Stimulus I can get behind

[soccerballtux]

when they say that it's a perfect time to say "Well then get rid of some of the regulation! It's not needed, nuclear tech has moved a lot in the last 50 years!"

 

[Budmantom]

Originally posted by: piasabird
It would take ten years to get an approval to build a nuclear power plant, so why bother?

Isnt this the reason we cant drill for oil?

Sounds just like silly democratic reasoning.

That's an Oxymoron.



What we need is some green energy like wind turbines and solar they are cheap and produce a lot of power.

 

[BigJelly]

Originally posted by: Budmantom

Originally posted by: piasabird
It would take ten years to get an approval to build a nuclear power plant, so why bother?

Isnt this the reason we cant drill for oil?

Sounds just like silly democratic reasoning.

That's an Oxymoron.



What we need is some green energy like wind turbines and solar they are cheap and produce a lot of power.

what are you smoking?

If they were cheap, then energy companies wouldn't need my taxes to fund/subsidize the "cheap" energy source.

 

[MovingTarget]

Originally posted by: BigJelly

Originally posted by: Budmantom

Originally posted by: piasabird
It would take ten years to get an approval to build a nuclear power plant, so why bother?

Isnt this the reason we cant drill for oil?

Sounds just like silly democratic reasoning.

That's an Oxymoron.



What we need is some green energy like wind turbines and solar they are cheap and produce a lot of power.

what are you smoking?

If they were cheap, then energy companies wouldn't need my taxes to fund/subsidize the "cheap" energy source.

You have to also take into account the economies of scale. People may be clammoring for the US to build more of them, but until we actually DO begin doing so, the cost per unit is going to be higher. If this gets started, you better believe that we will go up the learning curve for mass production of these things very quickly.

The infrastructure, experience, and knowledge is widespread for the construction, operation, and maintainence of coal plants already exists. There is still resistance to change in these areas.

Besides, you also have to realize that "cheap" does not necessarily mean the startup costs. In the long run they are definitely cheaper as they require less maintainence and virtually no fuel costs. Sunshine and wind are FREE to harness once you get the equipment in place. You just have to maintain them as you would any other piece of infrastructure.

 

[BigJelly]

Originally posted by: MovingTarget

Originally posted by: BigJelly

Originally posted by: Budmantom

Originally posted by: piasabird
It would take ten years to get an approval to build a nuclear power plant, so why bother?

Isnt this the reason we cant drill for oil?

Sounds just like silly democratic reasoning.

That's an Oxymoron.



What we need is some green energy like wind turbines and solar they are cheap and produce a lot of power.

what are you smoking?

If they were cheap, then energy companies wouldn't need my taxes to fund/subsidize the "cheap" energy source.

You have to also take into account the economies of scale. People may be clammoring for the US to build more of them, but until we actually DO begin doing so, the cost per unit is going to be higher. If this gets started, you better believe that we will go up the learning curve for mass production of these things very quickly.

The infrastructure, experience, and knowledge is widespread for the construction, operation, and maintainence of coal plants already exists. There is still resistance to change in these areas.

Besides, you also have to realize that "cheap" does not necessarily mean the startup costs. In the long run they are definitely cheaper as they require less maintainence and virtually no fuel costs. Sunshine and wind are FREE to harness once you get the equipment in place. You just have to maintain them as you would any other piece of infrastructure.

I guess land has no value either.

Nuclear has all the benifits of air and wind and can produce far more energy per sq mile. Furthermore, nuclear is cheaper (once we get the government off its back) and government is the one dragging its feet on building more plants--the energy companies WANT to build nuclear plants, but NEED government hand outs to build wind and solar.

Face it we should be going nuclear. Air and wind will hurt us because of the insane increase in electricity use in a couple of years when plug in cars start to be mass produced. So gas and coal will have to fill in the extra void that wind and solar won't fill.

 

[chess9]

We've already destroyed the planet. It's too late to do anything to resurrect the glaciers and forests of British Columbia. Assuming we could convert to 80% nuclear and stop almost all carbon based forms of energy usage in 10 years (the balance in solar, wind, and other forms of energy), we would still keep losing forests and glaciers for another 500 years, or longer.

We've fucked up the planet for our children and grandchildren. It's too late...probably.

Spend the money on infrastructure now in the hope that something new comes along to save our planet, BUT also keep our space program vigorous. We need to get OFF this planet. That is the only hope for the human race.

In the meantime, we will probably kill each other with nuclear weapons, so all of the foregoing is moot.

-Robert

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

Originally posted by: Gibsons

Originally posted by: Kadarin

Originally posted by: BrownTown
Lets face it, the environmental whack jobs are on a mission to sink pretty much every major infrastructure project they can

These are the sort of people who want us all back in the stone age, running naked through the forests eating berries to survive.

Strawberries and naked chicks? Count me in.

Heres a chick for you....

Shes not naked so it's SFW

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

Originally posted by: chess9
We've already destroyed the planet. It's too late to do anything to resurrect the glaciers and forests of British Columbia. Assuming we could convert to 80% nuclear and stop almost all carbon based forms of energy usage in 10 years (the balance in solar, wind, and other forms of energy), we would still keep losing forests and glaciers for another 500 years, or longer.

We've fucked up the planet for our children and grandchildren. It's too late...probably.

Spend the money on infrastructure now in the hope that something new comes along to save our planet, BUT also keep our space program vigorous. We need to get OFF this planet. That is the only hope for the human race.

In the meantime, we will probably kill each other with nuclear weapons, so all of the foregoing is moot.

-Robert

Hasn't your "OMG THE PLANET IS GOING TO DIE" theory already been debunked?

 

[chess9]

Originally posted by: DisgruntledVirus

Originally posted by: chess9
We've already destroyed the planet. It's too late to do anything to resurrect the glaciers and forests of British Columbia. Assuming we could convert to 80% nuclear and stop almost all carbon based forms of energy usage in 10 years (the balance in solar, wind, and other forms of energy), we would still keep losing forests and glaciers for another 500 years, or longer.

We've fucked up the planet for our children and grandchildren. It's too late...probably.

Spend the money on infrastructure now in the hope that something new comes along to save our planet, BUT also keep our space program vigorous. We need to get OFF this planet. That is the only hope for the human race.

In the meantime, we will probably kill each other with nuclear weapons, so all of the foregoing is moot.

-Robert

Hasn't your "OMG THE PLANET IS GOING TO DIE" theory already been debunked?

Who said anything about death? The planet will live on, but this planet soon won't be fit for humans. The cockroaches and gators will be pleased, however.

-Robert

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

Originally posted by: chess9

Originally posted by: DisgruntledVirus

Originally posted by: chess9
We've already destroyed the planet. It's too late to do anything to resurrect the glaciers and forests of British Columbia. Assuming we could convert to 80% nuclear and stop almost all carbon based forms of energy usage in 10 years (the balance in solar, wind, and other forms of energy), we would still keep losing forests and glaciers for another 500 years, or longer.

We've fucked up the planet for our children and grandchildren. It's too late...probably.

Spend the money on infrastructure now in the hope that something new comes along to save our planet, BUT also keep our space program vigorous. We need to get OFF this planet. That is the only hope for the human race.

In the meantime, we will probably kill each other with nuclear weapons, so all of the foregoing is moot.

-Robert

Hasn't your "OMG THE PLANET IS GOING TO DIE" theory already been debunked?

Who said anything about death? The planet will live on, but this planet soon won't be fit for humans. The cockroaches and gators will be pleased, however.

-Robert

Outside of a nuclear war (which in the "who will be next to use nukes" thread I gave my reasoning for why that won't happen in the near term), asteroid impact, GRB, or some other extinction level event, I don't see how "this planet soon won't be fit for humans".

Manmade global warming is a very new theory, and we don't have enough data to accurately say what (if any) effects we are having globally. Yes CO2 levels have been increasing for years, yes our population has exploded (which for the record I believe needs to be curbed), and the average global temp has increased, but outside of the population growth we can't say for sure if it's because of us or not. Our planet has gone through warmer periods, and cooler periods. If I make the comment "based on Obama's history, he will be the worse than Bush", you would rationally say that there was no way I could make this statement until he is in office. We don't have all the facts, or enough accurate measurements over time to be able to rationally say for sure that we are causing the planet to warm up.

edit: With that said, I do believe we should work to become a more eco-friendly species. I believe we need to work to find more "green" ways to live, without destroying our economy in the process.

 

[chess9]

Originally posted by: DisgruntledVirus

Originally posted by: chess9

Originally posted by: DisgruntledVirus

Originally posted by: chess9
We've already destroyed the planet. It's too late to do anything to resurrect the glaciers and forests of British Columbia. Assuming we could convert to 80% nuclear and stop almost all carbon based forms of energy usage in 10 years (the balance in solar, wind, and other forms of energy), we would still keep losing forests and glaciers for another 500 years, or longer.

We've fucked up the planet for our children and grandchildren. It's too late...probably.

Spend the money on infrastructure now in the hope that something new comes along to save our planet, BUT also keep our space program vigorous. We need to get OFF this planet. That is the only hope for the human race.

In the meantime, we will probably kill each other with nuclear weapons, so all of the foregoing is moot.

-Robert

Hasn't your "OMG THE PLANET IS GOING TO DIE" theory already been debunked?

Who said anything about death? The planet will live on, but this planet soon won't be fit for humans. The cockroaches and gators will be pleased, however.

-Robert

Outside of a nuclear war (which in the "who will be next to use nukes" thread I gave my reasoning for why that won't happen in the near term), asteroid impact, GRB, or some other extinction level event, I don't see how "this planet soon won't be fit for humans".

Manmade global warming is a very new theory, and we don't have enough data to accurately say what (if any) effects we are having globally. Yes CO2 levels have been increasing for years, yes our population has exploded (which for the record I believe needs to be curbed), and the average global temp has increased, but outside of the population growth we can't say for sure if it's because of us or not. Our planet has gone through warmer periods, and cooler periods. If I make the comment "based on Obama's history, he will be the worse than Bush", you would rationally say that there was no way I could make this statement until he is in office. We don't have all the facts, or enough accurate measurements over time to be able to rationally say for sure that we are causing the planet to warm up.

edit: With that said, I do believe we should work to become a more eco-friendly species. I believe we need to work to find more "green" ways to live, without destroying our economy in the process.

Do you breathe CO2 yet?

Have you noticed that asthma levels are rising? COPD is now the 4th leading cause of death worldwide.

We only need one of the complex set of variables that sustain life on this planet to go askew A SMALL AMOUNT for life to be untenable for humans.

Our air quality totally sucks. The Chinese are killing their people with their approach to 'clean air'. Quite a bit of America has high levels of toxic pollutants, particularly if you are on the roads, or close to them. Try riding a bike in that shit some time!

We've gone too far. We've tipped the balance against humans with our industrial revolution.

-Robert

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: chess9
We've already destroyed the planet. It's too late to do anything to resurrect the glaciers and forests of British Columbia. Assuming we could convert to 80% nuclear and stop almost all carbon based forms of energy usage in 10 years (the balance in solar, wind, and other forms of energy), we would still keep losing forests and glaciers for another 500 years, or longer.

We've fucked up the planet for our children and grandchildren. It's too late...probably.

Spend the money on infrastructure now in the hope that something new comes along to save our planet, BUT also keep our space program vigorous. We need to get OFF this planet. That is the only hope for the human race.

In the meantime, we will probably kill each other with nuclear weapons, so all of the foregoing is moot.

-Robert

LOL, and they call the Paulbots crazy? This kook wants to abandon Earth for the stars. LMAO!

 

[MovingTarget]

Originally posted by: BigJelly

Originally posted by: MovingTarget

Originally posted by: BigJelly

Originally posted by: Budmantom

Originally posted by: piasabird
It would take ten years to get an approval to build a nuclear power plant, so why bother?

Isnt this the reason we cant drill for oil?

Sounds just like silly democratic reasoning.

That's an Oxymoron.



What we need is some green energy like wind turbines and solar they are cheap and produce a lot of power.

what are you smoking?

If they were cheap, then energy companies wouldn't need my taxes to fund/subsidize the "cheap" energy source.

You have to also take into account the economies of scale. People may be clammoring for the US to build more of them, but until we actually DO begin doing so, the cost per unit is going to be higher. If this gets started, you better believe that we will go up the learning curve for mass production of these things very quickly.

The infrastructure, experience, and knowledge is widespread for the construction, operation, and maintainence of coal plants already exists. There is still resistance to change in these areas.

Besides, you also have to realize that "cheap" does not necessarily mean the startup costs. In the long run they are definitely cheaper as they require less maintainence and virtually no fuel costs. Sunshine and wind are FREE to harness once you get the equipment in place. You just have to maintain them as you would any other piece of infrastructure.

I guess land has no value either.

Nuclear has all the benifits of air and wind and can produce far more energy per sq mile. Furthermore, nuclear is cheaper (once we get the government off its back) and government is the one dragging its feet on building more plants--the energy companies WANT to build nuclear plants, but NEED government hand outs to build wind and solar.

Face it we should be going nuclear. Air and wind will hurt us because of the insane increase in electricity use in a couple of years when plug in cars start to be mass produced. So gas and coal will have to fill in the extra void that wind and solar won't fill.

Many places where solar and wind could be reliably produced have quite low land values. Besides, the footprint of wind isn't that large and can go hand in hand with farmland without really affecting too much. Besides, I never said we shouldn't be going nuclear. Far from it. Nuclear needs to be ramped up.

As far as power concerns go, we do need to be going full force on solar/wind even if we are migrating to nuclear for base load. The peak loads can often be augmented w/solar and wind quite well. Hell, there are many areas of the country with excellent solar/wind availability that can't even keep the grid running due to something that solar availability has to do with - the need for air conditioning when the sun is blazing down. However, solar and wind alone is not reliable enough for base load power needs.

Also, you have to keep in mind that fissile material is finite. At our current power needs, we only have about 5-6 decades of supply. Either we need to go w/ breeder reactors or go home. Fusion hopefully will be viable soon, and THAT is the real wave of the future. I really like your comment against the government about "getting off its back" though. Sure, the policies currently in place have been BAD for the nuclear industry (in constructing new plants), but removing gvt involvement for environmental and safety concerns is just stupid. We need to cut the red tape but still leave meaningful oversight in place.

 

[smokeyjoe]

How did this thread get on "global warming"? Anyway, if anyone hasn't read this report, I suggest you do if for nothing else than to hear opposing views.

http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckit...search/APEC-hockey.pdf

 

[MovingTarget]

Originally posted by: smokeyjoe
How did this thread get on "global warming"? Anyway, if anyone hasn't read this report, I suggest you do if for nothing else than to hear opposing views.

http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckit...search/APEC-hockey.pdf

Even if you dismiss GW completely, there are still plenty of incentives for our country to move to renewables and nuclear for the majority of its power. Strategic concerns (both national security and geopolitical), price fluctuations for fossil fuels, local pollution issues, etc.

We already have a GW thread here somewhere. Those "views" have been discussed for the most part already...

 

[smokeyjoe]

Originally posted by: MovingTarget

Originally posted by: smokeyjoe
How did this thread get on "global warming"? Anyway, if anyone hasn't read this report, I suggest you do if for nothing else than to hear opposing views.

http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckit...search/APEC-hockey.pdf

Even if you dismiss GW completely, there are still plenty of incentives for our country to move to renewables and nuclear for the majority of its power. Strategic concerns (both national security and geopolitical), price fluctuations for fossil fuels, local pollution issues, etc.

We already have a GW thread here somewhere. Those "views" have been discussed for the most part already...

I agree that we need to move to renewables. I am for environmental efforts like stopping the illegal discard of toxic materials and wanton pollution. If this results from the "man-made global warming" theory, then I am for it. But I think people need to be aware that any economic policy changes due to the man-made theory are not in our best interest and do not go even halfway in making the necessary changes.

 

[Thegonagle]

I like nuclear. In theory, it's great, it's wonderful. The big problem is what to do with the nuclear waste. I believe that because of the danger of an accident near a populated area, or even a not-so populated area, it should not be transported 100's to 1000's of miles to a central storage facility (Yucca Mountain landfill). On the other hand, doing what they do now, storing it at or near the reactor site, becomes impractical over time for obvious reasons.

Therefore, I'm still in favor of harnessing the "free" alternatives as much as possible, and conservation in general. Maybe a few new nuclear power plants need to go on line as well, but pragmatically speaking, we all must realize (and accept) that there is no single silver bullet. Large problems require multi-faceted approaches to solve them most effectively.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: MovingTarget

Also, you have to keep in mind that fissile material is finite. At our current power needs, we only have about 5-6 decades of supply. Either we need to go w/ breeder reactors or go home.

Actual (known) reserves are about twice that figure at current rates of use. There are likely vast unexploited reserves out there but since Uranium has been dirt cheap for so long nobody went looking for it until recently.

Heavy water moderated designs (like the CANDU) in particular can use natural U-238 and support a Thorium fuel cycle.

In all likelihood we have sufficient fission fuel at our disposal for several hundred years at least.

 

[XMan]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: MovingTarget

Also, you have to keep in mind that fissile material is finite. At our current power needs, we only have about 5-6 decades of supply. Either we need to go w/ breeder reactors or go home.

Actual (known) reserves are about twice that figure at current rates of use. There are likely vast unexploited reserves out there but since Uranium has been dirt cheap for so long nobody went looking for it until recently.

Heavy water moderated designs (like the CANDU) in particular can use natural U-238 and support a Thorium fuel cycle.

In all likelihood we have sufficient fission fuel at our disposal for several hundred years at least.

Pebble bed FTW.