Nuclear Power . . .

[CaptnKirk]

Let's Nuke 'Em !

Actually I agree with having more Nuclear Reactors built to today's standards,
there's this little problem with Radioactice Waste.

Can you spot the sheep in the clouds with this statement:

Bush, who noted that while the U.S. gets 20% of its electricity from nuclear reactors,
France meets 78% of its electricity needs with nuclear power.

(Hint - 20% energy output in a country the size of the US with multiple reactors, 104 operating
is nearly double the 78% output by a little teeny tiny country like France, with 58 functioning.)

Perhaps there is a need to use up all that old, bothersome YELLOW CAKE that he was so worried about.

 

[Stunt]

Good news!!
This is an excellent idea from Bush and will do way more than some of the ideas in the energy bill.
Anyone who is against this plan, is very much uninformed.

If Bush can get nuclear power above off-peak consumption, clean hydrogen production can be utilized.
Oh the possibilities :beer:

Edit: What's up with your title, with such good important news...it should be taken more seriously.

 

[RightIsWrong]

As long as private energy companies are footing the majority of the bill....go for it. But we know that this adminstration will NEVER go for having big business having to pull their weight unless it is in donations.

 

[CaptnKirk]

Stunt - Picture was in a Nuclear Plant Control Room - Homer Simpson's home territory.
(but I changed it, since you grovel so nicely)

Right = Wrong - Of course the private sector get's the free ride, it's controles by the Federal Nuclear Regulatory Comission, & construction is subsidized by the Fed.

Prediction ! - More contracts to Hallibutron, RMK+BRJ, & Bechtel.
Aren't they the only ones allowed to bid as certified contractors ?

 

[irwincur]

I am all for nuclear power and have been for some time. Funny how the enviro wackos set us (and their cause) back decades ago by complaining about nuclear power. It is known to be safe and clean - as well as producing little in terms of bi-product. The alternative, coal...

I find it extremely funny that most of the power production in the US us coal based, all thanks to the enviro wacko cult.

 

[dphantom]

Go nucular!!! :thumbsup:

Been a nuke supporter since the 70's Hopefully, we'll see a concerted effort to up our usage of nclear genreated power.

 

[dphantom]

Originally posted by: irwincur
I am all for nuclear power and have been for some time. Funny how the enviro wackos set us (and their cause) back decades ago by complaining about nuclear power. It is known to be safe and clean - as well as producing little in terms of bi-product. The alternative, coal...

I find it extremely funny that most of the power production in the US us coal based, all thanks to the enviro wacko cult.

I am a solid conservationist - note I did not say environmentatlist. I make a distinction. I agree with you, here where I live we get ozone action days because of all the smog produced 100 miles away by coal fired plants and automobiles.

I'd rather deal with a few hundred tons of nclear waste than hundreds of millions of tons of sulfur, mercury and otehr stuff dumped into our atmosphere every year.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
Stunt - Picture was in a Nuclear Plant Control Room - Homer Simpson's home territory.
(but I changed it, since you grovel so nicely)

Right = Wrong - Of course the private sector get's the free ride, it's controles by the Federal Nuclear Regulatory Comission, & construction is subsidized by the Fed.

Prediction ! - More contracts to Hallibutron, RMK+BRJ, & Bechtel.
Aren't they the only ones allowed to bid as certified contractors ?

Er...more like contracts for GE and Westinghouse.

 

[dphantom]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
Stunt - Picture was in a Nuclear Plant Control Room - Homer Simpson's home territory.
(but I changed it, since you grovel so nicely)

Right = Wrong - Of course the private sector get's the free ride, it's controles by the Federal Nuclear Regulatory Comission, & construction is subsidized by the Fed.

Prediction ! - More contracts to Hallibutron, RMK+BRJ, & Bechtel.
Aren't they the only ones allowed to bid as certified contractors ?

Er...more like contracts for GE and Westinghouse.

Especially GE. From what I understand, they've developed a pretty "cookie cutter" nuke plant that should be cheaper to build but much more reliable at the same time.

 

[CaptnKirk]

Originally posted by: dphantom

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
Stunt - Picture was in a Nuclear Plant Control Room - Homer Simpson's home territory.
(but I changed it, since you grovel so nicely)

Right = Wrong - Of course the private sector get's the free ride, it's controles by the Federal Nuclear Regulatory Comission, & construction is subsidized by the Fed.

Prediction ! - More contracts to Hallibutron, RMK+BRJ, & Bechtel.
Aren't they the only ones allowed to bid as certified contractors ?

Er...more like contracts for GE and Westinghouse.

Especially GE. From what I understand, they've developed a pretty "cookie cutter" nuke plant that should be cheaper to build but much more reliable at the same time.

Westinghouse and GE make the equipment. They don't just leave them sitting arround in the open you know.
There are little incidentals like Containment Buildings, Reactor Buildings, etc.

 

[Steeplerot]

Nothin wacko about not being nuked or ruining large sections of lands for 100's of years..

Matter of fact I can't think of anything more gulliable then believing...oh yeah, it can never happen! duuur corporations NEVER make mistakes..nothing is 100%.

You all have been drinking GE and westinghouses kool aid for too long.

take a look at your power lines outside your house. Look at other public works. They up to code? probaly not, Don't expect any different if they can "cost cut" somehow. They always are.

We all know how important refinerys are, they just had one blow up a few months ago, just

becasue one hasent gone sky high (latley) doesent mean these people have your best interests in mind,

matter of fact there only interest is telling you whatever they can to make more cash.

 

[cquark]

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
Let's Nuke 'Em !

Actually I agree with having more Nuclear Reactors built to today's standards,
there's this little problem with Radioactice Waste.

Fortunately, it's a technically solvable problem by separation and reprocessing. While you would need to store about 1% of the material for a couple of centuries, there's no need to attempt the impossible storage of material for tens of millenia as the government is trying at Yucca Mountain.

 

[Steeplerot]

yeah, no need to bury the waste anymore we can just blow up the iraqis (or whoever else has needed resources or the prez has a grudge against) with it in our shells... :roll:

 

[Stunt]

For those interested, I have created a post based on this in my blog.
Thanks for the link CaptnKirk

Here's the article I wrote on the situation. Feel free to use it in your OP CaptnKirk (hehe)...

Some excellent news to report today; the United States will be implementing more nuclear energy facilities as stated by the US President, who I give full support to on this issue. (Link) This move will not only help the US lessen its dependence on the Middle East for oil, but will significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and other toxic air-bourne chemicals.

As it stands now, the US produces its electricity with the following fuels (Coal 50%, Nuclear 20%, Natural Gas 18%, Hydro 7%), where coal is very dirty; spewing lots of nasty chemicals into the air. France by comparison produces the vast majority (78% of power) through nuclear generation. Even though the US still produces more electricity with nuclear compared to France, the more reactors, the better. This power fuel conversion will help Canadians as well because ever since our premier has committed to shutting down Ontario's coal fired plants (including the notorious Nanticoke) we have had to replace this power with imports, mostly from US coal plants (*shakes head*). So it is nice to see the US putting in the infrastructure to help us keep our commitment to kyoto. (oh the irony!) [Actually if you consider the commitments that Canada and the US originally made to Kyoto, the US is actually closer to the Kyoto target than we are, food for thought.]

Besides the air-pollution and greenhouse gas emissions benefits there are also peripheral benefits such as off peak electricity potential. If the capacity of nuclear facilities in a given region are above off-peak consumption (usually the case, France has this situation), the additional electricity supply can be used to convert water to Hydrogen through electrolysis. Currently most hydrogen is produced with natural gas, creating hydrocarbons just as burning octane does in your car. This would allow companies like GM who have set a goal of producing a hydrogen fuel celled car by 2010 much more credibility. Without nuclear capacity, these hydrogen fuelled cars will be just as polluting if not more through coal electrolysis or natural gas reforming.

If any of you were able to see the speech given by Dr. Ballard (ex-Queen's grad), who is now heading a leader in hydrogen production (General Hydrogen), he was asked how hydrogen will be feasible for the mainstream. His comment: "Nuclear, Nuclear, Nuclear".

Welcome to our future, it looks bright indeed, and Bush has made a step in the right direction with this news. (especially considering not one plant has been created in 30 years) Nuclear energy is far safer than it once was, and I urge skeptics to do some research in this field before jumping to uninformed conclusions.

 

[RabidMongoose]

This might be one of the few things that I'll commend Bush for.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
Let's Nuke 'Em !

Actually I agree with having more Nuclear Reactors built to today's standards,
there's this little problem with Radioactice Waste.

Can you spot the sheep in the clouds with this statement:

Bush, who noted that while the U.S. gets 20% of its electricity from nuclear reactors,
France meets 78% of its electricity needs with nuclear power.

(Hint - 20% energy output in a country the size of the US with multiple reactors, 104 operating
is nearly double the 78% output by a little teeny tiny country like France, with 58 functioning.)

Perhaps there is a need to use up all that old, bothersome YELLOW CAKE that he was so worried about.

What is your point? We are relying on coal and gas plants when we could be using Nuclear which is much safer for the enviornment.

If we are to compete in the future we will be required to go Nuclear. Especially if we decide to move with fuel cell cars. How else do you think we will get hydrogen out of water? Burning a crapload of gas and coal?

 

[cquark]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
becasue one hasent gone sky high (latley) doesent mean these people have your best interests in mind,

Nuclear physics doesn't allow modern nuclear plants to go "sky high," by which I presume you mean a meltdown event. Unfortunately, although the design dates back to the 1940s and is used elsewhere, the US has no modern nuclear power plants. Of course, that's a very good reason to begin building modern nuclear plants to replace aging, dangerous ones.

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
This might be one of the few things that I'll commend Bush for.

You have to give it when it's due :thumbsup:
Hard to spin such good news...although some are trying so hard to.

 

[Steeplerot]

does it blow up? melt down etc? yes or no? if it can then I want no part of it IMO...

They say a lot of stuff "can't" happen but it always inevitably does.

you all are funny bobbing your heads in trust like your getting ready to cruise in the "unsinkable" titanic, all aboad!

 

[Stunt]

I'm more surprised to see Bush give France credit for its work in this area.

 

[rahvin]

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
Stunt - Picture was in a Nuclear Plant Control Room - Homer Simpson's home territory.
(but I changed it, since you grovel so nicely)

Right = Wrong - Of course the private sector get's the free ride, it's controles by the Federal Nuclear Regulatory Comission, & construction is subsidized by the Fed.

Prediction ! - More contracts to Hallibutron, RMK+BRJ, & Bechtel.
Aren't they the only ones allowed to bid as certified contractors ?

No, Raython lost their shirts on the last couple that are being finished.

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
does it blow up? melt down etc? yes or no? if it can then I want no part of it IMO...

They say a lot of stuff "can't" happen but it always inevitably does.

you all are funny bobbing your heads in trust like your getting ready to cruise in the "unsinkable" titanic, all aboad!

Research pebble bed reactors. They are failsafe. The controllers can walk off and die and the plant will never meltdown, the coolant can evaporate completly and the reactor shuts itself down.

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
does it blow up? melt down etc? yes or no? if it can then I want no part of it IMO...

They say a lot of stuff "can't" happen but it always inevitably does.

Natural Gas blows up...
it accounts for the same amount of electricity production as nuclear. (17%)

If you are against everything that blows up, you are limited to solar, wind, coal (i bet you are against this too), and hydro.

Ready to live like a poor nation?

 

[Steeplerot]

there are better options then risking large swaths on land almost indefinatly and increasing the radioactive levels in our atmospere even worse.

very irresponsible trusting the same feds who you all complain about botching up even a war etc etc etc.

Show me the government has any competancy then _maybe_ I would be cool with more live nukes sitting around.

 

[irwincur]

becasue one hasent gone sky high (latley) doesent mean these people have your best interests in mind,

No, but they have the shareholders interests in mind (you know the shareholders, the owners...). If a GE plant was to go 'sky high', you better believe that it would hurt their bottom line for decades. hence, the incentive to keep their plants from going 'sky high'.

Considering you have no clue as to how a free market economy works, your simplistic view on the subject does not surprise me.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
does it blow up? melt down etc? yes or no? if it can then I want no part of it IMO...

They say a lot of stuff "can't" happen but it always inevitably does.

Natural Gas blows up...
it accounts for the same amount of electricity production as nuclear. (17%)

If you are against everything that blows up, you are limited to solar, wind, coal (i bet you are against this too), and hydro.

Ready to live like a poor nation?

Hey Hydro wont work very well because the dam could fail!

He probably wants to litter the entire landscape with wind turbines and then raise taxes to cover the costs of maintaining them.