Only in California...

F1nut

Just like having toilets that take two flushes to work!
Bring back the 3 gal. flush!!!

Amen!!!

schwarcw

bobman1235 wrote:

Just as a note about nuclear energy (I know it was only an example) but the biggest real concern is what to do with nuclear waste (on the order of BARRELS a day of contaminated cooling water and the like that we literally can do nothing but bury) rather than meltdowns. With all of the technology and enough safeguards, the risk meltdowns is negligible, whereas nuclear waste is a significant problem.

This is a typical response of someone who is uniformed of the facts. No offense bobman, like I said this is typical. First of all contaminated water is very easy to clean. No contaminated water is ever buried. Fuel is the big issue with nuclear power. But all of the spent fuel, from all of the nuclear power plants in the US from the last 40 years, could fit inside a building about the size of a football field, three stories high. This is the volume of spent nuclear fuel that has produced 20% of the US electricity, from the last 40 years. Spent nuclear fuel is a political problem, not a technological problem.

Coal introduces a significant amount more of fly ash containing heavy metals and carcinogens, EVERY DAY.

I'm not jumping onto the global warming discussion from carbon monoxide, but the amount of CO2 released everyday is almost incomprehensible.

Japan, China, France, Russia get the largest amount of their electricity from nuclear power. It makes the most scientific sense. They don't have the political problem with nuclear waste like we do from the dis-information spread almost exclusively by liberals.

Even Iran which has enough fossil fuel to produce electricity in their country for a millenia, wants to use nuclear power for electricity. It just makes economic and scientific sense.

hearingimpared

F1nut wrote:

Hopefully, he'll stick his finger into a live socket.

and with the other hand his middle finger up his ****.

schwarcw

hearingimpared wrote:

and with the other hand his middle finger up his ****.

:eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:

POLKOHOLIC

sucks2beme wrote:

I've tried a few of these. Either bad out of the box, or died shortly thereafter.
&*()^# worthless crap!
Show me one that lasts, and I'll buy a bunch. So far, just another worthless fad.

I guess it just sucks to be you...:D

sucks2beme wrote:

Just like having toilets that take two flushes to work! Bring back the 3 gal. flush!!!

You must release extraordinary amounts of fecal matter...

hearingimpared

markmarc wrote:

The key to nuclear powers success, is in following the french model.

So the French have done something right. Now if they can get their heads out of their butts and work WITH us instead of against us maybe we can get some of these jobs done in the Middle East.

tonyb

Originally Posted by markmarc
The key to nuclear powers success, is in following the french model.


Yeah,all over the world....people are beating down the doors to move to France.Wanna know why they have only 2 nuclear reactors? Because they don't NEED anymore.They have no growth.

tonyb

But all of the spent fuel, from all of the nuclear power plants in the US from the last 40 years, could fit inside a building about the size of a football field, three stories high. This is the volume of spent nuclear fuel that has produced 20% of the US electricity, from the last 40 years. Spent nuclear fuel is a political problem, not a technological problem.




A political problem you say.....and where exactly do you put a 3 story building the size of a football field,loaded with radioactive material that stays that way for a thousand years ? Maybe under your neighborhood park.Maybe over an underground lake so it can seep out and poison all the well water.Wait,I got it...the middle of the desert,like Death Valley,yeah,thats the ticket.Wasn't Las Vegas the middle of the desert just 50 years ago? Another form of energy will be needed in the future,what we have now will not cut it in the next couple hundred years.But why worry,you and I won't be around to care one way or the other.

BTW-all for the 3-gallon flush brothers!!

TroyD

Ugh, what a beating.

So, we want to mandate ditching a technology that's over a hundred years old and make an all but transparent switch to a technology that already exists and has the potential to lessen our dependence on foreign oil?

Yup, I'm on board with that.

sucks2beme

POLKOHOLIC wrote:

I guess it just sucks to be you...:D



You must release extraordinary amounts of fecal matter...

Only on this board!:eek:

markmarc

Tony:
France has 59 Nuclear Power Plants, they only use two designs. In the US, only a couple of plants are alike. This has caused many, many shutdowns, as bugs are constantly having to be fixed due to the one-of-a-kind design. Not to mention, tremendous cost overruns during construction, as major design changes are made on the fly.

In addition, they also recycle the fuel rods, which cuts down tremendously on the nuclear waste.

As much as the french gov't acts stupidly on a variety of issues, this is one area they need to be praised.

http://www.uic.com.au/nip28.htm

tonyb

Well,you may be right.I'll grant you that.But their food and politics
still suck.Along with their attitudes toward us.:)

schwarcw

tonyb wrote:

A political problem you say.....and where exactly do you put a 3 story building the size of a football field,loaded with radioactive material that stays that way for a thousand years ? Maybe under your neighborhood park.Maybe over an underground lake so it can seep out and poison all the well water.Wait,I got it...the middle of the desert,like Death Valley,yeah,thats the ticket.Wasn't Las Vegas the middle of the desert just 50 years ago? Another form of energy will be needed in the future,what we have now will not cut it in the next couple hundred years.But why worry,you and I won't be around to care one way or the other.

Well of course it wouldn't be in your neighborhood or anyone elses. The point is there is no free lunch. If you use energy, it impacts something somewhere. The goal is to minimize the environmental impact. All I'm saying it that nuclear power not only offers the smallest environmental impact, it also reduces the demand on fossil fuels. We all love our money going to that crazy guy in Iran and other radical Middle East Muslim countries that have declared holy war on the US. :eek: . They must think we're fools. And they are right. We continue to spend billions of dollars on imported oil, and we have the technology to significantly reduce our dependence on their oil and reduce the revenue stream.

Some interesting environmetal facts about nuclear power:

• In 2005, U.S. nuclear power plants prevented the discharge of 682 million metric tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. This is nearly as much carbon dioxide as is released from all U.S. passenger cars.

• In 2005, U.S. nuclear power plants reduced emissions of nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide—pollutants controlled under the Clean Air Act—by 1.1 million short tons and 3.3 million short tons respectively. The amount of nitrogen oxide emissions that nuclear plants prevent annually is the equivalent of taking nearly 55 million passenger cars off the road.

• Nuclear energy is the single-largest piece of U.S. industry’s voluntary greenhouse gas emissions reduction program. According to the newly released annual report to the U.S. Department of Energy from Power Partners—a voluntary partnership between DOE and the electric power industry—nuclear energy accounted for 54 percent of voluntary greenhouse gas reductions reported by project type by preventing the emission of 142 million metric tons of carbon dioxide. (This figure results from incremental gains in electricity production at nuclear power plants, rather than from total electricity production at these plants.)

• Nuclear energy has the smallest environmental impact of any clean-air electricity source. For example, a 1,000-megawatt wind farm would occupy 78 square miles. A 1,000-megawatt nuclear plant would occupy less than five percent of that area. A 1,000-megawatt power plant can meet the needs of a city the size of Boston or Seattle.

hearingimpared

tonyb wrote:

Well,you may be right.I'll grant you that.But their food and politics
still suck.Along with their attitudes toward us.:)

I agree with everything here except for the food.:D

hearingimpared

schwarcw wrote:

Well of course it wouldn't be in your neighborhood or anyone elses. The point is there is no free lunch. If you use energy, it impacts something somewhere. The goal is to minimize the environmental impact. All I'm saying it that nuclear power not only offers the smallest environmental impact, it also reduces the demand on fossil fuels. We all love our money going to that crazy guy in Iran and other radical Middle East Muslim countries that have declared holy war on the US. :eek: . They must think we're fools. And they are right. We continue to spend billions of dollars on imported oil, and we have the technology to significantly reduce our dependence on their oil and reduce the revenue stream.

Some interesting environmetal facts about nuclear power:

• In 2005, U.S. nuclear power plants prevented the discharge of 682 million metric tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. This is nearly as much carbon dioxide as is released from all U.S. passenger cars.

• In 2005, U.S. nuclear power plants reduced emissions of nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide—pollutants controlled under the Clean Air Act—by 1.1 million short tons and 3.3 million short tons respectively. The amount of nitrogen oxide emissions that nuclear plants prevent annually is the equivalent of taking nearly 55 million passenger cars off the road.

• Nuclear energy is the single-largest piece of U.S. industry’s voluntary greenhouse gas emissions reduction program. According to the newly released annual report to the U.S. Department of Energy from Power Partners—a voluntary partnership between DOE and the electric power industry—nuclear energy accounted for 54 percent of voluntary greenhouse gas reductions reported by project type by preventing the emission of 142 million metric tons of carbon dioxide. (This figure results from incremental gains in electricity production at nuclear power plants, rather than from total electricity production at these plants.)

• Nuclear energy has the smallest environmental impact of any clean-air electricity source. For example, a 1,000-megawatt wind farm would occupy 78 square miles. A 1,000-megawatt nuclear plant would occupy less than five percent of that area. A 1,000-megawatt power plant can meet the needs of a city the size of Boston or Seattle.

Carl are you a nuclear engineer?

Demiurge

Just to add to my comments, here's a Presidential front runner saying she wants to take corporate profits to fund all of these energy initiatives.

Hey, it's for a good cause, right?

Ah, Marxism...
<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/j1PfE9K8j0g"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/j1PfE9K8j0g&quot; type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

I wonder if she knows who owns all of the stock in these companies. Probably not...

tonyb

hearingimpared wrote:

I agree with everything here except for the food.:D

Somethings wrong here...............

Your from Philly.....and you LIKE French food??

hearingimpared

tonyb wrote:

Somethings wrong here...............

Your from Philly.....and you LIKE French food??

Ha ha ha . . .it's pretty damned good.

hearingimpared

Demiurge wrote:

Just to add to my comments, here's a Presidential front runner saying she wants to take corporate profits to fund all of these energy initiatives.

Hey, it's for a good cause, right?

Ah, Marxism...
<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/j1PfE9K8j0g"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/j1PfE9K8j0g&quot; type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

I wonder if she knows who owns all of the stock in these companies. Probably not...

Marxism is an understatement. Let's see if we can simplify this:


You own a company in America and you have a phenomenal year making really great profits. . . and some branch of the government that you support is going to "take" your profits and use them to put you out of business. She is the epitomy of a Leftest horsesasssssss. Do these kind of dems think we are all as gullible as their constituents??? Break out the Kool-aid boys we have another election to laugh at.

PhantomOG

hearingimpared wrote:

Do these kind of dems think we are all as gullible as their constituents??? Break out the Kool-aid boys we have another election to laugh at.

Don't underestimate the stupidity of the average voter. I was going to school in upstate NY when Hill and Bill bought a house there *just* in time for her to run for senate. I thought for sure voters in NY would see through such political plotting. She even came to my school and brought Ben Afleck along to wow the idiots. :rolleyes:

tonyb

Do these kind of dems think we are all as gullible as their constituents???



YEAHHHH.....they do!!!!

schwarcw

hearingimpared wrote:

Carl are you a nuclear engineer?

Well, I try to hide it.:D

Carl

markmarc

Instead of creating new taxes on big oil, let's cut back their special tax breaks if they don't meet certain standards of alternative energy development. To me the goal is energy independence, the only way there is thru serious research. The countries with companies that lead the way will be the next economic powers of the world.

IMHO, if we don't free ourselves from the oil nipple of the Middle East we better prepare ourselves to play a main role in the energy wars of the 21st century.