came from? Every atomic element from hydrogen to the rare earth series was created in stars. Stars are big fusion reactors. Another funny thing about fusion reactors.... you cant have a runaway reaction or meltdown or none of those accidents, if it begins to runaway, you kill the containment bottle and it stops. As long as the magnetic field is there to contain the reaction, it cant go critical.

Irishknight -> RE: McCain wants 45 new nuclear plants by 2030 (6/19/2008 6:54:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 45 new nuke plants by 2030..... Sounds great, but one question, if we cant figure out what we are doing with the waste we have now, what are we going to do with the waste from the new ones? You know something, we wouldnt have this problem if, during the 80's when people were screaming no nukes, no nuke research etc, and the government pulled the plug on Fusion research. Right now, Cambridge University, Cambridge England has the only fusion reactor in the world. Granted, at present it is not economically feasable, but with more research, it could be and soon. A few real neat possibities about fusion, other than no nuclear waste, you could build what ever mineral you need. Where do you think iron and all the other eliments on the periodic table came from? Every atomic element from hydrogen to the rare earth series was created in stars. Stars are big fusion reactors. Another funny thing about fusion reactors.... you cant have a runaway reaction or meltdown or none of those accidents, if it begins to runaway, you kill the containment bottle and it stops. As long as the magnetic field is there to contain the reaction, it cant go critical. You make a good point about fusion reactors. They also produce a great deal more power if I remember correctly what I read.

DomKen -> RE: McCain wants 45 new nuclear plants by 2030 (6/19/2008 8:05:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Irishknight You make a good point about fusion reactors. They also produce a great deal more power if I remember correctly what I read. At present all methods of creating a sustained fusion reaction require more input energy than is produced. An energy source is required to excite the hydrogen isotopes into a plasma state so the fusion can occur and a high intensity magnetic field is required to keep the highly energetic particles safely in one place so the reaction can continue.

pahunkboy -> RE: McCain wants 45 new nuclear plants by 2030 (6/19/2008 10:15:59 AM)
Well- waste is to go to yucca mountain. low level waste tho falls with in each states [cluster of states compact] 45 hmm. ok- take the top 45 growth areas of the country- and that is where they are needed. I seen on c-span that we are in for a shock over heat and utility bills. Industry is paying the higher rate right now. I ask to YOU. Do YOU consume more today then 1 year ago, 3 years ago, 5 years ago 10 years ago? Ild say no on me up till 10 years ago. I am trying to picture the typical joe. Complaining but every plug in the house- with a cord in and numerous gadgets ON. And yet- I recall a utility RAISING rates one time since everyone cut back and they needed cash.... which leads to this question. They said the highways now will suffer due to less tax. [.18 a gallon] well- I thought the amount of axels, use and weight wore out the highways??? not simply by virtue of passage of time ?

RealityLicks -> RE: McCain wants 45 new nuclear plants by 2030 (6/19/2008 10:23:56 AM)
Nuclear isn't the only option. You could look into CHP, which is what the Danes are big on and it's being invested in heavily here, too. It's what makes the manholes blow steam in New York but I don't think it's used in too many other places stateside.

rulemylife -> RE: McCain wants 45 new nuclear plants by 2030 (6/19/2008 10:39:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Irishknight These things are built to hold in a nuclear reaction and radiation. They aren't made of paper. I don't know. I live within the "evacuation zone" of a nuclear plant. Periodically we get instructions in the mail telling what to do and how to escape in the event of a leak. They even color-code the danger by how close you are to the plant. Doesn't exactly fill me with confidence.

rulemylife -> RE: McCain wants 45 new nuclear plants by 2030 (6/19/2008 10:52:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pahunkboy Well- waste is to go to yucca mountain. low level waste tho falls with in each states [cluster of states compact] 45 hmm. ok- take the top 45 growth areas of the country- and that is where they are needed. I seen on c-span that we are in for a shock over heat and utility bills. Industry is paying the higher rate right now. I ask to YOU. Do YOU consume more today then 1 year ago, 3 years ago, 5 years ago 10 years ago? Ild say no on me up till 10 years ago. I am trying to picture the typical joe. Complaining but every plug in the house- with a cord in and numerous gadgets ON. And yet- I recall a utility RAISING rates one time since everyone cut back and they needed cash.... which leads to this question. They said the highways now will suffer due to less tax. [.18 a gallon] well- I thought the amount of axels, use and weight wore out the highways??? not simply by virtue of passage of time ? As far as I know, the Yucca Mountain site is still being fought over and has never been approved. In fact, nearby states have been raising their opposition to it because the radioactive waste would be trucked over their highways and the consequent possibility of an accident.

Irishknight -> RE: McCain wants 45 new nuclear plants by 2030 (6/19/2008 11:11:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife quote: ORIGINAL: Irishknight These things are built to hold in a nuclear reaction and radiation. They aren't made of paper. I don't know. I live within the "evacuation zone" of a nuclear plant. Periodically we get instructions in the mail telling what to do and how to escape in the event of a leak. They even color-code the danger by how close you are to the plant. Doesn't exactly fill me with confidence. The fact that they have a plan should make you feel better. Does it make you nervous to have a plan to get out of your house in case of fire? When schools or employers make evacuation plans in case of fire, does that make you nervous? Our school had tornado drills but that didn't mean we were GONNA get hit by a tornado, just that they were trying to be prepared. Of course, we could do away with all emergency plans and just not have any emergencies if you can figure out how to do it.

rulemylife -> RE: McCain wants 45 new nuclear plants by 2030 (6/20/2008 12:56:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Irishknight quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife quote: ORIGINAL: Irishknight These things are built to hold in a nuclear reaction and radiation. They aren't made of paper. I don't know. I live within the "evacuation zone" of a nuclear plant. Periodically we get instructions in the mail telling what to do and how to escape in the event of a leak. They even color-code the danger by how close you are to the plant. Doesn't exactly fill me with confidence. The fact that they have a plan should make you feel better. Does it make you nervous to have a plan to get out of your house in case of fire? When schools or employers make evacuation plans in case of fire, does that make you nervous? Our school had tornado drills but that didn't mean we were GONNA get hit by a tornado, just that they were trying to be prepared. Of course, we could do away with all emergency plans and just not have any emergencies if you can figure out how to do it. Point taken, but I still have to wonder. There are many industries that deal in hazardous materials. I'm sure we all live in proximity to one of them. Yet we don't receive evacuation plans from them. So why do we receive them regarding nuclear power plants if they are as safe and benign as you say?

chickpea -> RE: McCain wants 45 new nuclear plants by 2030 (6/20/2008 1:18:17 AM)
I'll only agree to that if we build the 45 new nuclear plants around Phoenix.

Cottonsocks -> RE: McCain wants 45 new nuclear plants by 2030 (6/20/2008 2:07:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife quote: ORIGINAL: Irishknight quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife quote: ORIGINAL: Irishknight These things are built to hold in a nuclear reaction and radiation. They aren't made of paper. I don't know. I live within the "evacuation zone" of a nuclear plant. Periodically we get instructions in the mail telling what to do and how to escape in the event of a leak. They even color-code the danger by how close you are to the plant. Doesn't exactly fill me with confidence. The fact that they have a plan should make you feel better. Does it make you nervous to have a plan to get out of your house in case of fire? When schools or employers make evacuation plans in case of fire, does that make you nervous? Our school had tornado drills but that didn't mean we were GONNA get hit by a tornado, just that they were trying to be prepared. Of course, we could do away with all emergency plans and just not have any emergencies if you can figure out how to do it. Point taken, but I still have to wonder. There are many industries that deal in hazardous materials. I'm sure we all live in proximity to one of them. Yet we don't receive evacuation plans from them. So why do we receive them regarding nuclear power plants if they are as safe and benign as you say? Because accidents happen and things go wrong. Nuclear Powerplants are notoriously misrepresented as dangerous and all that. However, they do something about the possibility of disaster. An electrical powerstation could go up in flames, or a gas powerstation may have an explosion, but that kind of energy is "safe" and "acceptable" so they don't need to worry about the bad press caused by an accident as much as a nuclear powerplant would. I don't live in America so I really don't have much to say here.

DomAviator -> RE: McCain wants 45 new nuclear plants by 2030 (6/20/2008 2:57:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Irishknight Everyone thinks that they are the number one target after DC. I'm curious about how long it takes for them to become so radioactive that they have to be shut down. The plant I woked at was built in 71 or 72. They just got a renewal for another 30 years I believe. LOL, Irish you are so right and the funniest part of all is that DC isnt the #1 target at all, and very few cities of any signifigance made the "first strike" list. Im sure the war plan I saw is both outdated and declassified now, as our enemies have changed, but back then DC wasn't even on the first page. Most people have no clue of how a nuclear war would be fought, and thats probably best, but heres a hint for those who fear they are a target - hitting DC wouldnt do shit because command and control would then shift to NAOC, then to Cheyenne Mountain, then to places people dont even know about, and if just about everything got hit and the National Command Authority was utterly destroyed there are a couple of boomer captains out there at any given time who actually have the codes and can launch independantly on standing orders if unable to establish contact. (Of course having the codes is no big deal cause once upon a time all the combinations on the Permissive Action Links were five 1's LOL and the only thing that keeps any "special weapons" qualified crewmember from hotwiring a gadget is "the two man rule" ie - no one individual, regardless of rank or job function can ever be alone with a nuclear weapon. Under normal circumstances this means that if I lost my mind and was tinkering with a B-61 while mumbling Burka Burka Mohammmed Jihaad Sherpa Sherpa Bak Allah my BN would shoot me in the fucking head if he had to so as to "safeguard the weapon at all costs"... However, rest assured that if we woke up from a hang over to find ourselves as extras in "The Day After" and unable to reach command it would be "dude hand me a screw driver I gotta arm this and then were gonna get some payback". Hitting DC doesnt solve anything because if need be the line of command goes right on down to the lowliest surviving 0-1 who is in an "unrestricted line" position.) Anyway, target 1 in the event of a nuclear war (after the high altitude airburst just for the EMP effects on electronics) would be someplace we shall call "Turdpile South Dakota" , which would probably be hit simultaneously with "Oxfart Nebraska", "Gooseshit Kansas" "Gatorpiss Lousiana" "Lizardpuke Nevada" and "ScorpionSnot Texas"... The idea in a first strike is to destroy the missles and bombers, before they have a chance to leave the silos and runways. Population centers, major cities, infrastructure etc would be in second and third strikes.... Blowing up DC, NY, Chicago, LA, etc wont do you much good if the missles come blasting out of the cornfields to take out an equal or greater number of cities in your own country. Besides, if you take out DC, who is going to surrender in the event of your victory??? First strike would be in little nowhere country towns, where most of the people dont even know what the fuck is really behind the fence of that "Agricultural Research Station" and in places where there are Air Force bases and Naval Air Stations... The idea is to get the weapons first, before they can be used against you in a counter strike..

Vendaval -> RE: McCain wants 45 new nuclear plants by 2030 (6/20/2008 3:16:54 AM)
McCain has changed from his previous voting record in support of Yucca Mountain. He now wants to send the nuclear waste over seas. http://www.lvrj.com/news/19310899.html

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875