The point is, you don’t know. You made a statement with no facts to back it up. You just came in here and posted what you “believe”.
In other words, you got nothing. That’s what I thought. You have what you “believe”, and you’re gonna defend that no matter what the facts are. I get it.
You aren’t gonna rebut the information in the LV Sun article (as you promised), because you cannot. Those were facts, and as such are unaffected by your “beliefs”.
This is disingenuous, as we don’t purposely store that waste in the atmosphere.
If you’d like to rephrase your question so it is at least meaningful, I’d be happy to let you know my opinion.
Ah…but you see, I DO actually know. I just didn’t remember exactly what the plants name was. Here, let me help you out there…
So…I was off by 5% but I did remember which nuclear power plant it was. Though I doubt it will have an effect on you, anyone else following along that Wiki I liked too about Yucca Mountain has some good information in it.
My irony meter just exploded…again. Gods, I thought it was hardened against even the most over the top SD instances! Now I need a new one.
Ah…I had forgotten all about that. RL and all that. Is there a time limit on me for getting that information back to you or something? Since it’s the ONLY information you’ve provided I’m not really in all that much of a hurry. Still, as you pointed out, I did promise. I’ll see what I can do about that…not that I expect it to have a lot of impact on YOU of course but someone else following along might be interested.
-XT
So you’re saying that when comparing the different methods of power generation, the pollutants and radioactive waste that one creates is irrelevant and the other is relevant?
Whether we release the radioactive waste by default into the atmosphere is irrelevant - the point is that both create radioactive waste. Why are you scared of the method that stores it in a way where we can complete contain it, but don’t mind at all the one that releases it INTO THE VERY ATMOSPHERE WE BREATHE?
Would you be more willing to support nuclear power if they scattered the waste into the atmosphere?
Would you be anti-coal if they found a way to contain all the radioactive waste that coal throws into the atmosphere, and instead stored it underground?
You so clever. :rolleyes:
Why do we keep cash and gold mostly in bank vaults? To keep an eye on it, put in in a safe place, and keep the wrong folks from getting it.
The same thing is desired for nuclear waste.
I dunno, Bo, you keep saying the other side has nothing, but it looks like they have a lot and you just have “LOL” and “LMAO”. Are you disputing that 10-15% of your power comes from a plant in Arizona? Can you give us better information to replace that apparently laughably wrong information?
I said no such thing. Please re-read what I wrote. In fact, re-read your own question; it has nothing to do with the creation of pollutants and waste. Your question concerned STORAGE, not creation. That’s why I asked you to re-phrase your question. We do not purposely store radioactive waste in the atmosphere. There is no plan I know of to do so. Your original question remains disingenuous, as you have now demonstrated with your “clarification” here:
Again, I never said what you say I said. Never. Didn’t say it. It sure is a good way to keep obfuscating tho.
Completely irrelevant question. Where do you come up with this stuff?
This discussion is about nuclear power, not coal. I haven’t made a single statement in this thread with regards to coal power generation or the waste that results. Why do you keep thinking that I did?
Your analogy is beyond weak. I’m sorry the sarcasm in my previous reply wasn’t enough to make that apparent.
I like how you open a previous post with calling me disingenuous and then engage in this semantics nonsense.
Coal and nuclear produce waste. They both produce radioactive waste. Coal produces much more than that - CO2, ash, various compounds being released into the atmosphere.
Your objection to nuclear power is about the waste it produces. But you choose to ignore the waste produced by other methods of power generation. Why? Because we don’t currently deliberately store the wastes of coal generation. That doesn’t mean it isn’t there, simply that we release it into the atmosphere where everyone suffers from it.
This whole line of reasoning is ridiculous. The fact that nuclear power generation creates its waste in storable form is a BENEFIT of that method, not a drawback. If only other sources of pollution could be so thoroughly controlled we’d all be in better shape.
It’s only when you essentially delude yourself into thinking that because we release other pollutants into the atmosphere, and therefore don’t need to worry about things like how and where to store them, that those methods are superior and the pollution is less concerning that it seems like nuclear waste is comparatively bad thing.
You object to nuclear power generation because of the radioactive waste it produces. Why don’t you object to coal power generation because of the radioactive waste it produces, among other things?
You seem to be fine with waste that’s scattered into the atmosphere, but scared of waste that’s concetrated into storage locations. I’m asking to clarify if this is indeed your position.
This is disingenous. The reality is that only nuclear and coal generated power can do the heavy lifting of our electrical needs. If you advocate that we not dramatically reduce our electrical consumption (which you haven’t said anything about in this thread), then practically by objecting to nuclear you must be supporting coal, because that’s what will operate in the absense of nuclear.
So, nuclear waste is perfectly safe, you don’t care who gets ahold of it, where its put, or even if its spread throughout our atmosphere and water?
If so, lets crank up those reactors now! I am all for it!
I study nuclear science
I like my classes
I got a cool teacher
He wears dark glasses
40 K a year will buy alot a beer
My futures sooooo bright
I gottaaa wear shades
Nuclear is the way to go, we have the snappyiest pop song 
That argument makes as much sense as snow bo’s
I never said any of that. Who did?
http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear_power/nuclear_power_risk/safety/us-nuclear-plants-in-the.html This group of concerned scientists enumerate the nuke problems. They are much due to a conflict between the regulators and the Nuke companies. The companies have won. Note of course the plants have numerous problems are frequently shut down. The companies got plants with a 40 year life extended another 20. It bothers these scientist but you guys are completely comfortable.
No Senor Beef ,I do not see the coal plants as the only answer. Solar .wind,and numerous other technologies can cut into the production. Whether they will compete overall in the future, nobody knows. To simply say we have to be pro coal or pro nuke in dishonest.
Even if we went nuts with solar and wind and upped our spending on them by an order of magnitude, what percentage of our electrical needs do you think they could generate?
Where did I ever say or indicate that I ignore the waste produced by other methods of power generation? Please show me.
Please show me where I ever said, indicated, hinted, or implied any of the things you claim I said, indicated, hinted, or implied with respect to releasing pollutants into the atmosphere, etc. I’ll check back to see which of my posts you quote.
I never said one thing about supporting or objecting to coal power generation. This thread isn’t about coal power generation. If you’d like to talk about the pros and cons of coal power generation, I suggest you start a thread about it.
I can’t for the life of me figure out where you got this idea. I never said I was fine with it. I never said anything about it, that I recall. It’s clear that YOUR position is that that is my position, but I never said anything positive or negative about it. Again, this thread is about nuclear power.
Your last statement is so contrived I don’t know how to point out all the fallacies.
You are saying that objection to nuclear = support for coal, but that isn’t necessarily true, and in no way logically follows. A person could be against both, or support both. Does objecting to coal = support for nuclear? Why do you think that it must follow like that? It’s laughable.
It would be nice if you actually addressed the points people are making, rather than just screaming for people to show “where you said that”. This is a debate, not a “show Bo what he’s said” exercise. If you think people are mis-quoting you, then clarify what it is you think about coal, and the ramifications of continuing to use it. People are trying to draw inferences based on your quick little one-liners of snark. If you don’t like people trying to draw concusions about what you think, try to express yourself more clearly. “I never said that” will not discredit the points that people have made in this thread.
Every time someone has made a point, you’ve either called for a cite, or ignored it when it was provided to you. On top of that. you’ve laced the thread with so much text speak (LOL!!!) that it’s becoming hard for anyone involved to take you seriously.
This is not going well for you at all.
Then it needs to be put someplace SAFE then doesnt it?
Maybe someplace like, I dunno, a dedicated STORAGE or disposal facility?
Its too dangerous to move. No wait, its too dangerous stay put. No, wait its too dangerous to bury. No, wait, its too dangerous to stay where it currently is. No, wait its too dangerous to make. No wait, its dangerous but coal waste isnt. No, wait its dangerous because its concentrated. No, wait, coal waste isnt because its spewed into the atmosphere to spread around the world.
No, wait, its not dangerous, because its NOT like money or gold that want to keep safe and track off. No, wait its not like money or gold because it IS dangerous.
Well, which the hell one or many is it or isnt it?
Beegeezus on a hotdog bun.
So all that coal in power plants gets burned there accidentally? The smokestacks on a coal plant just magically appeared there? By building a smokestack on a coal power plant and then burning coal in that plant, yes, we are in fact deliberately storing the waste (including radioactive waste) from coal burning in the atmosphere. In what sense could we possibly be said not to be?
People aren’t misquoting me. People ARE making up things and then attributing them to me. I’m not going to try to back up what I did not say. I will point it out whenever someone claims I said something that I did not say. I will point it out whenever someone attributes a position on an issue to me that I have never taken.
I forgot to mention: xtisme didn’t really address what I said. He found one reference to Nevada using power generated by nuclear plants, but what I said was:
Nevada does not produce nuclear power, nor do we produce nuclear waste. The grid may contain power generated by nukes, but they were produced in other states. The power we use is paid for, on the open market. Storage of the waste is not our problem. Just because I buy a gold necklace doesn’t mean I have to pay extra to clean up the waste created during the gold mining. And it certainly doesn’t mean that I have to house a facility to clean it up.
Well hell…there you go! We can all get behind such and attitude, surly. I mean, I simply buy the gas in my car and the power in my house…that it may contribute to Global Warming is no skin off MY nose.
And of course, the fact that Nevada is a state in the union doesn’t mean you actually have any obligations to said union, to be sure.
I’m sure that your attitude will fly about as well as your other arguments have thus far…
-XT