fatheadfred Posted June 19, 2008 Share Posted June 19, 2008 Except nuclear power isn't that bad. Sure, there's the waste, but it's easily containable, and there are ways of reusing the waste. It's not the only alternative source of energy, but it's the best option with current technology. How do you reuse the waste and why is this better than solar and wind? Link to post Share on other sites
bjorn_skurj Posted June 19, 2008 Share Posted June 19, 2008 How do you reuse the waste and why is this better than solar and wind?Depleted uranium munitions, for one, and building more nukes, which we can do now, may well have a quicker impact on greenhouse gas emissions than using what we use now while we develop a wind-solar base energy system, which will probably take 20 years, optimistically. Link to post Share on other sites
Analogman Posted June 19, 2008 Share Posted June 19, 2008 ChernobylChernobyl today Three Mile Island Radioactive WasteNuclear Waste Locations in North America Link to post Share on other sites
Good Old Neon Posted June 19, 2008 Share Posted June 19, 2008 ChernobylChernobyl today Three Mile Island Radioactive WasteNuclear Waste Locations in North America Those photos are starkly beautiful. Nature Link to post Share on other sites
Good Old Neon Posted June 19, 2008 Share Posted June 19, 2008 Magnum Photos hosted an amazing photo essay by photojournalist Paul Fusco. It is as sad and tragic as it is fascinating - pretty powerful stuff. Here Link to post Share on other sites
sweetheart-mine Posted June 20, 2008 Share Posted June 20, 2008 Sweet. Senator Richard Durbin (D-IL)Accepted $40,850 from the oil and gas industry since 2000.Supported the industry in 44% of selected votes. Senator Barack Obama (D-IL)Accepted $70,000 from the oil and gas industry since 2000. Supported the industry in 33% of selected votes. Representative Luis Gutierrez (D-IL04)Accepted $9,000 from the oil and gas industry since 2000. Supported the industry in 0% of selected votes.yes. and for comparison, one might look at florida's numbers. i didn't go searching for high percentages; i have friends recently moved to florida so i took a chance on their zip code. all very interesting . . . i really appreciate this link. Link to post Share on other sites
sweetheart-mine Posted June 20, 2008 Share Posted June 20, 2008 Magnum Photos hosted an amazing photo essay by photojournalist Paul Fusco. It is as sad and tragic as it is fascinating - pretty powerful stuff. Here Link to post Share on other sites
sweetheart-mine Posted June 20, 2008 Share Posted June 20, 2008 i'm interested to see the response to this based on some earlier comments about the ability for change in realtion to sex ed vs. abortion. and, just to cinch up earlier discussions, there has plenty of demonizing or, at least, demoralizing for those of religious faith on this board.jude is right that 300 million people are not going to change their lifestyles overnight. until recently, it was hard to imagine that lifestyles here could change significantly even twenty years from now. lately, though, i see small but growing signs that people might be taking this question seriously: if you don't take care of your planet, where are you going to live? although so far it's mostly due to personal economic troubles, statistics even in the past month show that people are beginning to lose interest in the suv and gain interest in efficient motor vehicles. congress is actively considering taking measures to rebuild public transportation systems. my state has issued new license plates that say "support local agriculture." airlines are getting rid of their older, fuel-gorging jets. there's more reason for optimism that people can change if necessary than i've seen in a long time. el handsome dick, again, forgive me if i just haven't seen demonizing of those of religious faith on this board. maybe i need to go back and read the whole 28 pages and i'll see it. if i see it, i won't particularly care for it, because demonizing is not my thing, either. religion, though, like politics, is always going to have people duking it out verbally at least to some degree. someone who has been damaged by any kind of groupthink or who has seen people damaged by it is not going to be fond of it. and i don't mean that all religious people are victims of or promote groupthink. there is plenty of intelligent choice involved too, but groupthink is everywhere, in every aspect of non-solitary life -- always has been, always will be. you can expect people to be respectful of differences, but i don't think it's realistic to expect them to tiptoe around and pretend not to have a strong feeling or opinion about something that has affected them. again, if i've missed something obviously nasty and bullying and bashing and demonizing, please excuse me. Link to post Share on other sites
explodo Posted June 20, 2008 Share Posted June 20, 2008 Magnum Photos hosted an amazing photo essay by photojournalist Paul Fusco. It is as sad and tragic as it is fascinating - pretty powerful stuff. Here Link to post Share on other sites
ikol Posted June 20, 2008 Share Posted June 20, 2008 How do you reuse the waste and why is this better than solar and wind? Only a small amount of the uranium in the fuel gets used, so it's possible to reprocess the waste to extract the remaining uranium. It's not necessarily better than solar and wind; they all have their advantages and disadvantages. Solar and wind depend on the weather, and solar cells are still very expensive. IMO, the best strategy is to use a combination of nuclear, solar, and wind power and to phase out nuclear when it becomes feasible to rely on solar and wind. Link to post Share on other sites
fatheadfred Posted June 20, 2008 Share Posted June 20, 2008 Only a small amount of the uranium in the fuel gets used, so it's possible to reprocess the waste to extract the remaining uranium. It's not necessarily better than solar and wind; they all have their advantages and disadvantages. Solar and wind depend on the weather, and solar cells are still very expensive. IMO, the best strategy is to use a combination of nuclear, solar, and wind power and to phase out nuclear when it becomes feasible to rely on solar and wind. You should be the energy czar, except you would probably be executed by the oilers. It is a shame we are holding off a concerted effort in r&d to improve solar technology due to cost. We should have done this years ago, everyone continues to say that, but we can't even commit to it now. Seems hopeless. I suppose we will hold out for a miracle discovery of oil? Link to post Share on other sites
Gobias Industries Posted June 20, 2008 Share Posted June 20, 2008 You should be the energy czar, except you would probably be executed by the oilers. It is a shame we are holding off a concerted effort in r&d to improve solar technology due to cost. We should have done this years ago, everyone continues to say that, but we can't even commit to it now. Seems hopeless. I suppose we will hold out for a miracle discovery of oil? Well, what we really should have done is eliminated farm subsidies so we could have developed ethanol from cheap corn and sugar. I mean, Brazil did it, they really took the smart path. What did we do? Nothing. Which is why we are stuck in a hole and Brazil continues to produce very good looking ladies. However I think solar is a viable solution but the tech is nowhere near. There needs to be a way to store the power in a long-term situation, and there really isn't that kind of thing out there. Link to post Share on other sites
fatheadfred Posted June 20, 2008 Share Posted June 20, 2008 And Chernobyl...saw a documentary on the peeps that were and still are affected by that. Frightening. I am fairly certain we have at least one nucleur site in Missouri. You can see it from I70, south of the road. It seems close enough to affect travelers if something should happen. Seems like a 'not in my backyard' scenario to increase the use of these. It is also sad that some homeowners associations prevent solar panels, and some environmental groups block windmill use cuz of bird deaths, noise, and scenery nuisance. Alternative: inability for humans to live on this ball Link to post Share on other sites
fatheadfred Posted June 20, 2008 Share Posted June 20, 2008 Holy crap, our buds at Bechtel are getting paid to clean up Chernobyl. Shelter Implementation Fund (SIP). The Shelter Implementation Plan calls for transforming the site into an ecologically safe condition through stabilization of the sarcophagus, followed by construction of a New Safe Confinement (NSC). While original cost estimate for the SIP was US$768 million, the 2006 estimate is $1.2 billion. The SIP is being managed by a consortium of Bechtel... Link to post Share on other sites
EL the Famous Posted June 20, 2008 Share Posted June 20, 2008 Which is why we are stuck in a hole and Brazil continues to produce very good looking ladies. left-wing or right-wing, we should all be able to agree on the virtues of the thick brazillian booty. Link to post Share on other sites
fatheadfred Posted June 20, 2008 Share Posted June 20, 2008 Oil ToolHere's a pretty cool tool to easily see how much the people representing you in Congress receive from the oil and gas industry and how often they vote on their side. In general, as you would imagine, the more they get, the more they vote with oil. Edit: Now that I've looked at different zip codes it seems a lot of Democrats are getting more money from oil but voting with them less, compared to Republicans. Oil probably figures everyone has their price. Looks to be partisan in my state:Senator Christopher Bond (R-MO)Accepted $133,850 from the oil and gas industry since 2000. Supported the industry in 100% of selected votes. Senator Claire McCaskill (D-MO)Accepted $29,350 from the oil and gas industry since 2000. Supported the industry in 33% of selected votes. Representative Ike Skelton (D-MO04)Accepted $19,650 from the oil and gas industry since 2000. Supported the industry in 45% of selected votes. Link to post Share on other sites
bleedorange Posted June 20, 2008 Share Posted June 20, 2008 Back to the election: Interesting editorial form David Brooks in the NYT The Two Obamas Link to post Share on other sites
MrRain422 Posted June 20, 2008 Share Posted June 20, 2008 It's a pretty misleading and dishonest editorial, yes. Link to post Share on other sites
Good Old Neon Posted June 20, 2008 Share Posted June 20, 2008 Only a small amount of the uranium in the fuel gets used, so it's possible to reprocess the waste to extract the remaining uranium. It's not necessarily better than solar and wind; they all have their advantages and disadvantages. Solar and wind depend on the weather, and solar cells are still very expensive. IMO, the best strategy is to use a combination of nuclear, solar, and wind power and to phase out nuclear when it becomes feasible to rely on solar and wind. Nice post and a good, sensible approach. A few short miles is all that seperates us from the Seabrook Nuclear Power Plant in Seabrook, New Hampshire. I try not to think about what would happen in the event of an accident. Pease International Airport is located to our north, in Portsmouth, NH. Our home is sort of in a flight path. I can tell you that the days following 9/11 were tense ones Link to post Share on other sites
fatheadfred Posted June 20, 2008 Share Posted June 20, 2008 A few short miles is all that seperates us from the Seabrook Nuclear Power Plant in Seabrook, New Hampshire. I try not to think about what would happen in the event of an accident. As an incentive to allow the power plant to be built it Seabrook, the town Link to post Share on other sites
uncle wilco Posted June 20, 2008 Share Posted June 20, 2008 It's a pretty misleading and dishonest editorial, yes. yes, there is nothing to this. nothing...nothing at all...change...hope...change...hope... obama...obama...obaaa..ma... Link to post Share on other sites
MattZ Posted June 20, 2008 Share Posted June 20, 2008 Man, David Brooks is a clown. Link to post Share on other sites
MrRain422 Posted June 20, 2008 Share Posted June 20, 2008 yes, there is nothing to this. nothing...nothing at all...change...hope...change...hope... obama...obama...obaaa..ma... You're right, everything that's said about him is 100% true. No one is spreading any misleading information about Obama. Link to post Share on other sites
uncle wilco Posted June 20, 2008 Share Posted June 20, 2008 You're right, everything that's said about him is 100% true. No one is spreading any misleading information about Obama.i'm referencing his flip on the public financing issue. i couldn't care less about david brooks or his opinion, not many people do. barack is all for finance reform..until he runs for president. do as i say, never mind what i do. same shit new politician. and nobody gives a damn...unless a republican tries it. baaaraaack.... Link to post Share on other sites
fatheadfred Posted June 20, 2008 Share Posted June 20, 2008 Back to the election: Interesting editorial form David Brooks in the NYT The Two Obamas seems to conclude the article with a compliment: All I know for sure is that this guy is no liberal goo-goo. Republicans keep calling him na Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts