Nuclear power issue

Taichiliberal said:
Just as I thought....you don't know....you've got a lot of hear say and third person anecdotes, but NO concrete facts from reputable sources.

And you FORGET that we've had 30 years of waste already stockpiled....so those containers are already 30 years into their expiration dates. So your flippant attitude of "it really doesn't matter" is a combination of low information, supposition and conjecture.
Click to expand...

Southern Man said:
As I said earlier, I enjoy watching others destroy your scientific arguments here, as it would be much too easy a task for The Southern Man. Instead I will toy with you here and there in a task of more moderate difficulty- finding your true agenda. :)
Click to expand...

With regards to the "30 year" containers, I was referring to the "permanent" containers designed for Yucca. Without looking it up, as I recall these containers have a design life of about 1000 years.

yucca-drawing.jpg
 
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Just as I thought....you don't know....you've got a lot of hear say and third person anecdotes, but NO concrete facts from reputable sources.

And you FORGET that we've had 30 years of waste already stockpiled....so those containers are already 30 years into their expiration dates. So your flippant attitude of "it really doesn't matter" is a combination of low information, supposition and conjecture.
Click to expand...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Southern Man
As I said earlier, I enjoy watching others destroy your scientific arguments here, as it would be much too easy a task for The Southern Man. Instead I will toy with you here and there in a task of more moderate difficulty- finding your true agenda.
Click to expand...


Southern Man said:
With regards to the "30 year" containers, I was referring to the "permanent" containers designed for Yucca. Without looking it up, as I recall these containers have a design life of about 1000 years.

yucca-drawing.jpg
Click to expand...

Yeah, and of course the transfer of the standing stockpiles of waste to these new containers will be a snap, right? And the COSTS of this will just easily solved, because YOU will be most willing to absorb it via new taxes, right? Especially if you live in a state that does NOT use nuke energy! And let's not forget the TESTING and construction costs to see if all this theory will pan out.

But while you're mulling over that, you might want to read through this

http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/nuclear/nuclear-wasteland
 
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
And then there is this

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...gs/french.html

And this

http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/nucl...lear-wasteland
Click to expand...

tom prendergast said:
The French generate 75% of their energy from nuclear sources, in fact they send some of their excess capacity over to the UK via cables under the English Channel.

http://world-nuclear.org/info/inf40.html
Click to expand...

And how does that change the facts regarding the negative and detrimental aspects that the information I link provided?

Bottom line Tom...YOU may be willing to keep rolling the dice on nuke power....but I'm not...and the number of people suffering from various acidents and such (as I've noted) should not be treated with the same attitude as a local chemical fire, explosion or pollution. Think of dioxin spill on crack cocaine.
 
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
And then there is this

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...gs/french.html

And this

http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/nucl...lear-wasteland
Click to expand...

Ice Dancer said:
Your links do nothing to sway the argument in your direction. In fact they support the current and future need to better improve the abilty to recycle waste and the need for investment into the technology to do so.
Click to expand...

The only way you can say that is if you IGNORE all the negative aspects of the information provided, and the current/future problems of nuclear waste recycling. That seems to be the status quo with die hard support of nuclear power.
 
Taichiliberal said:
Yeah, and of course the transfer of the standing stockpiles of waste to these new containers will be a snap, right? And the COSTS of this will just easily solved, because YOU will be most willing to absorb it via new taxes, right? Especially if you live in a state that does NOT use nuke energy! And let's not forget the TESTING and construction costs to see if all this theory will pan out.

But while you're mulling over that, you might want to read through this

http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/nuclear/nuclear-wasteland
Click to expand...

The costs should be born by the producers of the waste. This gives the producers and incentive to reduce it. Its a tiny cost per KWH produced.

You'll need to state a position before I bother to click on your link and try to guess what it is.
 
Taichiliberal said:
And how does that change the facts regarding the negative and detrimental aspects that the information I link provided?

Bottom line Tom...YOU may be willing to keep rolling the dice on nuke power....but I'm not...and the number of people suffering from various acidents and such (as I've noted) should not be treated with the same attitude as a local chemical fire, explosion or pollution. Think of dioxin spill on crack cocaine.
Click to expand...

It seems to me that Chernobyl is always raised as an issue, despite the fact that the near meltdown was from reactors designed in the 1950s. That was at a time when safety in Russia and the Soviet Empire was a minimal concern. It is like trying to compare an Airbus A380 with the Spirit of Saint Louis.
 
tom prendergast said:
It seems to me that Chernobyl is always raised as an issue, despite the fact that the near meltdown was from reactors designed in the 1950s. That was at a time when safety in Russia and the Soviet Empire was a minimal concern. It is like trying to compare an Airbus A380 with the Spirit of Saint Louis.
Click to expand...

It didn't have a containment vessel either. None have ever been operated like that in the US.

Funny how the uber-libs want to be commies then cite the commies as examples of how not to do things. :)
 
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Yeah, and of course the transfer of the standing stockpiles of waste to these new containers will be a snap, right? And the COSTS of this will just easily solved, because YOU will be most willing to absorb it via new taxes, right? Especially if you live in a state that does NOT use nuke energy! And let's not forget the TESTING and construction costs to see if all this theory will pan out.

But while you're mulling over that, you might want to read through this

http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/nucl...lear-wasteland
Click to expand...

Southern Man said:
The costs should be born by the producers of the waste. This gives the producers and incentive to reduce it. Its a tiny cost per KWH produced.

You'll need to state a position before I bother to click on your link and try to guess what it is.
Click to expand...

1. Did you just fall off the turnip truck?!! When Shoreham got shut down, the cost was shuttled to the taxpayer....it took YEARS to try and rectify that, and it never truly was. Hell, we just had two presidents pass on the costs of MAJOR financial fuck-ups to us taxpayers...THAT'S the rule du jour, NOT the exception.

2. Once again, you don't DARE examine any information that I provide that can contradict your assertions, claims and beliefs. You play dumb and pretend that everything has to be a literal translation or direct command for you to engage an 8th of your brain's cognitive reasoning skills that God gave you. Stop acting like a wussy.....just read the information and discuss the subject honestly. If I can slog through all the stuff you and the other jokers toss out, surely you can do the same.
 
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
And how does that change the facts regarding the negative and detrimental aspects that the information I link provided?

Bottom line Tom...YOU may be willing to keep rolling the dice on nuke power....but I'm not...and the number of people suffering from various acidents and such (as I've noted) should not be treated with the same attitude as a local chemical fire, explosion or pollution. Think of dioxin spill on crack cocaine.
Click to expand...

tom prendergast said:
It seems to me that Chernobyl is always raised as an issue, despite the fact that the near meltdown was from reactors designed in the 1950s. That was at a time when safety in Russia and the Soviet Empire was a minimal concern. It is like trying to compare an Airbus A380 with the Spirit of Saint Louis.
Click to expand...

Three Mile Island was narrowly averted...and a core meltdown CANNOT be contained by any technology we've got without going through a similar result in Chernobyl.

Like I've pointed out on this thread, there are MORE than enough radiation leaks, spikes in the surrounding population/eco-system in cancers and such that I DON'T want to keep risking people's lives on this stuff while it's actively being used in the general population.
 
Taichiliberal said:
1. Did you just fall off the turnip truck?!! When Shoreham got shut down, the cost was shuttled to the taxpayer....it took YEARS to try and rectify that, and it never truly was. Hell, we just had two presidents pass on the costs of MAJOR financial fuck-ups to us taxpayers...THAT'S the rule du jour, NOT the exception.

2. Once again, you don't DARE examine any information that I provide that can contradict your assertions, claims and beliefs. You play dumb and pretend that everything has to be a literal translation or direct command for you to engage an 8th of your brain's cognitive reasoning skills that God gave you. Stop acting like a wussy.....just read the information and discuss the subject honestly. If I can slog through all the stuff you and the other jokers toss out, surely you can do the same.
Click to expand...

1. So what? That's not an argument against the technical merits of nuclear waste management. Pass a law requiring the producers of the waste to pay for its management.
2. I can't argue against your position Libbie until you first state it. That's a basic rule of debate. Once again you post a link then expect me to read through it and guess at your position. Its silly and you lose any debate like that automatically. It seems to me that you're afraid to state your position, probably because you know it is weak. So you go on for days calling me all sorts of childish names and ranting; again losing debate points.
 
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
1. Did you just fall off the turnip truck?!! When Shoreham got shut down, the cost was shuttled to the taxpayer....it took YEARS to try and rectify that, and it never truly was. Hell, we just had two presidents pass on the costs of MAJOR financial fuck-ups to us taxpayers...THAT'S the rule du jour, NOT the exception.

2. Once again, you don't DARE examine any information that I provide that can contradict your assertions, claims and beliefs. You play dumb and pretend that everything has to be a literal translation or direct command for you to engage an 8th of your brain's cognitive reasoning skills that God gave you. Stop acting like a wussy.....just read the information and discuss the subject honestly. If I can slog through all the stuff you and the other jokers toss out, surely you can do the same.
Click to expand...

Southern Man said:
1. So what? That's not an argument against the technical merits of nuclear waste management. Pass a law requiring the producers of the waste to pay for its management.
2. I can't argue against your position Libbie until you first state it. That's a basic rule of debate. Once again you post a link then expect me to read through it and guess at your position. Its silly and you lose any debate like that automatically. It seems to me that you're afraid to state your position, probably because you know it is weak. So you go on for days calling me all sorts of childish names and ranting; again losing debate points.
Click to expand...

1) Whoa, back up there chief! First you and others mocked me for pointing out that costs of failures in the nuke industry get unfairly passed onto the taxpayer from PRIVATE industry and it's investor/shareholders....and then when I prove you wrong, you say "so what"!?!?!?!

THIS is why I lose patience with you neocon's, because YOU JUST CAN'T ADMIT THE SYSTEM YOU WORSHIP CAN BE WRONG ON ANY LEVEL! For the past 6 months YOU and every other teabagging, birther, neocon bullhorn has been screaming bloody murder about Obama continuing the Shrub's Wall St. bailout on the taxpayer's dime....and it's Doomsday regarding healthcare reform. But a die hard support of a form of technology gets a pass from you! Sheer IRRATIONAL, ILLOGICAL HYPOCRISY on your part, Southie....but you'll eat shit and call it ice cream before you even acknowledge such.

2) For reason known only to God, you seem to think that stubbornly repeating some lame ass excuse will magically make it valid. Hint: it doesn't. You know damned well what we are discussing and why I offer the link...and if you don't, then all you have to do is back step the thread and follow the chronology. If you still don't get it, then get an adult you trust to explain it to you.

Grow the fuck up, Southie.....
 
Southern Man said:
Libbie took the bait and thanked me for this post. :)

Of course, collectively these can't provide more than a small fraction of the energy to suit our needs. We need nuclear to keep things running.
Click to expand...

:palm: No stupid, I actually gave you credit for offering viable alternatives that IN COMBINATION can do the trick (you left out natural gas).

But I forget the games you corporate ass kissers play.....literal translation and a sudden inability to comprehend any concept in discussion that doesn't fit the neocon mantra. I won't make that mistake again....carry on.
 
Taichiliberal said:
:palm: No stupid, I actually gave you credit for offering viable alternatives that IN COMBINATION can do the trick (you left out natural gas).

But I forget the games you corporate ass kissers play.....literal translation and a sudden inability to comprehend any concept in discussion that doesn't fit the neocon mantra. I won't make that mistake again....carry on.
Click to expand...

I don't think that you should place your faith in natural gas so readily.

Peak gas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:Natural_gas_consumption.png" class="image"><img alt="" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d9/Natural_gas_consumption.png/300px-Natural_gas_consumption.png"@@AMEPARAM@@commons/thumb/d/d9/Natural_gas_consumption.png/300px-Natural_gas_consumption.png
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top