Actually, what I was claiming was activists (not protesters) cause delays. Not by picketing, but by suing and petitioning law makers, and writing to newspapers in efforts to change regulations and delay licensing. You cite mentions a plant in the U.S. that has been held up since 1972. Looking at Wikipedia, it seems that regulations have already been streamlined to reduce the extra burden on nuclear. That is a good start. If nuclear plants no longer face any delays due to excessive legal and regulation issues, then the government guarantees are not necessary.
The point you make about the decreased supply and chain just supports my case. When everyone panicked about nuclear after 3 Mile Island, new construction ground nearly to a halt for decades. The companies that supported that construction have since gone out of business. That does not mean that nuclear is inherently uncompetitive, merely that the industry was crippled by unfounded fears.
Power distribution issues are not really a special problem for nuclear, so I won’t get into that except to say that it would be much less of a problem if a plant is built to replace existing fossil fuel plants.
I don’t think anyone in this thread is saying we should go all nuclear. Solar, wind, hydro, geothermal, tide, let’s develop all of them, but understand the limits and impacts of each. Many of us believe that the only medium term replacement for fossil fuel is nuclear fission. I would love to be able to switch to a mix of integrated solar and clean fusion, but the the technology will not be there in time.
And time of course is the key. If the AGW/GW folks are correct we have a (possibly) a window in which to start radically alter the CO2 equation. We need to start doing so now…not wait 10 more years for the technology to mature and then try and start deploying it. That could take another decade or so (at least) before we start bringing up the stuff in sufficient quantity to start cutting into the percentage of power generated by coal alone.
The ONLY technology ready to roll right now that can scale up to the levels and functionality we need is nuclear. Not that solar/wind don’t have their role as well, but they simply can’t scale up to meet our current needs, or sufficient scale to make any kind of real difference. And the sooner the anti-nuke folks realize this and get out of the way the sooner we can start to make a significant difference. Bottom line…even if nuclear were the bugaboo they make it out to be (it’s not, but let’s go with that), what’s worse? A potential Chernobyl or Global Warming? What will have the greatest impact on the most people?
You must be one of those people who believes that we would have to shade the entire planet with solar panels, thus killing all plant life blah blah blah. Oh wait! You are one of those people!
Wrong. Laughably wrong. OMG someone get me a handkerchief; I’m laughing so hard I’m gonna cry.
Ever heard of rooftops? Exterior walls? As builders and doers, we already create a lot of artificial surfaces which could have solar generating capacity added to them.
Go ahead. After much contemplation, I decided that even you must know that my source isn’t the Las Vegas Sun, but the government documents that the story refers to. The 100 year figure isn’t debatable, actually. It’s what’s in the document discussed in the article.
I have no idea how much money was “poured in” Nevada on the Yucca Mountain project. Probably not very much was “poured in”, and yes, most of the residents of Nevada would gladly give it back.
WTF does that have to do with anything? It isn’t a nuclear dam. Nice comparison.
You must be one of those people who believes in strawmen and magical ponies. Yuck yuck yuck you ARE one of those people!
:rolleyes:
Really? Cool. Do you have any data to back up your assertion? Perhaps you could show me the money when you are done laughing and crying?
I’ve heard of them. Do you know what cell density is? Do you realize that rooftops and exterior walls don’t have enough surface area to generate sufficient power? Put another way, we’ve had rooftops and exterior walls for a while now…why aren’t they all covered in solar panels? Why are countries like Spain (lots of rooftops, exterior walls AND sun there) building solar POWER PLANTS…when the obvious laughing till you cry solution is to just put solar panels on rooftops and exterior walls? Is they stupid?
No, actually based on some of your assertions I DON’T know that. However, I’ll see what I can do cite wise when I get back to my hotel tonight. I don’t KNOW if the assertion in the LVS is an exaggeration, false or just being used in misdirection (or, possibly, correct…even a blind squirrel finds a hand grenade occasionally), but I’ll see what I can dig up.
Billions.
Um…seriously? Ok. The point was you don’t have to worry about nuclear waste BECAUSE WE BUILT YOU A BIG FUCKING DAM FOR YOUR POWER. Sheesh. It really wasn’t all that obscure a reference.
Indeed. Anyone who invokes the issue of global climate change and takes any position on nuclear power other than “get more built ASAP” is a poltroon. The worst-case scenario of the latter (a thousand nuclear reactors built and operated as ineptly as Chernobyl) is still preferable to the lowball scenario envisioned by the former.
I agree with him that this is irrelevant. What’s the point that you’re trying to make - “we built a big ass dam in the 30s, therefore you have no right to complain if we use your area for a nuclear waste storage site?”
It gets back to a point he made earlier in the thread. To paraphrase (I don’t feel like slogging back to get his exact words), he said something like ‘People who create nuclear waste should just deal with it themselves’…which he can say in all smugness because the federal government built a hydro powered infrastructure that isn’t available to everyone else FOR him and his state. It’s easy to talk about having others just deal with their own nuclear wastes when someone else builds your power infrastructure for you, ehe?
As for their right to complain, sure…they have a right to complain. I suppose the same could be said for anyone in any state where something like this is proposed for the good of the majority. I think their complaints are irrational and based on a load of horseshit that they have all swallowed from the anti-nuke hysterics, but they have the right to complain. And I suppose if the majority of them DO complain and don’t want it (or the large chunk of Federal money it will represent to their state in several forms) then they could simply elect representatives who will kill the project…or force the one’s already representing them to do so.
Here’s just another place where you are wrong. As the dam was built by the federal government, it was paid for by taxpayer money. Therefore, WE built the dam for US. No third party involved, no mysterious benefactors… WE did it for US.
Do keep trying tho. It’s very amusing reading your posts in this thread.
Unexploited building surfaces. Long term some may be exploited by the use of building integrated photovoltaics. (BIP) - this is already being done some in some locations. The issue for BPI is the trade off between cost and energy density. BPI is unlikely to totally displace all other power generation but it is very likely a good candidate for dealing with peak demands.
Most roofs have enough capacity for panels that the concern is often whether or not home owners can get paid for the surplus they produce.
Um…Nevada’s contribution was pretty minimal. You said it…the Federal Government built that dam using funds from all of the other states. If NEVADA had built it you’d have a point…but they didn’t and you don’t.
Oh, and I did some quick research…you guys get something like 10-15% of your states power from a nuclear power plant in Arizona (I believe…I think it’s the Palo Verde plant).
Not nearly so much as your own, um, contributions. But I appreciate the fact that I have amused one such as yourself…I’ll be here all week.
Several decades ago, the United States collectively contributed to build a dam which provides benefits to Nevada especially. Nevadans think this is fine and dandy.
Now, there is a plan for Nevada especially to contribute to a waste-disposal site which provides benefits to the United States collectively. Consider it payback for the benefits already received from the Hoover Dam.
I really think this whole line of discussion is wrong. If it’s a good idea, do it. If not, don’t. We don’t have to have a tally card of who got what benefit and now who owes.
If Yucca Mountain is the most practical place (and I don’t know - last I read there was talk of discovery of new fault lines or something) then use it. Anyone who opposes it solely on the basis of NIMBYism is selfish, though.
How? IIRC it was supposed to originally go on stream in like 1998. We seem to have passed that mark and AFAIK there is no plan to actually start using it until like 2012…at a minimum and depending on what new road blocks are thrown in it’s path (ETA: I believe that funding has been cut, so this is going to be the new road block). It’s cost us billions so far and folks like Snowboarder Bo just keep on keepin on. Billions. Down. The. Drain. Because of stupidity and fear.
There will always be a ‘new fault’. Or problems with the tuff. Or issues with drainage. Or concerns over the potential rise in water levels. Or panic about a space alien attack. Like the MIB said, there is ALWAYS a Corellian Battle Cruiser attack, or some kind of space plague, etc etc, blah blah blah.
Is Yucca Mountain the bestest most perfect site in the country? Who knows…maybe so, maybe no. But it’s workable…a LOT of time and effort has gone into studying it (to death and beyond). Basically there IS no optimum site for this stuff because anyplace you try to put it the anti-nukes are going to come out of the wood work and do exactly the same thing. They will FIND a Correllian Battle Cruiser…or invent one if they can’t.
More to the point, even if it’s not perfect, it’s a lot better than storing the waste at a hundred separate sites near urban centers scattered across the country, like we’re doing now. People say that Yucca Mountain is bad because radioactive waste is bad, but radioactive waste is only bad because we’re not putting it into Yucca Mountain yet.
So Nevada isn’t a part of the United States now? Since Nevada had a small population during the first part of the 1900s, does that mean that Nevadans didn’t do anything (or enough) to help defeat the Nazis? LMAO You’re reasoning on this is beyond ludicrous.
If you want to start talking tit-for-tat, why don’t we just ask California to give back all the water they get from the Colorado River. After all, they didn’t build the dam. The feds did, right? Why do they deserve any water? LOL
Those are amazing research skills you have. You think? You believe? Do you know anything? Or do you just believe? Are there facts you can disseminate, or just what you “believe”?
Dude, yer here all the time. Not just this week, not just today, not just this hour… you’re here ALL. THE. TIME.
Please explain why it will be safer to store the waste at the hundred sites it now has, plus transport it, and add another HUGE storage facility to the tally. Or do you think that onsite storage by power plants will stop altogether if Yucca opens? Why do you think that? Do you have any supporting testimony, documents, or described plans that you can cite?
Yucca would add one BIG storage facility to the total, not make the total “one facility”. And transportation opens up new security and accident risks which do not exist today, because we don’t ship the stuff all over the country.
I’m sorry…next time I’ll draw you a diagram. This was a ‘joke’, a reference to the perennial Las Vegas performer ‘Thank you very much. I’ll be here all week’. I figured (obviously erroneously) that you would pick up on that.
But you don’t know at all, do you? Which makes it even more amusing. However, if you’d like a cite, why not ask for one? I’d be happy to look up exactly which nuclear power plant you get a percentage of your energy from.
You still don’t get it. Well, I think I’ve expended enough effort trying to GET you to understand my point. I think I’ll just leave you laughing your ass off in ignorance at this point. Sometimes there is just no point in trying to fight it, and frankly your arguments aren’t really worth debating. Perhaps you and gonzo could hook up to discuss this all later…
Well, no one from California has made such a stupid statement in this thread about how if you generate nuclear waste you should have to take care of it yourself. If they had then I would have been MORE than happy to point out the hypocrisies inherent in their attitude when, as you point out, every state in the union derives benefits from that association…and of course, conversely, incurs obligations TOO the collective union. Perhaps someone from California wouldn’t be as dense as you…or maybe they would be constantly trying to substitute understanding with laughing in as many ways as it’s possible to text as well…
Please explain why it will be safer to store the waste at the hundred sites it now has, plus transport it, and add another HUGE storage facility to the tally.
[QUOTE]
For the same reason it is better to keep big wads of cash and gold at centralized banks rather than uniformly distributed in matresses throughout the USA.
How do you feel about all the radioactive waste generated by coal plants (they have plenty, there are radioactive elements within the coal) being stored all over the atmosphere?