McCain calls for 45 new Nuclear Reactors

[seemingly random]

KurskKnyaz,

Like Hafen, I'm having a little trouble following the logic. You seem like you're stamping your feet that someone is disagreeing with you. Maybe you need to take a little time to regroup - see where your loyalties lie, if they're right for you and then research the argument.

Just my opinion - as always, it and some money will get you a cup of coffee.

 

[KurskKnyaz]

What part of my logic are you having trouble with?

 

[frostedflakes]

Originally posted by: KurskKnyaz
FYI Canada does not power the entire US and neither does the hoover dam. Also, I'm still waiting for a reference for that number

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H...C_over_AC_transmission

Unfortunately not cited, but there you go.

 

[Brovane]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Brovane
How is solar power supposed to generate large amount of base load electrical power in the Gigawatt range consistently day and night?

Lots of ways. Molten salt is being used now. A new company is selling fly wheels that turn at 16,000 revs that store electrical power that can level loads from wind, sun, or outages. Capacitance batteries are being developed. Water can be pumped up hill behind dams in the day time. Sterling engines are being built that run at 150 degrees that produce electricity and air conditioning. It's all about attitude. When you say we will life off the sun human ingenuity will find a way. The trick is not to go down the poison path.

Oops I forgot that electricity can be transmitted long distances and its always day time somewhere.

Great so you are going to transmit solar energy from one side of the globe to the other side that is darkness? That is going to go over like a fart in church. Solar is great technology and there should be incentives especially in areas with good sunlight to have every new house have solar cells on the roof. Even the technology's like fly wheels only store in the Mw's and only for minutes at time. You need a technology that can reliably generate Gw's of electricity every minute of the day. There is basically 2 ways currently to generate large amounts of base load electrical power cheaply and that is nuclear and coal one puts out a whole lot less C02 than the other one. Solar, Wind, Hydro, Gas all have there part to play in a reliable future electrical generation just like nuclear has a part to play to. What I see is Solar, Wind, Hydro and Gas all playing a role in peak electrical. One of the great things about Hydro and Gas is with a flick of a switch you can quickly start producing electricity when needed and then turn it off. Nuclear has the role to play in that base load that keeps the lights on at night. Nuclear waste is a issue but instead of having rational debate we have conversations about having animals glow in the dark etc. Nuclear waste can be considerably reduced if the US reprocessed the fuel however the government doesn't allow it. Also remember that the current generation of nuclear reactors were basically designed in the 60's. The generation of reactors that are being designed right now are safer and more efficient. I have no problem moving forward with nuclear technology and I would have no problem living by a nuclear reactor (I currently live with 20miles of one). I would have no problem living by a nuclear waste site as long as the process was open and subject to legitimate public debate without theatrics. The nuclear plant I live near generates over 2,000+ Mw of power with zero C02 emissions. There has been some damage to the ocean around the reactor because of the increase temperatures from the water that is discharged. I remember in high school my Biology teacher making a big deal about this damage and then I asked him what would have been the damage to the environment from a 2,000+ Mw conventional power plant in the same location, he didn't like me after that comment and never assigned the question either. Instead we are stuck with a lot of debate based on fear and scare tactics.

 

[Brovane]

Originally posted by: frostedflakes

Originally posted by: KurskKnyaz
FYI Canada does not power the entire US and neither does the hoover dam. Also, I'm still waiting for a reference for that number

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H...C_over_AC_transmission

Unfortunately not cited, but there you go.

Very interesting article.

 

[KurskKnyaz]

Originally posted by: frostedflakes

Originally posted by: KurskKnyaz
FYI Canada does not power the entire US and neither does the hoover dam. Also, I'm still waiting for a reference for that number

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H...C_over_AC_transmission

Unfortunately not cited, but there you go.

Glad to know moonbeam is not pulling everything out of his ass.

 

[seemingly random]

Originally posted by: KurskKnyaz
What part of my logic are you having trouble with?

I'm not going to argue with you. Take some time to reflect or just ignore my advice.

 

[frostedflakes]

Originally posted by: KurskKnyaz

Originally posted by: frostedflakes

Originally posted by: KurskKnyaz
FYI Canada does not power the entire US and neither does the hoover dam. Also, I'm still waiting for a reference for that number

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H...C_over_AC_transmission

Unfortunately not cited, but there you go.

Glad to know moonbeam is not pulling everything out of his ass.

The information was in an article he posted earlier, and I'm pretty sure he pointed this out to you multiple times. Anyways, I didn't want to waste time digging through the thread trying to find the article, it was faster to just find the info on Wikipedia.

 

[KurskKnyaz]

Originally posted by: seemingly random

Originally posted by: KurskKnyaz
What part of my logic are you having trouble with?

I'm not going to argue with you. Take some time to reflect or just ignore my advice.

Then don't. I don't have any loyalties and I don't mind anyone disagreeing. However, when someone disagrees because they feel nuclear engineers are "egg-heads, anti-social, soulless, and below soccer moms (SHITLOL!)" I'm not going to stomp my feet I rather sit back and watch them make an ass out of themselves.

The point I'm trying to make is that geography plays a factor in efficiency. Not everyone has the land to build solar panels or any kind. This notion that we can wire the country to the Nevada desert is ridiculous.

Sure, alternative energy sources are great for some. However, there are no alternative sources that are as efficient as nuclear power. They don't even come close. Yes, nuclear plants produce very dangerous waste that can't be disposed of. My main point is that we have the means, space, and time to store that waste safely for a very long time until we find a use for it or until we can dispose it. Regardless of what alternative energy source comes up, nuclear reactions produce far more energy per unit of matter than any chemical reactions. It will always be this way, the laws of physics won't change. A piece of uranium the size of a baseball can do what 500 million gallons of gasoline can. Just look what it has done for submarines: nuclear submarines can operate for 25 years without refueling.

Nuclear power won't become widespread because people have irrational fears about it. Hopefully this will change. The logic can't get any simpler.

 

[KurskKnyaz]

Originally posted by: frostedflakes

Originally posted by: KurskKnyaz

Originally posted by: frostedflakes

Originally posted by: KurskKnyaz
FYI Canada does not power the entire US and neither does the hoover dam. Also, I'm still waiting for a reference for that number

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H...C_over_AC_transmission

Unfortunately not cited, but there you go.

Glad to know moonbeam is not pulling everything out of his ass.

The information was in an article he posted earlier, and I'm pretty sure he pointed this out to you multiple times. Anyways, I didn't want to waste time digging through the thread trying to find the article, it was faster to just find the info on Wikipedia.

He pointed out that it was in the article not where it was in the article. If I wanted to read articles i would pick up Tuesday's New York times. I post here so that I can discuss issues with people but unfortunately there are those that basically say "read all this stuff and you will see I'm right."

 

[frostedflakes]

Originally posted by: KurskKnyaz

Originally posted by: frostedflakes

Originally posted by: KurskKnyaz

Originally posted by: frostedflakes

Originally posted by: KurskKnyaz
FYI Canada does not power the entire US and neither does the hoover dam. Also, I'm still waiting for a reference for that number

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H...C_over_AC_transmission

Unfortunately not cited, but there you go.

Glad to know moonbeam is not pulling everything out of his ass.

The information was in an article he posted earlier, and I'm pretty sure he pointed this out to you multiple times. Anyways, I didn't want to waste time digging through the thread trying to find the article, it was faster to just find the info on Wikipedia.

He pointed out that it was in the article not where it was in the article. If I wanted to read articles i would pick up Tuesday's New York times. I post here so that I can discuss issues with people but unfortunately there are those that basically say "read all this stuff and you will see I'm right."

Use browser's search feature (CTRL+F in Firefox, probably the same for others) to find specific info.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: frostedflakes

Originally posted by: KurskKnyaz

Originally posted by: frostedflakes

Originally posted by: KurskKnyaz

Originally posted by: frostedflakes

Originally posted by: KurskKnyaz
FYI Canada does not power the entire US and neither does the hoover dam. Also, I'm still waiting for a reference for that number

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H...C_over_AC_transmission

Unfortunately not cited, but there you go.

Glad to know moonbeam is not pulling everything out of his ass.

The information was in an article he posted earlier, and I'm pretty sure he pointed this out to you multiple times. Anyways, I didn't want to waste time digging through the thread trying to find the article, it was faster to just find the info on Wikipedia.

He pointed out that it was in the article not where it was in the article. If I wanted to read articles i would pick up Tuesday's New York times. I post here so that I can discuss issues with people but unfortunately there are those that basically say "read all this stuff and you will see I'm right."

Use browser's search feature (CTRL+F in Firefox, probably the same for others) to find specific info.

He doesn't want to know anything, he doesn't want to read anything, but he wants to argue logic. Sadly he's so uninformed he doesn't even know what logic is. His logic is that he is so sure he's right that it just has to be logical. Hehe, he thinks the desert can't power the country but 90 sq miles of the stuff I've been suggesting is enough to run the country.

Just think about this for a moment:

"Nuclear power won't become widespread because people have irrational fears about it. Hopefully this will change. The logic can't get any simpler."

Now if people have irrational fears about something that is as logical as it can be anybody who hopes this will change is insane. Hehe, If impeccable logic has no effect, nothing will. That is why we will see the nuclear folk try to out scare the chickens by threatening them with on power or buying their way into poor neighborhoods full of drunken Indians.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Brovane

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Brovane
How is solar power supposed to generate large amount of base load electrical power in the Gigawatt range consistently day and night?

Lots of ways. Molten salt is being used now. A new company is selling fly wheels that turn at 16,000 revs that store electrical power that can level loads from wind, sun, or outages. Capacitance batteries are being developed. Water can be pumped up hill behind dams in the day time. Sterling engines are being built that run at 150 degrees that produce electricity and air conditioning. It's all about attitude. When you say we will life off the sun human ingenuity will find a way. The trick is not to go down the poison path.

Oops I forgot that electricity can be transmitted long distances and its always day time somewhere.

Great so you are going to transmit solar energy from one side of the globe to the other side that is darkness? That is going to go over like a fart in church. Solar is great technology and there should be incentives especially in areas with good sunlight to have every new house have solar cells on the roof. Even the technology's like fly wheels only store in the Mw's and only for minutes at time. You need a technology that can reliably generate Gw's of electricity every minute of the day. There is basically 2 ways currently to generate large amounts of base load electrical power cheaply and that is nuclear and coal one puts out a whole lot less C02 than the other one. Solar, Wind, Hydro, Gas all have there part to play in a reliable future electrical generation just like nuclear has a part to play to. What I see is Solar, Wind, Hydro and Gas all playing a role in peak electrical. One of the great things about Hydro and Gas is with a flick of a switch you can quickly start producing electricity when needed and then turn it off. Nuclear has the role to play in that base load that keeps the lights on at night. Nuclear waste is a issue but instead of having rational debate we have conversations about having animals glow in the dark etc. Nuclear waste can be considerably reduced if the US reprocessed the fuel however the government doesn't allow it. Also remember that the current generation of nuclear reactors were basically designed in the 60's. The generation of reactors that are being designed right now are safer and more efficient. I have no problem moving forward with nuclear technology and I would have no problem living by a nuclear reactor (I currently live with 20miles of one). I would have no problem living by a nuclear waste site as long as the process was open and subject to legitimate public debate without theatrics. The nuclear plant I live near generates over 2,000+ Mw of power with zero C02 emissions. There has been some damage to the ocean around the reactor because of the increase temperatures from the water that is discharged. I remember in high school my Biology teacher making a big deal about this damage and then I asked him what would have been the damage to the environment from a 2,000+ Mw conventional power plant in the same location, he didn't like me after that comment and never assigned the question either. Instead we are stuck with a lot of debate based on fear and scare tactics.

Do you have a source for the fart in church or was it your own? You need to know that you can be right and irrelevant. Nuclear power is great except for the waste. What you would live by is not what most people will live by. Did you ask about an equivalent plant with solar not in your neighborhood or ruining your ocean, but in the desert? If you know a way to overcome irrational fear please let me know. Those stupid little people and their irrational fears you intellectuals despise happen to vote.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: KurskKnyaz

Originally posted by: frostedflakes

Originally posted by: KurskKnyaz

Originally posted by: frostedflakes

Originally posted by: KurskKnyaz
FYI Canada does not power the entire US and neither does the hoover dam. Also, I'm still waiting for a reference for that number

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H...C_over_AC_transmission

Unfortunately not cited, but there you go.

Glad to know moonbeam is not pulling everything out of his ass.

The information was in an article he posted earlier, and I'm pretty sure he pointed this out to you multiple times. Anyways, I didn't want to waste time digging through the thread trying to find the article, it was faster to just find the info on Wikipedia.

He pointed out that it was in the article not where it was in the article. If I wanted to read articles i would pick up Tuesday's New York times. I post here so that I can discuss issues with people but unfortunately there are those that basically say "read all this stuff and you will see I'm right."

Yes I did and I bolded it.

 

[seemingly random]

Originally posted by: frostedflakes

Originally posted by: KurskKnyaz

Originally posted by: frostedflakes

Originally posted by: KurskKnyaz

Originally posted by: frostedflakes

Originally posted by: KurskKnyaz
FYI Canada does not power the entire US and neither does the hoover dam. Also, I'm still waiting for a reference for that number

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H...C_over_AC_transmission

Unfortunately not cited, but there you go.

Glad to know moonbeam is not pulling everything out of his ass.

The information was in an article he posted earlier, and I'm pretty sure he pointed this out to you multiple times. Anyways, I didn't want to waste time digging through the thread trying to find the article, it was faster to just find the info on Wikipedia.

He pointed out that it was in the article not where it was in the article. If I wanted to read articles i would pick up Tuesday's New York times. I post here so that I can discuss issues with people but unfortunately there are those that basically say "read all this stuff and you will see I'm right."

Use browser's search feature (CTRL+F in Firefox, probably the same for others) to find specific info.

I use this all of the time and find it quite useful (it's the same in ie). Another useful feature found on some sites is to "display the story all on one page" or "make it printer friendly". Most sites don't have this anymore since the goal is to keep the viewer's attention as long as possible to view as many advertisements as possible.

I was in a store where the clerk was looking up a part for me on their system which was web based and therefore used a browser. He was having trouble locating it on the screen and, after leaning over to look, noticed how dense it was. I told him about ctrl-f and, after eyeing me suspiciously, he tried it. He thought I was god.

 

[Jeff7]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Not bad for a nuclear engineer, all aligned in need little rows and columns just like the linear thinking of your left-brained, rabbit hole mind, the very kind of mine that sees trees instead of a forest. Nuclear power is not a technical issue, it is a political issue and the small little nothing man who makes up John Q Public is as or more gifted in determining what is in the interest of humanity. Pin heads are sharp, but they don't cut it finding their way out of a paper bag. Spoiled little boys get angry when Mommy takes their toys.

HAhA hAHa hoHo Hehe EiEEeeeeeeeeeeeeeO

So what, you'd rather have politicians in charge of nuclear technology, rather than people who genuinely know what they're doing?

Originally posted by: KurskKnyaz
were you expose to nuclear waste as a kid?

Someone killed his parents and said, "I's a nuclear engineer, kid! AHAHAHAA!!!!!!" right before shooting himself in the head.
I know of no other rational explanation.

 

[CyberDuck]

Originally posted by: seemingly random

Originally posted by: CyberDuck

Originally posted by: seemingly random

Yes, it got lots of airplay. People love to hear about death and destruction. But the specific comment I made about the nuclear cloud being mentioned but then not followed up is how I remember it. Maybe it turns out that nuclear fallout isn't really dangerous after all. And I haven't thought or heard of chernobyl for years before I started reading this thread yesterday.

Again, my post was in response to the comment that nuclear power plants aren't dangerous. I don't know how anybody can state this with a straight face. This doesn't mean that the danger can't be managed but there is danger.

A few comments about the nuclear fallout. My country, Norway, was one of the countries with a lot of fallout from Tsjernobyl. Some parts of Norway got relatively high doses. Most of it was washed away by rain and disappeared, but some of it was taken up by vegetation, and then by plant eaters, and also lake fish. Mushrooms also concentrate up the waste when they break down plant material, and animals (and people) eating mushrooms could get high doses if not careful. So the government issued warning about how much could be eaten of fish and mushrooms in the affected areas. The main problem however was that most of the stricken wilderness areas were used for gracing by sheep and reindeer. During a season their nuclear content became to high for human consumption, so they had to be fed hay from uncontaminated areas for a long period after gracing to come down to legal levels before they could be eaten.

Now most of the problems are gone, but some hay feeding was necessary as late as 2006 since this year there was particularly much mushrooms.

All this said, as far as I know there has not been a measurable amount of increase in cancer in my country because of the accident, and I?m of the impression that the implications of the accident were heavily overstated. And I?m definitively pro nuclear, especially thorium power.

Btw, it seems humans are a much larger threat to wildlife than radiation is:

Wildlife defies Chernobyl radiation



Regards

Jostein

Damn - I didn't know this. I'm sorry that your country experienced this. Did the soviet union help with the cleanup?

This is exactly what I was talking about. The fallout from the fallout was managed by the nuclear info handlers - not that any other big business wouldn't do the same. There are ramifications almost 20 years later. It seems that nuclear side affects is the gift that keeps on giving.

The Sovjet Union was in a state of collapse shortly after this happened, and no, they newer helped anyone with anything. We tend to try to help them with their pollution problems, not the other way around. As to the info handling, the media in my country of course did write a lot about it, the international media quickly moved on to other things and forgot about it. If it does not sell a lot of newspapers it isn't covered. And after all it wasn't a very big deal, its estimated that about 200 mill nkr (40 mill$) was used on treating animals so the meat could be consumed saving about 1billion nkr (200 mill$) worth of meat.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Jeff7

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Not bad for a nuclear engineer, all aligned in need little rows and columns just like the linear thinking of your left-brained, rabbit hole mind, the very kind of mine that sees trees instead of a forest. Nuclear power is not a technical issue, it is a political issue and the small little nothing man who makes up John Q Public is as or more gifted in determining what is in the interest of humanity. Pin heads are sharp, but they don't cut it finding their way out of a paper bag. Spoiled little boys get angry when Mommy takes their toys.

HAhA hAHa hoHo Hehe EiEEeeeeeeeeeeeeeO

So what, you'd rather have politicians in charge of nuclear technology, rather than people who genuinely know what they're doing?

Originally posted by: KurskKnyaz
were you expose to nuclear waste as a kid?

Someone killed his parents and said, "I's a nuclear engineer, kid! AHAHAHAA!!!!!!" right before shooting himself in the head.
I know of no other rational explanation.

Hehe, and your fantasy you have a rational explanation is funny and probably all you are capable of in the way of reason.

And while I would have thought it obvious to any person of great reasoning facility such as your self, I'm sorry to tell you but I don't want anybody in charge of nuclear technology. I want to get rid of nuclear technology as a means of generating power. Duh!

 

[Moonbeam]

For more fun from Chernobyl google the thyroid cancer rates among children.

 

[KurskKnyaz]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Hehe, he thinks the desert can't power the country but 90 sq miles of the stuff I've been suggesting is enough to run the country.

In that case we should build a huge reactor there since it is far from children and drunken Indians.

Now if people have irrational fears about something that is as logical as it can be anybody who hopes this will change is insane.

I'm not such a pessimist. Logic will prevail. It may take $8/ gallon gas, but it will prevail.

hehe, If impeccable logic has no effect, nothing will. That is why we will see the nuclear folk try to out scare the chickens by threatening them with on power or buying their way into poor neighborhoods full of drunken Indians.

Just out of curiosity, where do you live? Inside a cartoon?

 

[KurskKnyaz]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
For more fun from Chernobyl google the thyroid cancer rates among children.

...still on Chernobyl. I think it would be easier for you to beat your head against the wall than drag on your circular argument.

 

[seemingly random]

Originally posted by: CyberDuck
...
The Sovjet Union was in a state of collapse shortly after this happened, and no, they newer helped anyone with anything. We tend to try to help them with their pollution problems, not the other way around. As to the info handling, the media in my country of course did write a lot about it, the international media quickly moved on to other things and forgot about it. If it does not sell a lot of newspapers it isn't covered. And after all it wasn't a very big deal, its estimated that about 200 mill nkr (40 mill$) was used on treating animals so the meat could be consumed saving about 1billion nkr (200 mill$) worth of meat.

I wonder if the current russia would help out now in the cleanup of a mess for which it was responsible. Haven't heard from them much in the last 15 years. I was in scotland for a few weeks in the early '90s on a business trip and was surprised to see such a different slant of the news of the world as opposed to the u.s. I've been on 'foreign' web sites lately but they seem to present a homogenized view once the source of the viewer is known - and more than just language.

Just as an example, what kind of coverage did the anna nicole smith suicide get in norway? It was on 24/7 for weeks here and trumped all other world events.

What could possibly be done to an animal that has been contaminated to treat it. Who consumed the meat - humans?

 

[KurskKnyaz]

Originally posted by: seemingly random


What could possibly be done to an animal that has been contaminated to treat it. Who consumed the meat - humans?

Nothing. It needs to be killed and burned. Otherwise the radioactive material will make its way to other parts of the food chain.

 

[CyberDuck]

Originally posted by: seemingly random

Originally posted by: CyberDuck
...
The Sovjet Union was in a state of collapse shortly after this happened, and no, they newer helped anyone with anything. We tend to try to help them with their pollution problems, not the other way around. As to the info handling, the media in my country of course did write a lot about it, the international media quickly moved on to other things and forgot about it. If it does not sell a lot of newspapers it isn't covered. And after all it wasn't a very big deal, its estimated that about 200 mill nkr (40 mill$) was used on treating animals so the meat could be consumed saving about 1billion nkr (200 mill$) worth of meat.

I wonder if the current russia would help out now in the cleanup of a mess for which it was responsible. Haven't heard from them much in the last 15 years. I was in scotland for a few weeks in the early '90s on a business trip and was surprised to see such a different slant of the news of the world as opposed to the u.s. I've been on 'foreign' web sites lately but they seem to present a homogenized view once the source of the viewer is known - and more than just language.

Just as an example, what kind of coverage did the anna nicole smith suicide get in norway? It was on 24/7 for weeks here and trumped all other world events.

What could possibly be done to an animal that has been contaminated to treat it. Who consumed the meat - humans?

Russia is getting better, for instance they now have promised to close the Nikel plant only 8 km from the Norwegian border that has sent sulphur over parts og Northern Norway for many, many years. They improve beacuse their economy is improving I guess.

The Anna Nicole Smith suicide was mentioned here, I don't remember how much. Not in any way as you describe though. I get CNN at home so i watched it a little bit. They tend to send the American CNN version at night now i think, so we get a glimpse into whats on there. The rest of the day its the international CNN thats more tuned to international events. The main news here is sent by two domestic channels, NRK (payed publicly) and TV2 (payed by commercials). They send domestic and important international news. In addition we have BBC-news, CNBC (sends your NBC Nightly News), Bloomberg TV, Al Jazeera (or how its spelled), and even a chinese news channel (CCTV-9).

The meat was used for human consumtion. After the sheep and reindeer is collected from grasing they are either put on clean land for a while, or they are fed hay from uncontaminated areas. The contminant is Cesium-137, and it has a biological half life of 2-3 weeks. So you feed them hay until the level of Cesium is within limits safe for human consuption.

Regards

Jostein

 

[CyberDuck]

In addition you can decontaminate them by feeding a Cesium binder, i dont know the english name, we call it Berlin blue. It was added to salt stones in the contamineted areas, and can also be added to the food the eat after they are collected.