 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
History Forum / General / General Topics / June 2008Nuclear POWER would reduce energy costs
Of course as soon as the mindless sheep hear the word Nuclear they become even more moronic and irrational than normal. France uses it with great success and it is much more clean and effective than Coal burning plants. But, don't try and confuse the mindless sheep with the facts. > Of course as soon as the mindless sheep hear the word Nuclear they > become even more moronic and irrational than normal. France uses it > with great success and it is much more clean and effective than Coal > burning plants. But, don't try and confuse the mindless sheep with the > facts. Yup...another thoughtful, convincing argument from the very reasoned and certainly trustworthy right. Seriously. If you're looking for a fight...that's the approach to take. I guess this is really an attempt to doom the prospects for nuclear from the start. Reverse strategy eh? You probably really want wind or solar power. > Yup...another thoughtful, convincing argument . . . > Of course as soon as the mindless sheep hear the word Nuclear they > become even more moronic and irrational than normal. France uses it > with great success and it is much more clean and effective than Coal > burning plants. But, don't try and confuse the mindless sheep with the > facts. Okay, and we'll store the waste in your backyard. > Of course as soon as the mindless sheep hear the word Nuclear they > become even more moronic and irrational than normal. France uses it > with great success and it is much more clean and effective than Coal > burning plants. But, don't try and confuse the mindless sheep with the > facts. There's a little published fact about nuclear power...the government has to heavily subsidize it. > > Of course as soon as the mindless sheep hear the word Nuclear they > > become even more moronic and irrational than normal. France uses it [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > There's a little published fact about nuclear power...the government > has to heavily subsidize it. Not to mention defend it...from attack that is. I'm not automatically against it any longer though. Since we have been so slow to develop (and fund initiatives to explore) alternatives, we have little choice but to consider everything now. In <4c53b581-54d9-4389-934f-86c5d60acba6@k20g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, on 04/06/08 at 07:32 PM, "This is your brain on Fox News." <goofindoo@gmail.com> said: >On Apr 6, 4:45 pm, IMPERATOR <TRIBUNEOFR...@gmail.com> wrote: > Of course >as soon as the mindless sheep hear the word Nuclear they > become even >more moronic and irrational than normal. France uses it > with great >success and it is much more clean and effective than Coal > burning >plants. But, don't try and confuse the mindless sheep with the > facts. >There's a little published fact about nuclear power...the government has >to heavily subsidize it. Perhaps the government should subsidize installing solar panels on homes and buildings instead? If every building had solar panels, how much fossil fuel could/would be saved, and how much money on utility bills? I'd love to put solar panels on my roof, but there's no way I could afford them. Alan  Signature---------------------------------------------------------------------- ** Please use address alanh77[at]comcast.net to reply via e-mail. ** Posted using registered MR/2 ICE Newsreader #564 and eComStation 1.2R BBS - The Nerve Center Telnet FidoNet 261/1000 tncbbs.no-ip.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------- On Apr 7, 4:52 pm, nob...@junk.min.net wrote: > In <4c53b581-54d9-4389-934f-86c5d60ac...@k20g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, on > 04/06/08 [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Alan A good idea.. Much better than risking glow-in-the-dark kids. nobody@junk.min.net <nobody@junk.min.net> wrote in message: 47fab431$4$nynaurff$mr2ice@newsgroups.comcast.net, > In > <4c53b581-54d9-4389-934f-86c5d60acba6@k20g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Perhaps the government should subsidize installing solar panels on > homes and buildings instead? They do that already. > If every building had solar panels, how > much fossil fuel could/would be saved, and how much money on utility > bills? I'd love to put solar panels on my roof, but there's no way I > could afford them. > > Alan The govt should fund research into the manufacture of solar panels to bring the price down for everyone, ramp up production, and make it a major export item. SignatureDVDs for sale: http://unique-dvd.com 165 Banned Cartoons, The Unknown War, Centennial Miniseries, Holocaust, Pearl, Amerika, Space, George Washington, Anzacs, Marco Polo, Rich Man Poor Man, Peter the Great, Noble House, and more... > Of course as soon as the mindless sheep hear the word Nuclear they > become even more moronic and irrational than normal. France uses it > with great success and it is much more clean and effective than Coal > burning plants. But, don't try and confuse the mindless sheep with the > facts. 1. The Republican majority conservative voting state of Nevada rejects the elaborate apparently well planned waste dump 2. The nuclear energy powers that be, including labor unions, build those things appparently by abusing cost over-runs, blaming the opponents of course. 3. The French APPARENTLY know what they are doing, while the USA has it's accidents, a la: The Browns Ferry insulation fire 3 Mile Island Incident of cover-up such as the Karen Silkwood case Watts Bar: more ugly allegations 4. Imho: If the U.S. starts building them again, we need foreign advice/help so we don't shoot ourselves in the feet 5. Like the guy asks: where you gonna dump the radioactive by product, since Nevada rejects it. > > Of course as soon as the mindless sheep hear the word Nuclear they > > become even more moronic and irrational than normal. France uses it [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > those things appparently by abusing cost over-runs, blaming the > opponents of course. Having lived near a failed nuke project, this is pretty much deadon. Management was also part of the problem. > 3. The French APPARENTLY know what they are doing, while the USA has > it's accidents, a la: [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > 5. Like the guy asks: where you gonna dump the radioactive by product, > since Nevada rejects it. Or ask someone who watches the radioactive plume in the ground water spread to the edge of the nuclear reservation. Granted this from nuclear bomb making projects not nuke power. ( that is poorly worded but I am sleepy) A house that has much of a heating bill is poorly built for most areas even northern trier states is part of the problem. Decentralized power such as direct solar and passive solar add security to the system. Wind is hamburger helper to hydro power by sparing water and hence fish. Stuff happens, attacks happen. Nuclear plant failure can make huge lasting messes in such circumstances. On Apr 7, 10:10 am, "trigonometry1...@gmail.com |" <trigonometry1...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Of course as soon as the mindless sheep hear the wordNuclearthey > > > become even more moronic and irrational than normal. France uses it [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > Stuff happens, attacks happen. Nuclearplant failure can make huge > lasting messes in such circumstances. I do wish that people would read a little more background (or even physics) before they start spouting the tired slogans of the traditional antis. Lets just think about nuclear waste for a minute. Much is stored at the power stations that originate it. It has only been used once and only about 5 percent of the uranium that was in it has been used and turned into profitable energy. Now the rest of the world is waking up to the fact that the greatest low carbon source of base-load electric power is nuclear. So the price of uranium has gone up from $7/lb in 2000 to $140/lb last year (down to ~$80/lb at the moment). All that wast should be re-processed and used again many times over and the value of their existing assets (many billions of tradable equity) will dramatically reduce the cost of nuclear power. Furthermore, existing waste repositories or planned ones should make it easy to access the stuff and use it. Finally we might end up with some nasty useless waste. Much of the long half-life stuff can be exposed to neutron or gamma radiation and transposed into short half-life stuff - and decay away on its own. None of the nuclear technology as we know it now presents insuperable physics problem. We have a lot of the answers and traditional intelligent research can overcome the remaining bits. The one problem that really remains is people. Will they ever be able to educate themselves to be able managers, project directors or even politicians (I think the latter is a fundamental impossibility). Then there are terrorists and security. I suppose silos (as used for ICBMs) might give some protection but it cannot be as guaranteed as the physics. With the death of Charlton Heston, I can't help remembering the final scenes and thinking that the future of the human species is doomed by their own folly! In article <683f42a8-b2de-4a5a-bf9c-dc8d05caed55@a5g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, > I do wish that people would read a little more background (or even > physics) before they start spouting the tired slogans of the [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > physics problem. We have a lot of the answers and traditional > intelligent research can overcome the remaining bits. OK, do that and then we'll talk. On Apr 7, 10:34 am, brookew...@europtics.co.uk wrote: > On Apr 7, 10:10 am, "trigonometry1...@gmail.com |" > [quoted text clipped - 75 lines] > scenes and thinking that the future of the human species is doomed by > their own folly! I generally agree. Nuke plants can be done right. Waste is the storage is long enough gets relatively easier to recycle. Still I don't rate it as my first choice overall especially here in the temperate regions. I don't worry about the local wind turbines, I worry a bit about the huge dams upstream in the event of earthquake and I worry what would happen in that event to the nuke plant that is downstream along my region's great river. And the local nuclear fuel rod plant would also be at risk from such a gigantic event as well. Nor am I fan of nuke plants being too close to shore in my region as it known to be subject to huge tsunamic events. The devil is in the details and there are lots of devils. On Apr 8, 1:00 pm, "trigonometry1...@gmail.com |" <trigonometry1...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 7, 10:34 am, brookew...@europtics.co.uk wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 93 lines] > > The devil is in the details and there are lots of devils. Let me draw your attention to the pebble bed reactor. Lots of little billiard ball size spheres clad in SiC and other harder molecules with half mm diam uranium in the core. Can be built into fail-safe geometries to provide power of 100MW units, enough for a small village, that could be installed in little silos that could be placed to resist most of the terrestial hazards that could be thrown at it. They are a lovely concept and needs much research. I suppose it is gratifying that the Chinese are doing just that in a collaboration with South Africa, next door to a great source of uranium. I do wish the West would get its act together and start investing into greater nuclear research. There was a great proposal some time ago for a nuclear complex of three power producing reactors and one nuclear transputer to reduce the arising waste to manageable quantities of short half-life elements. It would also burn plutonium into elecyrical energy rather that let it loose into the world as weapon-grade stuff. Must go get some sleep. G'd night all. Lobro. > > The devil is in the details and there are lots of devils. > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Lobro. I agree the pebble bed reactor is pretty cool tech and the waste is already for long term storage. South Africa has a track record of working with other powers. First the white Administration with Isreal to develop and above ground test their bomb. They did the testing of the bomb back in the Carter years and the Carter's people and ohers covered it up. And now with the black Administration and other power for the pebble bed. In article <75d60c48-2153-4e44-9de0-603c26aff853@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, > Of course as soon as the mindless sheep hear the word Nuclear they > become even more moronic and irrational than normal. France uses it > with great success and it is much more clean and effective than Coal > burning plants. But, don't try and confuse the mindless sheep with the > facts. OK, then I won't confuse you with the term "Life-cycle cost." TRIBUNEOFROME@gmail.com wrote: >Of course as soon as the mindless sheep hear the word Nuclear they >become even more moronic and irrational than normal. France uses it >with great success and it is much more clean and effective than Coal >burning plants. But, don't try and confuse the mindless sheep with the >facts. You are assuming people are actually interested in a solution, but the biggest question remains. Why are you posting this to several unrelated newsgroups? -- It is simply breathtaking to watch the glee and abandon with which the liberal media and the Angry Left have been attempting to turn our military victory in Iraq into a second Vietnam quagmire. Too bad for them, it's failing. > TRIBUNEOFROME@gmail.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Why are you posting this to several unrelated newsgroups? Maybe he's having a meltdown. takebackamerica@2008.com wrote: ><weberm@polaris.net> wrote: >> TRIBUNEOFROME@gmail.com wrote: >> >Of course as soon as the mindless sheep hear the word Nuclear they >> >become even more moronic and irrational than normal. France uses it [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >Maybe he's having a meltdown. Bwah! SignatureIt is simply breathtaking to watch the glee and abandon with which the liberal media and the Angry Left have been attempting to turn our military victory in Iraq into a second Vietnam quagmire. Too bad for them, it's failing. > Of course as soon as the mindless sheep hear the word Nuclear they > become even more moronic and irrational than normal. France uses it > with great success and it is much more clean and effective than Coal > burning plants. But, don't try and confuse the mindless sheep with the > facts. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KNaJ9WS5nCc > Of course as soon as the mindless sheep hear the word Nuclear they > become even more moronic and irrational than normal. France uses it > with great success and it is much more clean and effective than Coal > burning plants. But, don't try and confuse the mindless sheep with the > facts. Ever thought the oil lobby might have something to do with hostility to nuclear power, and why we can't seem to make any progress on much cleaner and more efficient controlled nuclear fusion power? It's not just liberals who are the problem here. Also, I suspect, some very wealthy vested interests in oil. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.