One of the first indications of the pitfalls of cheaper gas.

uscitizen said:
then you won't mind if we put it in your backyard then ?

imho all nuke waste should stay in the state that generates it.
Click to expand...
My backyard is only about 6000 square feet, and isn't zoned for waste disposal. If you truly cared about the environment you would insist that waste goes into the best area that can handle it, regardless of political boundaries.
 
Southern Man said:
My backyard is only about 6000 square feet, and isn't zoned for waste disposal. If you truly cared about the environment you would insist that waste goes into the best area that can handle it, regardless of political boundaries.
Click to expand...

Hence the battle rages for about 50 years on what to do with it.

I thought you could sleep with the canisters ? How hazardous can they be ?
 
Southern Man said:
My backyard is only about 6000 square feet, and isn't zoned for waste disposal. If you truly cared about the environment you would insist that waste goes into the best area that can handle it, regardless of political boundaries.
Click to expand...


in that case it should go to canada
 
Southern Man said:
My backyard is only about 6000 square feet, and isn't zoned for waste disposal. If you truly cared about the environment you would insist that waste goes into the best area that can handle it, regardless of political boundaries.
Click to expand...


Or, better yet, that we not produce the fucking waste in the first place.
 
nuclear energy is great but its to dangerous. Solar and wind should be widely used and we should be looking for some sort of self sustaining energy source like an Arc reactor.
 
uscitizen said:
Hence the battle rages for about 50 years on what to do with it.

I thought you could sleep with the canisters ? How hazardous can they be ?
Click to expand...
You're trying to "personalize" the waste issue because you can't dispute the technical issues. Admit it.
 
Southern Man said:
You're trying to "personalize" the waste issue because you can't dispute the technical issues. Admit it.
Click to expand...

I am just trying to point the NIMBY mentality.

Hence my stance of every state being responsible for their own nuke wastes and all other trash as well.

States rights and responsibility :cheer:
 
I have a cousin who has been employed by a Nuclear facility either in Alabama or Texas for the past 25+ years and he claims that Nuclear power is very clean and safe. Of course his opinion is somewhat biased but he is in the medical oversight part of the plant, meaning that he checks on the emissions from the reactors and the canisters of "waste" that come out of it. As a result of discussions with him I tend to think Nuclear power is OK, though the oversight issue makes me somewhat nervous if we start to get several of them throughout the country.

By the way, why is there no such thing as clean coal?
 
Chapdog said:
nuclear energy is great but its to dangerous. Solar and wind should be widely used and we should be looking for some sort of self sustaining energy source like an Arc reactor.
Click to expand...
Solar and wind can't produce what nukes and coal produce. That's a fact of life in the 20th and 21st centuries. I'm not sure what you're referring to with this arc reactor but if you're talking fusion, I'm all for it, except that the technology isn't there. In fact 35 years ago they said they needed another 20 or 30 years to make it work, and now they are predicting 50.
 
Dungheap said:
Or, better yet, that we not produce the fucking waste in the first place.
Click to expand...
Silly hypocrisy. You can't stand there using the electricity to spread your message and tell others not to. Either take your own medicine and leave behind the trappings of modern life and work to produce no waste that hasn't been composted, or stop attempting to force other people to fit in that silly box. Even solar cells leave behind waste, the plastics are even hazardous to the environment when they finally decompose.
 
leaningright said:
I have a cousin who has been employed by a Nuclear facility either in Alabama or Texas for the past 25+ years and he claims that Nuclear power is very clean and safe. Of course his opinion is somewhat biased but he is in the medical oversight part of the plant, meaning that he checks on the emissions from the reactors and the canisters of "waste" that come out of it. As a result of discussions with him I tend to think Nuclear power is OK, though the oversight issue makes me somewhat nervous if we start to get several of them throughout the country.

By the way, why is there no such thing as clean coal?
Click to expand...


Have you asked him what happens to the waste once is leaves the facility? With proper oversight and control the production nuclear power can be safe and efficient. The problem is the waste by-products and how to properly dispose of it. We have no good solution for that particular problem and, in my estimation, we ought no go about producing more waste that we do not know how to dispose of appropriately.

"Clean coal" is a marketing gimmick. There are methods of producing electricity by burning coal that are cleaner than others but burning coals is always dirty. This isn't to say that burning coal isn't necessary, particularly in light of the above. It is. But we should be honest about things.
 
Damocles said:
Silly hypocrisy. You can't stand there using the electricity to spread your message and tell others not to. Either take your own medicine and leave behind the trappings of modern life and work to produce no waste that hasn't been composted, or stop attempting to force other people to fit in that silly box. Even solar cells leave behind waste, the plastics are even hazardous to the environment when they finally decompose.
Click to expand...


Nonsense. Not even worth responding to really. It reminds me of the Newsweek post-election article and what Obama wanted to say to Brian Williams during one of the debates:

' So when Brian Williams is asking me about what's a personal thing that you've done [that's green], and I say, you know, 'Well, I planted a bunch of trees.' And he says, 'I'm talking about personal.' What I'm thinking in my head is, 'Well, the truth is, Brian, we can't solve global warming because I f---ing changed light bulbs in my house. It's because of something collective'.
Click to expand...


This is more of the type of horseshit that Republicans use to justify their economic and environmental recklessness. John Edwards is a hypocrite because he advocates for the poor but buys a big house. Al Gore is a hypocrite on the environment because he flies around in planes and has a big house that uses energy. Blah, blah, blah.
 
Dungheap said:
Nonsense. Not even worth responding to really. It reminds me of the Newsweek post-election article and what Obama wanted to say to Brian Williams during one of the debates:




This is more of the type of horseshit that Republicans use to justify their economic and environmental recklessness. John Edwards is a hypocrite because he advocates for the poor but buys a big house. Al Gore is a hypocrite on the environment because he flies around in planes and has a big house that uses energy. Blah, blah, blah.
Click to expand...
It has nothing to do with trying to back up my "recklessness".

I don't preach to you to produce no waste as you did to others above. "We shouldn't produce the waste." is a general statement. If you wish to produce no waste then you shouldn't be here, your activity here produces waste.

Later you specify. We should be careful not to produce waste that we cannot safely dispose of. That makes more sense. However, we have means to produce energy, cleaner than we currently do, yet we reject such means out of hand. Nat Gas is cleaner burning than oil, can run our cars and electricity, and we have an abundant domestic source. Yet we continue to burn "clean coal", use only oil for vehicles, and the only suggestion is to go directly to magical means yet to be produced whenever we finally start producing it.

No bridge can be used, we have to jump the Grand canyon using only our legs.

Blindly and dogmatically repeating how we harm things does nothing to help things.
 
leaningright said:
I have a cousin who has been employed by a Nuclear facility either in Alabama or Texas for the past 25+ years and he claims that Nuclear power is very clean and safe. Of course his opinion is somewhat biased but he is in the medical oversight part of the plant, meaning that he checks on the emissions from the reactors and the canisters of "waste" that come out of it. As a result of discussions with him I tend to think Nuclear power is OK, though the oversight issue makes me somewhat nervous if we start to get several of them throughout the country.

By the way, why is there no such thing as clean coal?
Click to expand...
There are currently something like 103 working nukes in the country and their safety record is excellent.

For years the greenies complained about coal because of pollution impacts, such as sulfur, particulates, acid rain, etc. I was right along with them, in fact I studied in a master's program for environmental engineering, and worked in the environmental field for a long time. One of the first things you learn about organic fuels is that if you burn them efficiently, you end up with only heat, water vapor and CO2, and that was always the goal. An efficient burn was a clean burn. All you needed to do to eliminate pollutants is to clean up the fuel before you burn it, manage the burn properly, and then clean up the exhaust for what didn't work in the first two steps.

Over the years though, it became clear to me that the arguments over pollution were simply an excuse. No matter how clean the plants became the greenies would try and get the permissible discharge concentrations down to lower than economically possible, regardless of any real health effects. When the control technology got to the point where the emissions were near zero, this CO2- global warming issue came up. They simply kept moving the goalposts for us, and when we kept scoring anyway, they decided to completely change the game.

I'm convinced that if we came up with a way to make the CO2 disappear they'd want to regulate water vapor and heat. That's why I now think that the way to fix the environmental problem is to fix the environmentalists. They have a hidden agenda and its time now to expose it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top