Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 6
Posted: 10/28/2005 5:46:35 AM EDT
Poll coming
Link Posted: 10/28/2005 5:47:21 AM EDT
YES
Link Posted: 10/28/2005 5:47:33 AM EDT
No
Link Posted: 10/28/2005 5:48:40 AM EDT

Originally Posted By mjohn3006:
YES



+1
Link Posted: 10/28/2005 5:49:32 AM EDT
YES +INFINITY
Link Posted: 10/28/2005 5:49:45 AM EDT
Absolutely. Only ignorant fools fail to recognize the benefits of nuclear power.
Link Posted: 10/28/2005 5:54:28 AM EDT
Link Posted: 10/28/2005 5:55:52 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/28/2005 10:42:51 AM EDT by atrophis]

Originally Posted By efpeter:
YES +INFINITY



+1000

Th French are building tons of these. I mean, the FRENCH for christ sakes.

We need to be more energy independant, Nukes help us do that!

ETC: s/dependant/independant ... Thanks :)
Link Posted: 10/28/2005 5:56:11 AM EDT
hell, YES
Link Posted: 10/28/2005 5:56:19 AM EDT
Damn right, skippy.

We could cut a lot of the 'green house' gases the enviro-weenies are bitching about. They don't want coal or natural gas because of air pollution. They don't want wind power due to dead birds. They don't want hydro-electric because of spawning.

Give em nukes.
Link Posted: 10/28/2005 5:56:26 AM EDT
Yes
Link Posted: 10/28/2005 5:57:45 AM EDT
One in every backyard! Me first!
I like nuclear power so much I started saying nucular.
Link Posted: 10/28/2005 6:00:45 AM EDT
AND we need nuke re-processing, or we will run out of space for the waste rods PDQ. Thad was an executive order by IIRC Carter, and has been off the books for some time, but plants are still afraid to do it, because the green fags would make a huge stink.
Link Posted: 10/28/2005 6:02:39 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/28/2005 6:16:15 AM EDT by madmann135]
I vote yes.

The nucular material in Standard Nucular power plant is no where near weapons grade.
Also the risk of nucular contamination is near nill considering todays standards for safety. The only way for a 'meltdown' to occur is if a catostrophic systems failure occur and even that is accounted for. Also if a meltdown did occur the raidoactive materials would be contained within the building.

You have more chance of becoming raidoactive by living near a coal power plant. From what I understrand Coal releases nucular materials into the air.


Nucular materials can last for a very long time and produce enough energy to satisfy current needs.

I won't deny that there are risk with Nucular materials but there are risk driving to work. EVERYTHING we do we take risks.

Nucular energy is NOT the Simpson's variety.


Until hydrogen power reactors are generated, that actually use H2O to generate electricity and is economic and practical enough to be used in civilian market I will vote for Nucular energy.


I wasted post 1000 for this...
Link Posted: 10/28/2005 6:12:12 AM EDT
Also along the lines of re-processing, the part of the spent fuel rod that can't be reused is depeted uranium, and weapons grade plutonium, so the process does create weapons grade material. However, it's not like we don't already have more than enough of the stuff already. This is the big concern with N. Korea's Nuke plants. I also vote we just put the waste into space and crash it into the sun, or some such madness.
Link Posted: 10/28/2005 6:15:09 AM EDT
Yes.
Link Posted: 10/28/2005 6:18:53 AM EDT

Originally Posted By kc0iwx:
I also vote we just put the waste into space and crash it into the sun, or some such madness.



What happens when the rocket does a Challenger and spews that waste into the atmosphere?
Link Posted: 10/28/2005 6:28:26 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/28/2005 6:29:08 AM EDT by mjohn3006]

Originally Posted By tc556guy:

Originally Posted By kc0iwx:
I also vote we just put the waste into space and crash it into the sun, or some such madness.



What happens when the rocket does a Challenger and spews that waste into the atmosphere?



Yeah. We need one of thos vacum suck tubes like at the banks drive through, to go from the nuke plants, right to space.
Link Posted: 10/28/2005 6:32:37 AM EDT
So far there are only 2 people that have not done the cost benifit analysis and have listened to the wrong people lie about saftey records.

[ 2 ] No, the risk of a Chernobyl-style accident or terrorist attack is too great
Link Posted: 10/28/2005 6:34:25 AM EDT
about 20 years ago...

if yer worried- build them in the middle of nowhere- like 10 miles from anything
Link Posted: 10/28/2005 6:37:36 AM EDT

Originally Posted By tc556guy:

Originally Posted By kc0iwx:
I also vote we just put the waste into space and crash it into the sun, or some such madness.



What happens when the rocket does a Challenger and spews that waste into the atmosphere?



I am allowed a really bad idea every now and then I just don't buy into the whole "nuclear waste will be laying arould everywhere" BS. We can figure something out, I am SURE of that.
Link Posted: 10/28/2005 6:39:16 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/28/2005 6:39:32 AM EDT by tc556guy]

Originally Posted By Cleatus:
about 20 years ago...

if yer worried- build them in the middle of nowhere- like 10 miles from anything


Ten miles? Do you realize how much land was rendered uninhabitable by Cherynobyl? We're talking an area the size of a state.
Link Posted: 10/28/2005 8:13:41 AM EDT

Originally Posted By tc556guy:
No



Why?
Link Posted: 10/28/2005 8:15:51 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/15/2005 9:56:23 AM EDT by kill-9]

Originally Posted By madmann135:
I wasted post 1000 for this...



Hey man, any post spent in a thread of mine is a post well spent. Congrats.
Link Posted: 10/28/2005 8:16:11 AM EDT

Originally Posted By tc556guy:

Originally Posted By Cleatus:
about 20 years ago...

if yer worried- build them in the middle of nowhere- like 10 miles from anything


Ten miles? Do you realize how much land was rendered uninhabitable by Cherynobyl? We're talking an area the size of a state.



You obviously don't understand much about Chernobyl. US Nuclear building standards aren't even in the same ballpark. Chernobyl didn't have proper containment built around the reactor. My dad, who worked in the industry for years, often told me how a person could fly a 747 into the nuclear power plant and the reactor would still be safe. Interesting about how prophetic his example turned out to be.

Link Posted: 10/28/2005 8:26:48 AM EDT
There are three with a 120 mile radius of me now. A few more wont matter.
Link Posted: 10/28/2005 8:31:02 AM EDT
There is one about 40 miles from me right now, so another one nearby isn't going to hurt anything.
Link Posted: 10/28/2005 8:32:38 AM EDT
Yes.

One of the few good ideas the phrench had was to use alot of nuclear power.
Link Posted: 10/28/2005 8:33:17 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/28/2005 10:11:33 AM EDT by Merlin]

Originally Posted By Pangea:
There are three with a 120 mile radius of me now. A few more wont matter.



Hopefully, in 10 years there will be two more ABWR's at Bellefonte, near Scottsboro, AL.


Nuclear waste: After 30 years of nuclear power plants in this country, if all the high level waste was piled up in one place it would cover a football field...

<­BR>





about 5 feet high.

Merlin
Link Posted: 10/28/2005 8:35:53 AM EDT
Has the US exhausted all places that a hydroelectric power dam can be installed?
Although nuclear power plants produce clean energy, what is done with spent fuel rods?

What if we placed wind-power farms in hurricane and tornado prone areas. That would cause temporary surges in free energy production.
Link Posted: 10/28/2005 8:36:27 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Merlin:

Originally Posted By Pangea:
There are three with a 120 mile radius of me now. A few more wont matter.



Hopefully, in 10 years there will be two more: ABWR at Bellefonte, near Scottsboro, AL.


Nuclear waste: After 30 years of nuclear power plants in this country, if all the high level waste was piled up in one place it would cover a football field...


about 5 feet high.

Merlin



cool! That's almost nothing.
Link Posted: 10/28/2005 8:37:33 AM EDT
I lived 10mi from one for 8 years, I dont have a problem with them. The newest models are designed such that a runaway reaction cant happen (since a runaway reaction raises the temperature, but in this reactor the higher the temperature the lower the reaction rate).

Kharn
Link Posted: 10/28/2005 8:40:19 AM EDT
Just some facts:

Chernobyl happened due to the poor design of the Russian reactors - a design that we don't use here. When the graphite rods were inserted it created a "critical mass" more or less.

The amount of radiation released at 3-mile island was about equal to the amount of radiation the average person in Denver is exposed to everyday due to being at higher elevation. In other words - minimal.

Link Posted: 10/28/2005 8:42:51 AM EDT
Yes, and we already are within 30 mi. of the one in San Onofre, CA.

If it's good enough for France it's good enough for the Sierra Club.
Link Posted: 10/28/2005 8:44:50 AM EDT

Originally Posted By tripledouble:
Has the US exhausted all places that a hydroelectric power dam can be installed? Pretty much.
Although nuclear power plants produce clean energy, what is done with spent fuel rods? Right now, they are kept in pools at the plants. For the last...forever the DOE has been dumping billions into a perminate storage faculity at Yucca Mountain, but the greens are holding that back. If the DOE persued refining used rods then the radioactive material would be put together into new rods and the non-radioactive stuff would end up as tank bullets.

What if we placed wind-power farms in hurricane and tornado prone areas. That would cause temporary surges in free energy production. Windmills only work if the wind is within a certian speed range. Too slow and no turning, too fast and the blades are feathered to prevent damage to the windmill.

Link Posted: 10/28/2005 8:47:22 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/28/2005 8:49:05 AM EDT by hardcorps1775]

Originally Posted By atrophis:

Originally Posted By efpeter:
YES +INFINITY



+1000

Th French are building tons of these. I mean, the FRENCH for christ sakes.

We need to be more energy dependant, Nukes help us do that!


did you mean "independent"?

what would happen if we DID launch our waste into the sun??? i know it ain't gonna explode but is there a possibility that the vaporized waste could be sent back on solar winds? i've often thought that would be a great idea. either that or just launch the shit into deep space and hope we don't piss anyone off out there.

i understand the technology has become so advanced the chance of an accidental release of radiation is statistically impossible (kinda like the "unsinkable titantic", i know, i know...).

also, i wrote our ambassador to the un with the idea we should come up with an international design for nuke plants that would NOT produce weapons grade nuke materials and force any country (like iran) who wants to build reactors for "peaceful" energy purposes to conform to that standard or face sanctions and possible mil action. and for those with pre-existing plants, they should conform to the new standards in x number of years. still waiting for a response...
Link Posted: 10/28/2005 8:52:52 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/28/2005 8:53:19 AM EDT by ghengiskhabb]

Originally Posted By hardcorps1775:
what would happen if we DID launch our waste into the sun??? i know it ain't gonna explode but is there a possibility that the vaporized waste could be sent back on solar winds? i've often thought that would be a great idea. either that or just launch the shit into deep space and hope we don't piss anyone off out there.





The nuclear waste sent back by the solar wind will probably not be any more radioactive than the solar wind itself.

Time of flight to anywhere where there might be somebody to piss off = infinity.

Just put it in solar orbit.
Link Posted: 10/28/2005 9:11:01 AM EDT
Abso-fucking-lutely.
Link Posted: 10/28/2005 9:17:00 AM EDT
Sure. There's one about maybe 60 miles away from me, in Braidwood IL.
Link Posted: 10/28/2005 9:20:41 AM EDT
Link Posted: 10/28/2005 9:23:11 AM EDT

Originally Posted By hardcorps1775:
what would happen if we DID launch our waste into the sun??? i know it ain't gonna explode but is there a possibility that the vaporized waste could be sent back on solar winds? i've often thought that would be a great idea. either that or just launch the shit into deep space and hope we don't piss anyone off out there.



Putting it into the sun is a better option. The effect on the sun would be almost non-existant. You could throw the entire Earth into the Sun, and it would barely notice.

And the radiation put out by all our nuclear waste is a fart in a hurricane compared to the massive amounts of radiation the sun puts out all the time.
Link Posted: 10/28/2005 9:50:49 AM EDT

Originally Posted By tc556guy:

Originally Posted By Cleatus:
about 20 years ago...

if yer worried- build them in the middle of nowhere- like 10 miles from anything


Ten miles? Do you realize how much land was rendered uninhabitable by Cherynobyl? We're talking an area the size of a state.



Do some actual research, and you'll find out that Chernobyl is nothing like American reactors.

They operate differently and we have very different safety and operating standards.

Comparing the two is like apples and oranges. They both come from trees, but the similarities end there.
Link Posted: 10/28/2005 10:33:49 AM EDT
Of course.

Every major metro area in this country should be powered by nuclear, with the goal of building enough plants that we are at 100% efficiency with respect to the supply line of uranium.

I'd love to see some numbers about how much oil and gas that would free up for home heating, industrial, and automotive use.
Link Posted: 10/28/2005 10:36:58 AM EDT
Your just ignorent or fucking stupid if you voted No
Link Posted: 10/28/2005 10:41:15 AM EDT
We need to start reusing the Uranium again, after its used once it still has about 70% of the energy left. This will drasticly reduce waste. Using this method there is enough Urainuim on the earth to supply the world for hunderds of years before the price will start to increase.
Link Posted: 10/28/2005 10:45:44 AM EDT
2 words
BREEDER REACTORS
Link Posted: 10/28/2005 11:00:50 AM EDT
Yes.

Lots of 'em.
Link Posted: 10/28/2005 11:02:57 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/28/2005 11:06:00 AM EDT by drfcolt]
Heck yes, I already have four withing 100 miles of me now:
- Limerick (PECO/Exelon))
- Three-Mile Island (PECO/Exelon)
- Susquehanna (PP&L)
- Peach Bottom (PECO/Exelon)
Link Posted: 10/28/2005 11:05:34 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Merlin:

Originally Posted By Pangea:
There are three with a 120 mile radius of me now. A few more wont matter.



Hopefully, in 10 years there will be two more ABWR's at Bellefonte, near Scottsboro, AL.


Nuclear waste: After 30 years of nuclear power plants in this country, if all the high level waste was piled up in one place it would cover a football field...


about 5 feet high.

Merlin



Where do you get your facts?

Sure, we COULD just pile up spent uranium in a place the size of a football field, but as you might imagine that would be a huge hazard for a number of reasons.

Do some googling for Yucca Mountain Nuclear Repository and then tell me how little space nuclear waste takes up.
Link Posted: 10/28/2005 11:12:13 AM EDT

Originally Posted By mjohn3006:
YES

Link Posted: 10/28/2005 11:18:54 AM EDT
Not only do we need new nuclear power plants, we also need new plants with fuel reprocessing, not just with the wastefull once through fuel process. Also we need to build breeder reactors to keep a constant supply of fuel in country or we will end up running out of fissile material as uranium ore is fairly rare. Thirdly we need to restart our enrichment facilities, such as the ones Good Year used to have mothballed in Ohio, we can't keep buying dismanteled Russian warheads and melting them down into MOX rods forever.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 6
Top Top