Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 84

Thread: "Right" for the wrong reasons.

  1. #46 | Top
    Join Date
    Jun 2020
    Location
    Phoenix
    Posts
    38,057
    Thanks
    14
    Thanked 18,927 Times in 13,194 Posts
    Groans
    3
    Groaned 832 Times in 791 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
    I am SO tired of that stupid ass mantra from nuke power wonks! So since nothing is completely safe, that justify's doing thing that have patently proven not to be safe....worse yet that it produces by products that are even more unsafe!


    GMAFB, would ya please?

    And since I've documented that nuke power is NOT as safe as you say (safer than solar? Aren't you tired of parroting that stupid ass line...especially when the FACTS prove you wrong?) all you are doing here is with the SOS already addressed.

    Give your nuke wonk mode a rest....seriously, I'm embarrassed for you.
    The government says it's better:

    https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/n...not-even-close

    The experts say it's safer...
    https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/f...1104091117.pdf

    Now, I can go get some greentard sites that blather on without a single fragment of evidence...

    https://www.ecoideaz.com/expert-corn...-energy-source

    https://close-to-nature.org/solar-en...nuclear-energy

    But on the whole nuclear produces the power we need safely. Solar doesn't produce the power we need, can't produce the power we need, and isn't particularly safe in doing it.

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to T. A. Gardner For This Post:

    Lightbringer (06-01-2023)

  3. #47 | Top
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    20,804
    Thanks
    5,108
    Thanked 5,632 Times in 4,084 Posts
    Groans
    11
    Groaned 1,357 Times in 1,282 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by leaningright View Post
    This is why I never engage you. We aren’t going to see eye to eye on anything. But this is about defending what I said…or did NOT say. Nowhere in any of what I posted did I say “one of [my] students retired.” I simply did not say that.
    Stop lying to yourself....you keep "engaging" me due to some obsessive need to be shown to be right in an open forum on some topics. Thing is, I can cut through your anecdotal BS and stay focused on the FACTS that you can't logically or factually refute. Also, unlike most, I can admit when I'm wrong on a point.

    NOW HERE YOU ARE CORRECT...IT WAS NOT ONE OF YOUR STUDENTS BUT YOUR COUSIN THAT HAS RETIRED. I WAS WRONG ON THAT POINT, STAND CORRECTED AND APOLOGIZE.

    That being said, you claim to teach from 7th grade to calculus. So that covers grade school, high school, college. So at 57, you'd have to be specific as to what kids from what education level went on to work at nuke plant facilities. What were their positions or jobs? Ages? See, your statements raise more questions that placate your assertions.

    And despite all of that, you've offered NOTHING of documented supported items that factually or logically refute what I've posted throughout this thread. If you've got a new take on what has previously transpired in the chronology of the post, let's have it. Otherwise, you're just wasting time.
    During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.

    George Orwell

  4. #48 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    27,505
    Thanks
    5,209
    Thanked 7,295 Times in 5,845 Posts
    Groans
    1,263
    Groaned 390 Times in 368 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
    Stop lying to yourself....you keep "engaging" me due to some obsessive need to be shown to be right in an open forum on some topics. Thing is, I can cut through your anecdotal BS and stay focused on the FACTS that you can't logically or factually refute. Also, unlike most, I can admit when I'm wrong on a point.

    NOW HERE YOU ARE CORRECT...IT WAS NOT ONE OF YOUR STUDENTS BUT YOUR COUSIN THAT HAS RETIRED. I WAS WRONG ON THAT POINT, STAND CORRECTED AND APOLOGIZE.

    That being said, you claim to teach from 7th grade to calculus. So that covers grade school, high school, college. So at 57, you'd have to be specific as to what kids from what education level went on to work at nuke plant facilities. What were their positions or jobs? Ages? See, your statements raise more questions that placate your assertions.

    And despite all of that, you've offered NOTHING of documented supported items that factually or logically refute what I've posted throughout this thread. If you've got a new take on what has previously transpired in the chronology of the post, let's have it. Otherwise, you're just wasting time.
    He didn't say that either. Do you bother to read the posts you respond to?
    Don't be afraid to see what you see

  5. #49 | Top
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    20,804
    Thanks
    5,108
    Thanked 5,632 Times in 4,084 Posts
    Groans
    11
    Groaned 1,357 Times in 1,282 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
    The government says it's better:

    https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/n...not-even-close

    The experts say it's safer...
    https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/f...1104091117.pdf

    Now, I can go get some greentard sites that blather on without a single fragment of evidence...

    https://www.ecoideaz.com/expert-corn...-energy-source

    https://close-to-nature.org/solar-en...nuclear-energy

    But on the whole nuclear produces the power we need safely. Solar doesn't produce the power we need, can't produce the power we need, and isn't particularly safe in doing it.
    do you even stop think things through before you post? You're so desperate to prove me wrong, you stupidly make my case.

    You haven't factually or logically refuted anything I've posted. Instead you post a Dept of Nuclear Energy site (so now MAGA mooks are trusting the government), which essentially just gives the standard PR blather WITHOUT addressing all the things I've sourced throughout this discussion. What the hell do you think they were going to say? An honest, objective pro/con debate? That's like Texaco providing evidence against off shore drilling in a complete honest and objective way.

    The IAEA article is a cute attempt at slight-of-hand....claiming that solar is more dangerous because it depends on mined materials. I noted that junior didn't take into account how recyclable solar panels are. Look it up, because I'm damned tired of doing your homework properly for you. When was the last time you read/heard the word "recyclable" when discussing nuke plants?

    But what takes the cake is that the "greentard" sites actually provide a fact based, objective "pro/con" listings for nuke vs. solar....hell, one even says this: In general, when it comes to the debate on solar vs nuclear power, there is no clear consensus since each one draws their own conclusion. .... However, one thing’s clear: both solar and nuclear power sources are much better for the environment than fossil fuels.

    I may not agree with the conclusion, and they do lean towards nuke power in that respect....but at LEAST they give food for thought.

    But both of your "greentard" sites skim over the problem of nuke waste...the billion dollar industry surrounding that and how recently in some areas around the globe old storage sites have to be replaced. (and who pays for that?)

    So once again, you FAIL to make your case. Instead you just give different versions of the SOS you've been shoveling all night (as with your final sentence). You're just a nuke power wonk on parrot mode....thinking if you can say it repeatedly or in different forms you prove your case.

    Sorry toodles, but that dog of yours won't hunt. I'll catch you doing the SOS tomorrow. Later.
    During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.

    George Orwell

  6. #50 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    27,505
    Thanks
    5,209
    Thanked 7,295 Times in 5,845 Posts
    Groans
    1,263
    Groaned 390 Times in 368 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
    The government says it's better:

    https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/n...not-even-close

    The experts say it's safer...
    https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/f...1104091117.pdf

    Now, I can go get some greentard sites that blather on without a single fragment of evidence...

    https://www.ecoideaz.com/expert-corn...-energy-source

    https://close-to-nature.org/solar-en...nuclear-energy

    But on the whole nuclear produces the power we need safely. Solar doesn't produce the power we need, can't produce the power we need, and isn't particularly safe in doing it.
    Good job! The more words taichifuckwit uses to respond to you, the more unhinged you've made him.
    Don't be afraid to see what you see

  7. #51 | Top
    Join Date
    Jun 2020
    Location
    Phoenix
    Posts
    38,057
    Thanks
    14
    Thanked 18,927 Times in 13,194 Posts
    Groans
    3
    Groaned 832 Times in 791 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
    do you even stop think things through before you post? You're so desperate to prove me wrong, you stupidly make my case.

    You haven't factually or logically refuted anything I've posted. Instead you post a Dept of Nuclear Energy site (so now MAGA mooks are trusting the government), which essentially just gives the standard PR blather WITHOUT addressing all the things I've sourced throughout this discussion. What the hell do you think they were going to say? An honest, objective pro/con debate? That's like Texaco providing evidence against off shore drilling in a complete honest and objective way.

    The IAEA article is a cute attempt at slight-of-hand....claiming that solar is more dangerous because it depends on mined materials. I noted that junior didn't take into account how recyclable solar panels are. Look it up, because I'm damned tired of doing your homework properly for you. When was the last time you read/heard the word "recyclable" when discussing nuke plants?

    But what takes the cake is that the "greentard" sites actually provide a fact based, objective "pro/con" listings for nuke vs. solar....hell, one even says this: In general, when it comes to the debate on solar vs nuclear power, there is no clear consensus since each one draws their own conclusion. .... However, one thing’s clear: both solar and nuclear power sources are much better for the environment than fossil fuels.

    I may not agree with the conclusion, and they do lean towards nuke power in that respect....but at LEAST they give food for thought.

    But both of your "greentard" sites skim over the problem of nuke waste...the billion dollar industry surrounding that and how recently in some areas around the globe old storage sites have to be replaced. (and who pays for that?)

    So once again, you FAIL to make your case. Instead you just give different versions of the SOS you've been shoveling all night (as with your final sentence). You're just a nuke power wonk on parrot mode....thinking if you can say it repeatedly or in different forms you prove your case.

    Sorry toodles, but that dog of yours won't hunt. I'll catch you doing the SOS tomorrow. Later.
    Solar panels are recyclable, but the cost to do so is so prohibitive it isn't worth doing it.

    We Recycle Solar spends up to $25 per panel in processing costs to yield between $2 and $4 in value from aluminum, copper, lead, glass, silver and silicon. OEMs have lightweighted and used less valuable metals in newer generations of more-efficient products, which is great news from the manufacturing and consumer perspectives but not for recyclers
    https://resource-recycling.com/recyc...ions.%E2%80%9D

    Thus, the idea that solar is renewable is a farce. The panels only last 20 to 30 years at most then can only be recycled at a major net loss. Compare that to nuclear where you can manufacture new fuel (Thorium 233 to Uranium 233 as one example) and the cost of recycling is less than the worth of material recovered. Also, the amount of recycled material is both in weight and volume a tiny fraction of what the equivalent energy production by solar would be (at most thousand of tons versus tens to hundreds of millions)

    Nuclear waste is hardly a problem given all the necessary steps and materials have already been worked out. The problem is, once again, ignorance and fear--like you keep demonstrating. Spent fuel that has decayed to a steady state can easily be contained in drums designed to hold it for, well, nearly forever. The small amount of waste heat generated from the decay of long-lived fission fragments and radioactives, all alpha and beta emitters is easily managed, and the radiation given of is negligible.

  8. #52 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    23,532
    Thanks
    3,066
    Thanked 9,767 Times in 7,268 Posts
    Groans
    49
    Groaned 1,060 Times in 1,005 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
    You've got nuke wonk myopia, my friend.

    Life isn't safe, Taich. In the end, everybody dies.

    The town made out big with the nuke plant.
    It could have been radiated by an accident..
    It could also been flattened by a tidal wave as well. With no nuke plant.

    Some people wouldn't take the chance.
    Others would and have.

    At the end of the day, even if things go perfectly, you're not going to live much more than 100 years anyway.
    And who the hell would want to?
    Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel. Samuel Johnson, 1775
    Religion....is the opiate of the people. Karl Marx, 1848
    Freedom's just another word for nothin' left to lose. Kris Kristofferson, 1969

  9. The Following User Says Thank You to NiftyNiblick For This Post:

    leaningright (06-02-2023)

  10. #53 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    10,126
    Thanks
    3,145
    Thanked 4,536 Times in 2,978 Posts
    Groans
    84
    Groaned 107 Times in 102 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by NiftyNiblick View Post
    Life isn't safe, Taich. In the end, everybody dies.

    The town made out big with the nuke plant.
    It could have been radiated by an accident..
    It could also been flattened by a tidal wave as well. With no nuke plant.

    Some people wouldn't take the chance.
    Others would and have.

    At the end of the day, even if things go perfectly, you're not going to live much more than 100 years anyway.
    And who the hell would want to?
    This right here. Mr. Niblick and I are hardly going to agree on anything in politics. We have different views on most things. But he is spot on with this, IMO.

  11. The Following User Says Thank You to leaningright For This Post:

    NiftyNiblick (06-02-2023)

  12. #54 | Top
    Join Date
    Jun 2020
    Posts
    29,740
    Thanks
    2,748
    Thanked 10,875 Times in 8,272 Posts
    Groans
    41
    Groaned 594 Times in 590 Posts
    Blog Entries
    7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
    Who is this "we" your so full of invective about? Please post the sources that gave press releases EXACTLY AS YOU SAY. If you can't, then you're wrong. If you insist on repeating something that you cannot prove, that makes you a liar.

    Your last sentence is yet another example of proud, willful ignorance...something that rational, logical and mature adults tend to avoid attempting a debate with. Carry on.
    This is hilarious, a rube that thinks people with penises can be women is calling someone else a liar. You can find a time of people saying just what I said.

    Mature adults? That leaves you out. See you could have addressed these issues differently but you had to be an asshole so you get what you get.
    "Political correctness is fascism pretending to be manners" - George Carlin

    "Education is a system of imposed ignorance" - Noam Chomsky

    "Leftists actually think everyone is as stupid as a leftist." - Yakuda

    "No, Trump isn't a fascist, tatt boy." - moon

  13. #55 | Top
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    20,804
    Thanks
    5,108
    Thanked 5,632 Times in 4,084 Posts
    Groans
    11
    Groaned 1,357 Times in 1,282 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by T. A. Gardner View Post

    Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
    do you even stop think things through before you post? You're so desperate to prove me wrong, you stupidly make my case.

    You haven't factually or logically refuted anything I've posted. Instead you post a Dept of Nuclear Energy site (so now MAGA mooks are trusting the government), which essentially just gives the standard PR blather WITHOUT addressing all the things I've sourced throughout this discussion. What the hell do you think they were going to say? An honest, objective pro/con debate? That's like Texaco providing evidence against off shore drilling in a complete honest and objective way.

    The IAEA article is a cute attempt at slight-of-hand....claiming that solar is more dangerous because it depends on mined materials. I noted that junior didn't take into account how recyclable solar panels are. Look it up, because I'm damned tired of doing your homework properly for you. When was the last time you read/heard the word "recyclable" when discussing nuke plants?

    But what takes the cake is that the "greentard" sites actually provide a fact based, objective "pro/con" listings for nuke vs. solar....hell, one even says this: In general, when it comes to the debate on solar vs nuclear power, there is no clear consensus since each one draws their own conclusion. .... However, one thing’s clear: both solar and nuclear power sources are much better for the environment than fossil fuels.

    I may not agree with the conclusion, and they do lean towards nuke power in that respect....but at LEAST they give food for thought.

    But both of your "greentard" sites skim over the problem of nuke waste...the billion dollar industry surrounding that and how recently in some areas around the globe old storage sites have to be replaced. (and who pays for that?)

    So once again, you FAIL to make your case. Instead you just give different versions of the SOS you've been shoveling all night (as with your final sentence). You're just a nuke power wonk on parrot mode....thinking if you can say it repeatedly or in different forms you prove your case.

    Sorry toodles, but that dog of yours won't hunt. I'll catch you doing the SOS tomorrow. Later.



    Solar panels are recyclable, but the cost to do so is so prohibitive it isn't worth doing it.

    We Recycle Solar spends up to $25 per panel in processing costs to yield between $2 and $4 in value from aluminum, copper, lead, glass, silver and silicon. OEMs have lightweighted and used less valuable metals in newer generations of more-efficient products, which is great news from the manufacturing and consumer perspectives but not for recyclers
    https://resource-recycling.com/recyc...ions.%E2%80%9D

    Thus, the idea that solar is renewable is a farce. The panels only last 20 to 30 years at most then can only be recycled at a major net loss. Compare that to nuclear where you can manufacture new fuel (Thorium 233 to Uranium 233 as one example) and the cost of recycling is less than the worth of material recovered. Also, the amount of recycled material is both in weight and volume a tiny fraction of what the equivalent energy production by solar would be (at most thousand of tons versus tens to hundreds of millions)

    Nuclear waste is hardly a problem given all the necessary steps and materials have already been worked out. The problem is, once again, ignorance and fear--like you keep demonstrating. Spent fuel that has decayed to a steady state can easily be contained in drums designed to hold it for, well, nearly forever. The small amount of waste heat generated from the decay of long-lived fission fragments and radioactives, all alpha and beta emitters is easily managed, and the radiation given of is negligible.
    Actually, the "farce" is how you continuously demonstrate your wonk-ish myopia in the material you supply to bolster your case. Here's what followed your excerpt;

    In 2017, Washington state became the first state to pass a bill establishing an extended producer responsibility (EPR) program for solar panels. Starting in July 2023, the law will require manufacturers to fund collection and recycling of the panels.

    In California, the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) has considered adding solar panels to its electronics recycling program. The department is working with other branches of state government to draft a paper, expected to be released this year, on end-of-life management of PV panels.

    In the meantime, the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) late last year approved regulations (which were based on 2015 legislation) classifying PV modules as a universal waste, not a hazardous waste, easing regulatory burdens associated with collecting and shipping them. That being said, the panels are still considered hazardous if testing shows they exceed hazardous metals concentration limits in California or federal law, and universal waste handlers are required to do that testing when they discard the panels.


    Essentially, the problems with recycling solar panels is political, not economical. It just takes the social/political will.

    But recycling spent nuke fuel is cheaper? On what planet? Here's a site that details recycling of nuke plant materials: https://world-nuclear.org/informatio...lear-fuel.aspx

    NOTE THE FOLLOWING from this site; In mid-2006 a report3 by the Boston Consulting Group for Areva and based on proprietary Areva information showed that recycling used fuel in the USA using the COEX aqueous process (see Developments of PUREX below) would be economically competitive with direct disposal of used fuel. A $12 billion, 2500 t/yr plant was considered, with total capital expenditure of $16 billion for all related aspects. This would have the benefit of greatly reducing demand on space at the planned Yucca Mountain repository.

    But what's REALLY scary is this 2007 report to Congress, that states in no uncertain terms that it is cheaper to store spent nuke fuel than recycle it: https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/fi...uclearfuel.pdf

    Your last paragraph is (once again) a rehash of your supposition and conjecture laden clap trap. You need a new act, son.
    During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.

    George Orwell

  14. #56 | Top
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    20,804
    Thanks
    5,108
    Thanked 5,632 Times in 4,084 Posts
    Groans
    11
    Groaned 1,357 Times in 1,282 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by NiftyNiblick View Post
    Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
    You've got nuke wonk myopia, my friend.
    Life isn't safe, Taich. In the end, everybody dies.

    The town made out big with the nuke plant.
    It could have been radiated by an accident..
    It could also been flattened by a tidal wave as well. With no nuke plant.

    Some people wouldn't take the chance.
    Others would and have.

    At the end of the day, even if things go perfectly, you're not going to live much more than 100 years anyway.
    And who the hell would want to?
    Post #37 puts forth fact based realities of what you won't address or deal with on this subject. That's why you parrot what I consider one of history's most stupid ass retorts.

    Let me be clear; just because there is risk in everything we do DOES NOT justify continuing an action or process THAT HAS PROVEN THROUGH HISTORY NOT TO BE THE CHEAP, SAFE SYSTEM IT'S TOUTED TO BE.

    "We'll there's been no Chernobyl here or radiation poisoning/mutations like a sci-fi movie, so it's all good." You wouldn't buy a car or a house with similar problems!

    Your town LUCKED OUT when you were there. As the material I sourced showed, that luck is starting to run out.

    Your last 2 sentences are irrational and irrelevant. No justification.
    During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.

    George Orwell

  15. #57 | Top
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    20,804
    Thanks
    5,108
    Thanked 5,632 Times in 4,084 Posts
    Groans
    11
    Groaned 1,357 Times in 1,282 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by leaningright View Post
    This right here. Mr. Niblick and I are hardly going to agree on anything in politics. We have different views on most things. But he is spot on with this, IMO.
    Post #56. A fatalistic attitude doesn't cut it here.
    During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.

    George Orwell

  16. #58 | Top
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    20,804
    Thanks
    5,108
    Thanked 5,632 Times in 4,084 Posts
    Groans
    11
    Groaned 1,357 Times in 1,282 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Yakuda View Post

    Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
    Who is this "we" your so full of invective about? Please post the sources that gave press releases EXACTLY AS YOU SAY. If you can't, then you're wrong. If you insist on repeating something that you cannot prove, that makes you a liar.

    Your last sentence is yet another example of proud, willful ignorance...something that rational, logical and mature adults tend to avoid attempting a debate with. Carry on.

    This is hilarious, a rube that thinks people with penises can be women is calling someone else a liar. You can find a time of people saying just what I said.

    Mature adults? That leaves you out. See you could have addressed these issues differently but you had to be an asshole so you get what you get.
    translation: Yaky cannot logically or factually (much less rationally) defend or support his assertions and position, as the chronology of the posts shows.

    Once again, I reduced him to a sputtering, fuming MAGA troll. No point in putting up with his nonsense, so I'll ignore him for a month or so,
    During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.

    George Orwell

  17. #59 | Top
    Join Date
    Jun 2020
    Location
    Phoenix
    Posts
    38,057
    Thanks
    14
    Thanked 18,927 Times in 13,194 Posts
    Groans
    3
    Groaned 832 Times in 791 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
    Actually, the "farce" is how you continuously demonstrate your wonk-ish myopia in the material you supply to bolster your case. Here's what followed your excerpt;

    In 2017, Washington state became the first state to pass a bill establishing an extended producer responsibility (EPR) program for solar panels. Starting in July 2023, the law will require manufacturers to fund collection and recycling of the panels.

    In California, the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) has considered adding solar panels to its electronics recycling program. The department is working with other branches of state government to draft a paper, expected to be released this year, on end-of-life management of PV panels.

    In the meantime, the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) late last year approved regulations (which were based on 2015 legislation) classifying PV modules as a universal waste, not a hazardous waste, easing regulatory burdens associated with collecting and shipping them. That being said, the panels are still considered hazardous if testing shows they exceed hazardous metals concentration limits in California or federal law, and universal waste handlers are required to do that testing when they discard the panels.


    Essentially, the problems with recycling solar panels is political, not economical. It just takes the social/political will.

    But recycling spent nuke fuel is cheaper? On what planet? Here's a site that details recycling of nuke plant materials: https://world-nuclear.org/informatio...lear-fuel.aspx

    NOTE THE FOLLOWING from this site; In mid-2006 a report3 by the Boston Consulting Group for Areva and based on proprietary Areva information showed that recycling used fuel in the USA using the COEX aqueous process (see Developments of PUREX below) would be economically competitive with direct disposal of used fuel. A $12 billion, 2500 t/yr plant was considered, with total capital expenditure of $16 billion for all related aspects. This would have the benefit of greatly reducing demand on space at the planned Yucca Mountain repository.

    But what's REALLY scary is this 2007 report to Congress, that states in no uncertain terms that it is cheaper to store spent nuke fuel than recycle it: https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/fi...uclearfuel.pdf

    Your last paragraph is (once again) a rehash of your supposition and conjecture laden clap trap. You need a new act, son.
    So, what you're in effect saying is that the state had to step in and force solar panel recycling because it isn't economically feasible. I'm sure in turn, the manufacturers raised prices on their panels to cover that cost 20 or 30 years down the road. The problem is economics. Recycling solar panels isn't cost effective. So, government stepped in and forced manufacturers to recycle.

    As for nuclear fuel, even your quote above shows it's economical. Sure, the one plant to do it is expensive, but once built it will recoup the cost through recovery of fissionable material and other materials that can be used, along with reducing the cost of storage of leftover waste that isn't recyclable.

    As for the CBO, their track record on scoring costs is abysimal.

  18. #60 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    27,505
    Thanks
    5,209
    Thanked 7,295 Times in 5,845 Posts
    Groans
    1,263
    Groaned 390 Times in 368 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
    translation: Yaky cannot logically or factually (much less rationally) defend or support his assertions and position, as the chronology of the posts shows.

    Once again, I reduced him to a sputtering, fuming MAGA troll. No point in putting up with his nonsense, so I'll ignore him for a month or so,
    You did no such thing. Be better.
    Don't be afraid to see what you see

Similar Threads

  1. Reasons to Doubt the Ahmaud "Just a Jogger" Arbery Narrative
    By volsrock in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 05-08-2020, 08:04 PM
  2. Replies: 67
    Last Post: 12-15-2019, 03:51 PM
  3. Top selling book at amazon - "Reasons to vote for Democrats" - However....
    By Text Drivers are Killers in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 03-09-2017, 02:52 PM
  4. Replies: 29
    Last Post: 11-10-2016, 09:03 AM
  5. Replies: 11
    Last Post: 03-24-2014, 06:32 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •