[SPINTECK]

You guys are so close to putting it together.

JP Morgan bought Edison and GE. Bought Carnegie, US steel. Probably still owns all the nukes GE runs (limerick by my house). Morgans, Rockefellars and Rothchilds - all which own the majority of the FED (which can not be audited). So you have electricity, oil and war finance barons all owning the fed. They also now own most of the major media (GE owns ABC I think and you can put the rest together). The owners of the FED all make money by financing our wars because we borrow from them or have them print out money.

Now could you imagine if BUSH had to implement a war tax to fight IRaq?? We pay it in the back end by depreciating our money and paying more interest of our fed tax to the FED. SO big gov't spending is good for conservatives (or any alley of the FED) if it makes those dynasties richer. So WAR, Power, energy has all been connected since the first international bank (rothchilds) and later integrated into our society with the formation of the FED.

With respect to nukes- no matter what, the guy who said reduce usage made a point which is the biggest single problem w/nukes: WHAT DO WE DO WITH THE WASTE??? Yuca mountain has yet to be used and right now they actually want to store the crap in cement casts outside my local nuke plant (yes, I may be fleaing before that happens).

So to tie back into the thread, a properly run plant(no experiments, good training, well staffed, well inspected, properly handled waste) is an answer to our energy.

 

[sanjuro]

With respect to nukes- no matter what, the guy who said reduce usage made a point which is the biggest single problem w/nukes: WHAT DO WE DO WITH THE WASTE??? Yuca mountain has yet to be used and right now they actually want to store the crap in cement casts outside my local nuke plant (yes, I may be fleaing before that happens).

Find another desert to dig a deep enough hole?

What do you think happens to all our trash? Magically becomes soil?

 

[SPINTECK]

I assume you are attacking my statement about keeping the waste at Yucca mountain.

What was the solution for waste storage you proposed or supported??

 

[Changleen]

Imagine if the Shrub had dumped a trillion dollars into the development of fusion technology.

I mean, even if it'd failed, at least it would have been a noble goal, right? And if he'd succeeded, he'd be on par with Jesus...

A trillion bux into fusion research would have paid for several ITERs. Fusion is all about efficient containment. In theory fusion can happen in a tiny space. In 20-30 years you might have fusion batteries. How cool would that be? Flying skateboards, MTBs with hub motors as powerful as an R6, laptops that last forever - that's the dream niggah!

 

[sanjuro]

I assume you are attacking my statement about keeping the waste at Yucca mountain.

What was the solution for waste storage you proposed or supported??

Find another desert and dig a big hole. Also spend billions on nuclear waste disposal technology.

 

[SPINTECK]

Find another desert and dig a big hole. Also spend billions on nuclear waste disposal technology.

So you agree centralizing all the waste is better than storing it at all the reactor sites?? What specifically is wroing w/Yucca and what other desert do you reccoment?? If so, the only problem is transportation of waste to the site.

What type of nuclear waste disposal technology do you feel can effectively be developed?? AS far as I know, there is no way to decrease the half life of waste, unless you process it further in another nuclear power plant. The problem with that is at some point you get plutonium, which the gov't does not want to float around.

 

[jimmydean]

Also spend billions on nuclear waste disposal technology.

To Mars, bitches! Or at least the moon. If terrorists what to make the trip to dumpster dive, have at it.

 

[N8 v2.0]

i noted with glee that obama wasnt in a hurry to take nuke power off the table in a news report earlier today...

A lil nukie never hurt anyone

 

[sanjuro]

So you agree centralizing all the waste is better than storing it at all the reactor sites?? What specifically is wroing w/Yucca and what other desert do you reccoment?? If so, the only problem is transportation of waste to the site.

What type of nuclear waste disposal technology do you feel can effectively be developed?? AS far as I know, there is no way to decrease the half life of waste, unless you process it further in another nuclear power plant. The problem with that is at some point you get plutonium, which the gov't does not want to float around.

While I am expert on many topics, I am not a nuclear physicist, and my knowledge of reducing half-lives is limited. As is yours.

Actually, checking my info, I did not realize that Yucca Mountain is not officially open. I thought it was going to close, not struggling to open.

Yucca seems like a great place to dump our waste.

 

[Defenestrated]

I don't understand the people who are scared of nuclear power tbh.

If subject to competent safety regulation and precautions, fission is relatively safe.

 

[sanjuro]

I don't understand the people who are scared of nuclear power tbh.

If subject to competent safety regulation and precautions, fission is relatively safe.

Just ask the Nuclear Navy....

 

[SPINTECK]

I don't understand the people who are scared of nuclear power tbh.

If subject to competent safety regulation and precautions, fission is relatively safe.

Here's the problem, I live/grew up in PA, the home of the Peach Bottom nuclear disaster of the 70's. The fact it didn't totally melt down is considered a miracle. There are many that feel the company and gov't didn't tell us until it was too late. So it is a very big deal.

The other problem is there is only so much room under a plant to store waste. The companies got around this by saying "we can store it for 20 years of generation and then we'll just shut it down." Guess what, Exelon is not shutting down Limerick nuclear and has sought extensions. Not only do I worry about the maintenance of the equipment, but the waste is now going to be stored outside in giant cement caskets!! The township can't stop it.

So to answer your question, previous disasters and lack of waste planning combined with a huge eye sore and cooling stacks are reasons people view nuclear. My personal concern is only the waste, so I was hoping some engineer, hobbyist, physicist or just a smart monkey knew of any other possible waste solutions.

 

[Defenestrated]

shoot it into the sun

solves the waste problem and give NASA some meaningful goal/reason to be innovative

on a more serious note.

under a mountain/desolate area tbh

 

[BurlyShirley]

Nevada/Utah/New Mexico are pretty big places.

 

[Samirol]

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/readings/french.html

Bataille went and spoke to the people who were protesting and soon realized that the engineers and bureaucrats had greatly misunderstood the psychology of the French people. The technocrats had seen the problem in technical terms. To them, the cheapest and safest solution was to permanently bury the waste underground. But for the rural French says Bataille, "the idea of burying the waste awoke the most profound human myths. In France we bury the dead, we don't bury nuclear waste...there was an idea of profanation of the soil, desecration of the Earth."

Bataille discovered that the rural populations had an idea of "Parisians, the consumers of electricity, coming to the countryside, going to the bottom of your garden with a spade, digging a hole and burying nuclear waste, permanently." Using the word permanently was especially clumsy says Bataille because it left the impression that the authorities were abandoning the waste forever and would never come back to take care of it.

Fighting the objections of technical experts who argued it would increase costs, Bataille introduced the notions of reversibility and stocking. Waste should not be buried permanently but rather stocked in a way that made it accessible at some time in the future. People felt much happier with the idea of a "stocking center" than a "nuclear graveyard". Was this just a semantic difference? No, says Bataille. Stocking waste and watching it involves a commitment to the future. It implies that the waste will not be forgotten. It implies that the authorities will continue to be responsible. And, says Bataille, it offers some possibility of future advances. "Today we stock containers of waste because currently scientists don't know how to reduce or eliminate the toxicity, but maybe in 100 years perhaps scientists will."

 

[N8 v2.0]

hummmmm

Obama: He has said he's opposed to Yucca Mountain and has called for the facility's closure.

Illinois' nuclear industry, which has thousands of tons of waste at its facilities awaiting opening of Yucca Mountain, has long backed Obama. Executives and employees of Exelon Corp., the Chicago-based energy giant and nuclear plant operator, have contributed more than $200,000 to Obama campaigns since 2004, according to PoliticalMoneyLine.com.

Obama has said he believes nuclear energy should remain on the table.

Obama also raised eyebrows when he chose Federico Peña, who was energy secretary before Richardson, as his surrogate on the issue. At his departure from the Energy Department, Peña took credit for "meeting milestones" toward opening the site.

 

[SPINTECK]

hummmmm

Where did you find that- source??

 

[ohio]

I'm diggin' the new guy.

He's like the smart, well-read cut-and-paster N* should have been.

 

[jimmydean]

Nevada/Utah/New Mexico are pretty big places.

I say Texas an Louisiana. They have NOTHING else to offer but places to store trash (just keep it above New Orleans for flood sake).

 

[N8 v2.0]

I say Texas an Louisiana. They have NOTHING else to offer but places to store trash (just keep it above New Orleans for flood sake).

i was thinking Oregon.. no one cares about hippies

 

[sanjuro]

i was thinking Oregon.. no one cares about hippies

and the hipsters.

 

[N8 v2.0]

and the hipsters.

the ones who wear capri pants and ride fixies?

 

[Defenestrated]

no we need lumber from oregon

 

[N8 v2.0]

This fresh from the FERC.. the case for nukes continues to build steam...



http://www.ferc.gov/legal/staff-reports/06-19-08-cost-electric.pdf

FERC: WARNING ABOUT ELECTRIC INFLATION
19 Jun 2008

The steep increase in forward market prices for electricity being seen across the United States may be the beginning of a period of significantly higher electricity prices that will last for years, FERC warned.

The two major factors pushing the costs of electric generation higher are increased fuel costs and increased cost for new construction, according to the staff report, "Increasing Costs in Electric Markets." The index of costs for the main inputs that go into building new power plants has almost doubled since 2003, with nuclear plant inputs rising even faster, the report said.

Much of the cost increase results from rising global demand for basic materials. FERC Chairman Kelliher outlined three realities that are shaping FERC policy. First, FERC and state utility commissions are regulating in a high-cost environment. Second, the U.S. needs massive investments in new generation, transmission and distribution. Third, the country is beginning to confront the need to take action on climate change.

Uncertainty about future carbon regulation is a key factor affecting the market, particularly coal generation. The debate over how to address CO2 emissions has already affected how companies think about investments. The report noted that since January 2007, 50 coal plants have been canceled or postponed while only 26 remain under construction. Given the range of uncertainty over the future of carbon policy in this country and the cost of a carbon cap-and-trade policy or a carbon tax, Commission Moeller noted that people are moving toward renewables. While it's good to have more renewables on the grid, he pointed to challenges with the integration of wind resources because wind is not the same as baseload power. "More transmission can help solve a lot of these problems, at least as a shoulder strategy because it comes at a disproportionately small price compared to the commodity price or the fuel price," Moeller said.

Commissioner Suedeen Kelly noted that there are other problems in the U.S. economy that compound the cost of building new electricity infrastructure, including the weak dollar, an economic slowdown, the prospect of inflation and tight credit.