Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: funkedup on November 08, 2002, 12:59:00 PM
-
How about an "Apollo program" to replace fossil fuel power plants (which generate most of our electric power) with nukes. The government would have to relax a lot of regulations to make this economically feasible, but why not do it? Seems like we could kill a lot of birds with one stone.
Make all the enviromental types happy by pretty much eliminating emissions. America is the biggest contributor to global warming right? Well how about we zero that out. Electric cars would actually become zero emission vehicles. California has a water shortage? Don't deplete the Colorado river, just build nuclear desalinization plants on the coast and turn sea water into fresh water.
Eliminate foreign dependency on oil completely. No more wars in the desert, no more need to project power globally. There would be a significant "peace dividend" due to reduced "defense" costs. Global perception of the US would be more positive, because we wouldn't have to monkey around with the internal affairs of so many nations. We'd pretty much remove all motivation for guys like Bin Laden. And IMHO the chance of the US touching off a REALLY BIG WAR would decrease greatly, something that benefits every man, woman, and child on the planet.
Of course the question is, "What the hell do you do with the nuclear waste?" But is dealing with this one problem going to be more difficult than dealing with things like global warming or global warfare? I think the answer is "No." Imagine if we took all the resources we spend on fossil fuel pollution control, global warming research, maintaining our oil supply, etc., and we used all that money and manpower to figure out the optimal method to dispose of spent nuclear fuel. We're talking serious manpower, on par with the Apollo program. I think we'd be able to figure it out PDQ.
-
This kind of reminds me of the time nuclear space travel was rejected in an outrage by the enviromentalists.
It was completly safe, but that is hard for ignorants to understand. They will be 100% against anything nuclear because they refuse to understand that its safe and clean.
Another problem is that oil companies have their dirty claws around much of the goverment. They have so much money and power and desire to keep it that way that they would do ANYTHING that is possible to keep this nuclear dream from happening.
-
While I agree about the nukes. You might want to avoid expressions like "we could kill a lot of birds with one stone." :)
-
Couldn't agree more funked, perhaps geothermal plants as well, much cleaner than even nukes no waste. Although probably more expensive. Also put more research into super conductors, a ton of energy is wasted just going over the wire.
Hell even fuel cells would be better, oil companies do have a large hand iin government I don't care if Nader was elected still wouldn't get anything done.
And nothing says we couldn't use multiple forms of energy anyway nuke, geothermal, solar, wind, wave, hydro etc.
Perhaps give the oil companies incentive to develop these new technolgies so they dont go out of business. Because let's face it they do employ a hell of alot of people. They employ a ton of geologist to find oil, switch them over to heat sources, where to build damns etc.
-
None of this will change the fact that you live in Southern Oregon.
:p
-
That's why we need a dictatorship funked.
It ain't gonna work because:
A. US Politics is all about fear these days. While there are many sensible environmentalists, what sells politically is fear.
So yeah, while our nuke plants are safe and damn secure, what sells is talking about "nuclear terrorism" in the form of attacks on them.
While many environmentalists would recognize that nuclear energy is a hell of a lot less damaging to the environment than fossil fuels, fear of the "things nuclear" gets you votes. Look how many "nuclear free" cities there are in the US. According to the laws on the books, you shouldn't be able to buy a can of brazil nuts in those places.
B. Well, politics isn't all about fear. It's also about doing the minimum amount of action to satisfy contingencies while maintaining the status quo. That's why a good environmental politician doesn't take on the oil industry, but rather the public sector; at best, you can go after a small and weak player in the private sector, such as the private citizen ("I've got it, we'll give the american citizen more economic freedom by allowing corporations to access their financial record and initiate credit transactions! They'll just love getting those $5000 dollar checks in the mail with 30% interest rates! Their neighbors will love it too!") or maybe nuclear power. Why regulate automobiles when you can add yet another restriction to a relatively minor sector of the energy economy, and appear to be "pro-environment"? Even better, Big Oil will support any effort you make in the name of "environmentalism" to render nuclear power -- the only credible threat to fossil fuel -- absolutely unprofitable. You get to be labeled an environmentalist, Dubya and Cheney get to help out their buddies, and the only ones who lose are those who have to live on this planet.
(and no, it wouldn't be much different with a change in regime.)
-
Would lose all their future oil profits.
It may happen after that swine is out of office.....not before.
-
Well, pessimists, I'm going to think globally and act locally. I'm building my own reactor in the tool shed.
-
Originally posted by weazel
Would lose all their future oil profits.
It may happen after that swine is out of office.....not before.
Oh man it must suck being you these days. You really should rachet the hate down a few notches. It will get you nowhere fast but pissed off. Trust me after 8 years of Komrad Klinton I know what i'm talking about :eek:
-
hold on funked. Don't you live in a tool shed?
-
I live in a van,
down by the river.
-
The answer regarding what to do with the waste is simple...build a big rocket, fill it up with nuclear waste, aim it at the sun and fire. :cool:
-
It's kinda heavy though. We'd need to build a really big siphon.
-
It's all about cost. Decommissioning has to be factored into the equation, and that's exorbitant. Also, due to the nature of democracy (i.e. short term governments), no one administration would want to spend that kind of cash - too much of a gamble for little (short-term) payoff.
That's why communism is a better system. Just look at Chernobyl.
-
The best system for this would be Dinger's benevolent dictatorship. But as long as you guys don't vote for me as dictator we will get nowhere.
PS Dowding: A lot of the decommissioning cost is related to excessive regulation inspired by fear. If people really weighed the costs and benefits (including global warming and the need to project military power globally), they might be more willing to accept more risk from nuclear power, resulting in relaxed regulations and lower life cycle costs.
-
All you have to do is build your reactors in the Free Trade Zone with Mexico- no licensing fee, no taxes and no EPA regulations.
Funked seriously, tho, if you're looking for some plutonium I can hook you up. I scored some from a Russian dude and I need to move it cause it's making my hair fall out and my skin glow in the dark.
-
Does he have hash too?
-
Accept more risk from nuclear power? Define 'more'. I'm sure the residents of villages around Chernobyl would help you out, but they are too busy being dead. Or giving birth to offspring with genetic defects. Which democratic administration would take that little legacy on?
Handling nuclear material is an expensive business if you don't want a ruined environment or damaged/dead workers. Who wants to work in a dangerous environment? Several would if the money was right - therefore increased labour costs. I just don't think there's any way of getting around the expense of nuclear power.
-
The nuclear industry’s safety record and efficiency gains have been widely acknowledged, and nuclear power plants have become more economically competitive as other sources of energy have increased in price. While just a few years ago many plants were looking to phase out when their initial licenses expired, now about 40 percent of U.S. nuclear plants have announced plans to seek renewed licenses, according to the NRC, and twice that number may apply. “There’s even talk that some company might order up a new nuclear generating plant, something that hasn’t happened in more than 20 years,” according to a May 12 Washington Post editorial entitled “Nuclear Comeback
-
Originally posted by Dowding
Accept more risk from nuclear power? Define 'more'. I'm sure the residents of villages around Chernobyl would help you out, but they are too busy being dead. Or giving birth to offspring with genetic defects. Which democratic administration would take that little legacy on?
Handling nuclear material is an expensive business if you don't want a ruined environment or damaged/dead workers. Who wants to work in a dangerous environment? Several would if the money was right - therefore increased labour costs. I just don't think there's any way of getting around the expense of nuclear power.
Dowding we don't have these problems in the USA, because after 3 Mile Island there was a vast increase in regulations which was inspired by fear. We could reduce regulations and cost and still maintain safety.
We're talking about the last couple nines in reliability figures here. Are those last few nines worth maintaining a global military influence or polluting the atmosphere to a degree which alters climate? A very high (and nearly certain) price to prevent a few deaths from materials handling or plant malfunctions. What if the need of the USA to maintain petroleum supply results in global thermonuclear war? That would be "a tad" worse than even another Chernobyl.
-
Your hypocrasy is showing.
IIRC your main beef with "Komrade Klinton" was his lying about a blow job, yet you take no exception to chimpy lying about 9/11.
You seem to have a double standard when it comes to liars.
I see no difference between the two, both are lying swine.
Originally posted by Udie
Oh man it must suck being you these days. You really should rachet the hate down a few notches. It will get you nowhere fast but pissed off. Trust me after 8 years of Komrad Klinton I know what i'm talking about :eek:
-
how exactly is Bush lieing aboy 9/11? :rolleyes:
-
a blind eye to this swines lack of integrity.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=bush+lies+9%2F11&btnG=Google+Search
Originally posted by Udie
how exactly is Bush lieing aboy 9/11? :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by weazel
a blind eye to this swines lack of integrity.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=bush+lies+9%2F11&btnG=Google+Search
the POWER of the internet at its finest
some ppl also believe the world is flat, we didn't go to the moon and the germans did not kill any jews during ww2
:rolleyes:
-
Look guys, I can get left-wing academia behind this, if you can get the rightists behind it. It's not about politics; it about saving the world we love. Dammit, we can recognize our own. And fictitious corporations were invented not to be our own.
It's time to vote from the rooftops.
;)
-
Originally posted by Eagler
the POWER of the internet at its finest
some ppl also believe the world is flat, we didn't go to the moon and the germans did not kill any jews during ww2
:rolleyes:
LoL eagler, next thing I know you'll be telling me santa claus isn't real :rolleyes:
:D
-
"bush gets tangled in his 9/11 lies, part 1
by Jared Israel and Francisco Gil-White, Emperor's New Clothes - September 30, 2002
As you will recall, Bush said he learned of the first World Trade Center crash sitting outside a classroom at the Booker School. He said he saw TV video footage of the plane hitting the building. Of course, this is impossible because, at the time, the TV stations didn't have such footage. Indeed, the TV news people weren't even sure it was a plane crash until the second plane hit the WTC. For example, here is Charles Gibson on ABC news speaking shortly after 9 AM:
"GIBSON: Well, obviously, we don't know if this was--if it was a plane, and I underline, if it was, we don't know if it would have been deliberate or accidental. We know so little now..."
So, Bush definitely did not see TV footage of the crash. However, as you argue, he could have misremembered.
The question is, *did* he? Did he misremember? Or was he lying?
Fortunately we have evidence that can help answer this question.
For the sake of argument, let's suppose Bush did *not* lie. Let's suppose he made false statements at the Florida Town Hall meeting due to faulty memory. Wouldn’t members of his staff have corrected him?
They certainly would. Because his "mistakes" contradicted the previous White House story about what Mr. Bush knew and when on 9-11. That story was outlined at a Press Conference the evening of September 11th by Mr. Bush's press secretary, Ari Fleischer."
This is hot stuff and absolute proof of Bush's evil in weazel's world. Get help weazel....
-
FUNKEDUP FOR DICTATOR 2002!!!
PUT ANOTHER DICK IN THE WHITE HOUSE!!!
-
One of the big problems with nuclear power is the waste. I'm surprised that no-one implements the obvious solution: dump it down where it will be buried by lava. You want free-flowing lava, such as in Hawaii or Iceland, rather than that from the explosive type of volcano, like Etna.
-
That "little" lies are OK?
So much for being on the side of righteousness ehh?
right·eous Pronunciation Key (rchs)
adj.
Morally upright; without guilt or sin: a righteous parishioner.
In accordance with virtue or morality: a righteous judgment.
Morally justifiable: righteous anger.
Eagler, Udie... if you do, shame on you.
A lie is a lie.
Groinhurtz, when or IF you become an American I'll include you in political discussion, until then keep your balkan ignorance to yourself please.
-
Nuclear power is safe...clean.... huh?
Firstoff its not "safe" per say. You need to have a toejamload of security and failsafes to prevent the ONE time where one screwup could literally obliterate life for miles around the plant.
Then its not "clean" either. Oh sure, the big smokestacks churn out water vapor not smoke or CO2 or other nasty "polluting" stuff. But what about the SPENT nuclear FUEL RODS? Those things STAY dangerously radioactive for THOUSANDS of years. Where you gonna dispose of that hmmm? USGOV has made a storage site they assure people will hold the waste safely for 10k years... sadly they are storing stuff that remains radioactive for nearly 3X as long. But bypassing the fact that who knows if we can turn spent glowing nuke rods into twinkies in the next 10,000 years, the CURRENT amount of radioactive waste is huge. Not only the fuel rods themselves, but everything that got irradiated by them...construction materiel, water, equipment, etc etc. Theres just no storage space capable of keeping up with the amount of waste being created NOW. If you open nuke plants all around that will be exponentially increased..then what ye gonna do? Open holes all over the US and make nuke dumps? That would be quite nice if such sites didnt have the downside that ONE fukup by joeblow can kill everything in its vecinity and pollute the area for a thousand years. Im sure yer grandkids will love you for it.
Throwing the waste up in a rocket is a neat idea too. Lets just hope they dont blow up in the pads or mis-fly and land in the middle of washington d.c.
The risks are too great, the damage done by one messup is too big and lasts for too long.
I'd be more inclined to take fuel cell tech or organic power generation plants as an alternative... or tidal power.
-
FunkedUp - Your idea is very much like the single European currency. A GREAT idea, but will it work? 10-15 years ago, I was just like you, and very much in favour of the advancement of nuclear power for all the reasons you said. But nowadays, I find myself agreeing 100% with OIO in the post above. There have been too many fück-ups - Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, and Windscale (1957 - now known as Sellafield). The trouble is that you only have to have one fück-up, and support of the general public is lost. I think we've already gone past that point, and it's disappointing but we need to deal with it. Incidentally, I thought about 50% of power in IL WAS generated by nukes - am I right? The issue with waste - nuke rods with a half-life of thousands of years. Can we guarantee that they would be disposed of properly? Or would they end up on some beach in a third world country? - Not an issue to be taken lightly.
-
any of you guys ever work around nuke power in the private sector? (I have no experience with how nukes are run in military applications)
anyway. I worked at a nuke for awhile back when I was an apprentice. before I started there I thought nukes where clean, safe, efficent form of energy. after a couple months I realised its about as safe as watching a chimp play with a loaded pistol.
they talk up safety and standards alot but basicly it comes down to having enough paperwork to prove it's not your fault when things go wrong.
in the first 3 weeks I was there I heard of several huge problems that never where heard of outside the plant (stuff like- 1. contianment wall being breached while plant is in full operation. or 2. cooling system filter screens that had no record of anual servicing after 10-15 years of operation, when this was realised and they where checked it turns out that the screens where never installed and there was toejamloads of debris in the sump only luck stopped it from causing major cooling problems)
second the 'strict' adherance to regulation is a joke.
at the time I worked the nuke they told us that the feds say you can take upto 1,500 mrem every 3 months. but then they tell us how they hold there standard to 500. when my dose hit 450 I got an extension 1000, when I hit 900 my limit was bumped to 2k. oh ya, about those 3 month time frames, those are calandar 1/4's so they set up the outages so that you start the actual work (After training and such) in march and finish up in april or may. our work is opening up generators and entering them to prepare them for the robotic equipment. then after the robots are done we remove all equipment and close up the vesles. so we take all our dose at the start or finish of the outage. so anyway it's set up so that the outage stradles the end of a quarter. so while on paper I took 2,700++ rem in 6 months (well within the 3k for 6 months limit, in fact I took almost all of that in a 75 day period.
while talking with guys who had worked there for many years- and told me how the rules have chenged every year- I learned the great truth about nuke "every year they learn something new about nukes" it's as simple as that, but what they learn every year is that what they thought they knew last year is wrong.
so after 5 months of working in a nuke my opinion of them had changed 180 degrees.
a couple months later I campaigned heavy to ban them from this state.
and about the waste. didn't your mom every teach you to clean up after yourself? you don't make messes you can't clean up, then leave them for someone else to clean up (your kids?).
-
Just get Superman to take all the bad nuclear stuff to the sun........
(http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B000059XUK.01.MZZZZZZZ.gif)
Tronsky
oh OT:
The energy companies have too much dollars invested in keeping various governments and their respective agencies inline.
The cost of investing in proper and user friendly renewable-energy is about the same as a small war (not unlike the current actions - or the proposed up-coming) ....but don't think for a second any government's going to invest that kind of dollars anytime soon....not whiles theres some oil to burn first.
Tronsky