Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
2 nuclear reactors to be built in Georgia
Author Message
RobertN Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 35,485
Joined: Jan 2003
Reputation: 95
I Root For: THE NIU Huskies
Location: Wayne's World
Post: #1
2 nuclear reactors to be built in Georgia
So what do you guys in Georgia think? Do you have a problem with the loan guarantees? Can we store the waste in your basements? 03-lmfao

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/02/16/o...tml?hpt=T2
02-16-2010 01:07 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


Rebel
Unregistered

 
CrappiesNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #2
RE: 2 nuclear reactors to be built in Georgia
(02-16-2010 01:07 PM)RobertN Wrote:  So what do you guys in Georgia think? Do you have a problem with the loan guarantees? Can we store the waste in your basements? 03-lmfao

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/02/16/o...tml?hpt=T2

Plant Vogtle has been operating for the past 3 decades without any major mishaps. We welcome it. We also have a nuclear missile plant, SRS, right across the river, within a couple of miles.

We're still here, kook.
02-16-2010 01:13 PM
Quote this message in a reply
smn1256 Offline
I miss Tripster
*

Posts: 28,878
Joined: Apr 2008
Reputation: 337
I Root For: Lower taxes
Location: North Mexico
Post: #3
RE: 2 nuclear reactors to be built in Georgia
Let's get the reactors going in California, this is the state that really needs them.
02-16-2010 01:15 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
DrTorch Offline
Proved mach and GTS to be liars
*

Posts: 35,887
Joined: Jun 2002
Reputation: 201
I Root For: ASU, BGSU
Location:

CrappiesDonatorsBalance of Power Contest
Post: #4
RE: 2 nuclear reactors to be built in Georgia
And the loony left is upset about it!

http://www.citizen.org/pressroom/release.cfm?ID=3049

You just can't please some people.
02-16-2010 01:23 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
RobertN Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 35,485
Joined: Jan 2003
Reputation: 95
I Root For: THE NIU Huskies
Location: Wayne's World
Post: #5
RE: 2 nuclear reactors to be built in Georgia
(02-16-2010 01:23 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  And the loony left is upset about it!

http://www.citizen.org/pressroom/release.cfm?ID=3049

You just can't please some people.
I am not upset but I think the 8 billion could have been better spent. I don't understand why you guys on the right aren't upseet by this. It is similar to loaning the car companies money but you guys had a problem with that.
02-16-2010 01:56 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Rebel
Unregistered

 
CrappiesNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #6
RE: 2 nuclear reactors to be built in Georgia
(02-16-2010 01:56 PM)RobertN Wrote:  I am not upset but I think the 8 billion could have been better spent.

Really? Now you have a problem with it? Wow.

BTW, wasn't it you fruits that bitched about us neglecting our infrastructure? This is part of that infrastructure.
02-16-2010 01:58 PM
Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


BleedsHuskieRed Offline
All American
*

Posts: 10,067
Joined: Jan 2006
Reputation: 78
I Root For: NIU
Location: Colorado Springs

Donators
Post: #7
RE: 2 nuclear reactors to be built in Georgia
I don't like the loan one bit....but I LOOOOOOOVEEEEEEE the fact that we are going to start building new reactors. It is about time.
02-16-2010 02:01 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Rebel
Unregistered

 
CrappiesNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #8
RE: 2 nuclear reactors to be built in Georgia
(02-16-2010 02:01 PM)BleedsHuskieRed Wrote:  I don't like the loan one bit....but I LOOOOOOOVEEEEEEE the fact that we are going to start building new reactors. It is about time.

The loan is to Georgia Power and the Southern Company. While I don't like seeing the Fed loan companies money, I feel safer with this one than I do to failing entities like GM and Chrysler. Southern and Ga Power don't lose money. All they have to do is petition the GA PSC to raise rates.
02-16-2010 02:08 PM
Quote this message in a reply
georgia_tech_swagger Offline
Res publica non dominetur
*

Posts: 51,393
Joined: Feb 2002
Reputation: 2017
I Root For: GT, USCU, FU, WYO
Location: Upstate, SC

SkunkworksFolding@NCAAbbsNCAAbbs LUGCrappies
Post: #9
RE: 2 nuclear reactors to be built in Georgia
Not a fan myself. Need to fix the nuclear waste problem first.

I'm sure this will contribute to Barnwell County being the largest nuclear waste dump in the lower 48.
02-16-2010 02:11 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Rebel
Unregistered

 
CrappiesNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #10
RE: 2 nuclear reactors to be built in Georgia
(02-16-2010 02:11 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  Not a fan myself. Need to fix the nuclear waste problem first.

I'm sure this will contribute to Barnwell County being the largest nuclear waste dump in the lower 48.

Afghanistan still needs a purpose.
02-16-2010 02:12 PM
Quote this message in a reply
georgia_tech_swagger Offline
Res publica non dominetur
*

Posts: 51,393
Joined: Feb 2002
Reputation: 2017
I Root For: GT, USCU, FU, WYO
Location: Upstate, SC

SkunkworksFolding@NCAAbbsNCAAbbs LUGCrappies
Post: #11
RE: 2 nuclear reactors to be built in Georgia
I'm not against shooting it into space if we can build an indestructable container system. Think of the containers the use to transport the stuff on rail on steroids. Something that can be put between two real solid rocket boosters ... have both SRBs explode ... and survive easily. Granted this will make sending the stuff into space VERY expensive, as it adds alot of weight. But I'm of the opinion the power companies going nuclear should have to pay that cost.
02-16-2010 02:19 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


Rebel
Unregistered

 
CrappiesNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #12
RE: 2 nuclear reactors to be built in Georgia
(02-16-2010 02:19 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  I'm not against shooting it into space if we can build an indestructable container system. Think of the containers the use to transport the stuff on rail on steroids. Something that can be put between two real solid rocket boosters ... have both SRBs explode ... and survive easily. Granted this will make sending the stuff into space VERY expensive, as it adds alot of weight. But I'm of the opinion the power companies going nuclear should have to pay that cost.

The nuclear waste itself is VERY heavy. Don't know if that's feasible without some kind of badass rockets not yet invented.
02-16-2010 02:21 PM
Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Offline
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 80,643
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 3192
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #13
RE: 2 nuclear reactors to be built in Georgia
If you reprocess like the French do at Marcoule (military) and La Hague (civilian), you can use the reprocessed fuel and store what's left over back on site, or even put it back into the mine that you got it from in the first place.
Storing all the waste under a mountain in Nevada, or in one place anywhere else, really doesn't make sense. Spread it out enough, and the amount at each place can actually be handled pretty easily.
Before you enviroloons join those attacking the French reprocessing facilites for allegedly discharging nuclear waste, note that the amount of radiation they discharge in a year is less than I'll get on my flight to London and back next week.
We have Jimmy Carter to thank for our nutty policy in this area, as well as for the underutilization of natural gas. Carter's energy "plan" screwed us for 30+ years; Obama is trying to top (or bottom?) that.
In many cases, the solution to pollution is dilution. This is one of those cases.
France gets 80% of its electricity from nuclear. We could stand to build 50-150 nuclear plants, and cover 30,000 square miles of the desert southwest with solar panels, and put windmills everywhere that the wind blows, and convert to electricity as prime mover for the vast majority of uses that currently burn fossil fuels. This is one area where if Obama wants to turn us into France, he can be my guest.
(This post was last modified: 02-16-2010 02:36 PM by Owl 69/70/75.)
02-16-2010 02:28 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
RobertN Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 35,485
Joined: Jan 2003
Reputation: 95
I Root For: THE NIU Huskies
Location: Wayne's World
Post: #14
RE: 2 nuclear reactors to be built in Georgia
(02-16-2010 02:21 PM)Rebel Wrote:  
(02-16-2010 02:19 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  I'm not against shooting it into space if we can build an indestructable container system. Think of the containers the use to transport the stuff on rail on steroids. Something that can be put between two real solid rocket boosters ... have both SRBs explode ... and survive easily. Granted this will make sending the stuff into space VERY expensive, as it adds alot of weight. But I'm of the opinion the power companies going nuclear should have to pay that cost.

The nuclear waste itself is VERY heavy. Don't know if that's feasible without some kind of badass rockets not yet invented.
THe next best thing to shooting it into space is storing it in your basement.
02-16-2010 02:31 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
smn1256 Offline
I miss Tripster
*

Posts: 28,878
Joined: Apr 2008
Reputation: 337
I Root For: Lower taxes
Location: North Mexico
Post: #15
RE: 2 nuclear reactors to be built in Georgia
(02-16-2010 02:31 PM)RobertN Wrote:  
(02-16-2010 02:21 PM)Rebel Wrote:  
(02-16-2010 02:19 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  I'm not against shooting it into space if we can build an indestructable container system. Think of the containers the use to transport the stuff on rail on steroids. Something that can be put between two real solid rocket boosters ... have both SRBs explode ... and survive easily. Granted this will make sending the stuff into space VERY expensive, as it adds alot of weight. But I'm of the opinion the power companies going nuclear should have to pay that cost.

The nuclear waste itself is VERY heavy. Don't know if that's feasible without some kind of badass rockets not yet invented.
THe next best thing to shooting it into space is storing it in your basement.

You need to be shot into space.
02-16-2010 02:37 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Machiavelli Offline
Back to Reality. Oh there goes Gravity

Posts: 25,357
Joined: Apr 2006
I Root For: BGSU
Location:
Post: #16
RE: 2 nuclear reactors to be built in Georgia
This is not some fantasy, they actually have plans to make elevators out of a high tech carbon material to make an elevator cable that can reach to zero gravity. We can make the elevator but the cable is our undoing. An article I read ten years ago said we were close to that cable. How about an incased projectile shot from a giant gun. There are cheaper ways than a rocket.
02-16-2010 02:49 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


Rebel
Unregistered

 
CrappiesNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #17
RE: 2 nuclear reactors to be built in Georgia
(02-16-2010 02:49 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  This is not some fantasy, they actually have plans to make elevators out of a high tech carbon material to make an elevator cable that can reach to zero gravity. We can make the elevator but the cable is our undoing. An article I read ten years ago said we were close to that cable. How about an incased projectile shot from a giant gun. There are cheaper ways than a rocket.

Wow. And there is nothing out there floating around in outer space that is of any importance to us, right?

Yeah, I can just imagine.

"Hey Bubba, watch me fire this cannon"

...and from a distance,

"Ma, what happened to the TV. It's all staticy."

...headline in the next day's paper:

"National Intelligence Agency has lost contact with a satellite of significant importance"


There's enough trash floating around in our gravitational pull. Shoot that **** to the sun.
02-16-2010 02:54 PM
Quote this message in a reply
BleedsHuskieRed Offline
All American
*

Posts: 10,067
Joined: Jan 2006
Reputation: 78
I Root For: NIU
Location: Colorado Springs

Donators
Post: #18
RE: 2 nuclear reactors to be built in Georgia
(02-16-2010 02:49 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  This is not some fantasy, they actually have plans to make elevators out of a high tech carbon material to make an elevator cable that can reach to zero gravity. We can make the elevator but the cable is our undoing. An article I read ten years ago said we were close to that cable. How about an incased projectile shot from a giant gun. There are cheaper ways than a rocket.
We already use the stuff to blow up tanks. The projectile shot from a gun is in use. I hate to agree with France, but like Owl said, they do nuclear power and they do it right. Let's follow their lead. Use nuclear, use natural gas, use wind, solar will follow when ready. It's getting there, but not ready to cover half of the desert with it. I did the math a few years ago, not ready till they can get to at least 50% efficiency.
02-16-2010 02:56 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Machiavelli Offline
Back to Reality. Oh there goes Gravity

Posts: 25,357
Joined: Apr 2006
I Root For: BGSU
Location:
Post: #19
RE: 2 nuclear reactors to be built in Georgia
This isnt the one I read but it follows the same theme:

The question Artsutanov asked himself had the childlike brilliance of true genius. A merely clever man could never have thought of it -- or would have dismissed it instantly as absurd. If the laws of celestial mechanics make it possible for an object to stay fixed in the sky, might it not be possible to lower a cable down to the surface, and so to establish an elevator system linking earth to space?" -- Arthur C. Clarke, 1979, "The Fountains of Paradise"

(CNN) -- It sounds like science fiction. And it was.

Now, 30 years after "2001" author Arthur C. Clarke wrote about an elevator that rises into outer space, serious research is happening all over the world in an effort to make the far-fetched-sounding idea a reality.

The benefits of a fully realized elevator would make carrying people and goods into space cheaper, easier and safer than with rocket launches, proponents say, opening up a host of possibilities.

Restaurants and hotels for space tourists. Wind turbines that provide energy by spinning 24 hours a day. A cheaper, easier and more environmentally friendly way to launch rockets.

Scientists envision all of the above -- possibly within our lifetimes.

"Space elevator-related research is valid, but there are hurdles to overcome," said David Smitherman, a space architect at NASA's George C. Marshall Space Flight Center.

This week in the Mojave Desert, three teams of engineers are competing for $2 million offered up by NASA for anyone who can build a prototype of an elevator able to crawl up a kilometer-high tether while hauling a heavy payload.

"We haven't had any winners yet, but we truly do expect to have at least one winner, probably more [this year]," said Ted Semon, spokesman for The Spaceward Foundation, which has run the competition for the past several years.

Most models for an elevator into space involve attaching a cable from a satellite, space station or other counterweight to a base on Earth's surface.

Scientists say inertia would keep the cable tight enough to allow an elevator to climb it.

The inspiration for researchers to pursue a space elevator started, as many scientific advances have, in the fantastical world of science fiction.

In Clarke's 1979 novel "The Fountains of Paradise," he writes about a scientist battling technological, political and ethical difficulties involved in creating a space elevator.

In the years that followed, Clarke, who died last year, remained an outspoken advocate for researching and funding the elevator.

Others are now carrying the torch.

"Space elevator research is important because it is a way to build a bridge to space instead of ferrying everything by rocket," said Smitherman, who has conducted research and published findings on the effort.

"Look at the cost and efficiency of a bridge versus a ferry on Earth and then look at the cost and inefficiency of the rocket ferries we use today and you will see why so many people are looking for a 'bridge' solution like the space elevator."

Microsoft is among the sponsors an annual space elevator conference, and teams in Japan and Russia are among those working to turn the theory into reality -- even if they all admit they have a long way to go.

Even the most avid proponents of the research admit there are big hurdles that need to be overcome.

The first, scientists say, is that there's currently not a viable material strong enough to make the cables that will support heavy loads of passengers or cargo into orbit. According to NASA research, the space elevator cable would need to be about 22,000 miles long. That's how far away a satellite must be to maintain orbit above a fixed spot on the Earth's equator.

"Right now, if you use the strongest material in the world, the weight of the tether would be so much that it would actually snap," said Semon, a retired software engineer. He said the super-light material would probably need to be about 25 times stronger than what's now commercially available.

In a separate competition, his group offers a prize to any team that can build a tether that's at least twice as strong as what's currently on the market.

Another issue, scientists say, is how to keep the cable, or the elevator itself, from getting clobbered by meteorites or space junk floating around in space. Some suggest a massive cleanup of Earth's near orbit would be required.

And then there's the cost. Estimates are as high as $20 billion for a working system that would stretch into orbit.

Many think it would be private enterprise, not a government, that would spring for the earliest versions of the elevator.

Professor Brendan Quine and his team at York University in Toronto, Canada, think they have the answers to at least some of those problems.

They've built a three-story high prototype of an elevator tower that would rise roughly 13 miles (20 kilometers) -- high enough to escape most of the earth's atmosphere.

"At 20 kilometers, you still have gravity; you're not in orbit," Quine said. "But for a tourist, you can see basically the same things an astronaut sees -- the blackness of space, the horizon of the Earth."

In the stratosphere, the tower also could potentially be used to launch rockets, he said. The most expensive and energy-sucking part of any space launch now is blasting from the ground out of the atmosphere.

Constructed from Kevlar, the free-standing structure would use pneumatically inflated sections pressurized with a lightweight gas, such as hydrogen or helium, to actively stabilize itself and allow for flexibility. A series of platforms or pods, supported by the elevator, would be used to launch payloads into Earth's orbit.

Quine acknowledged that the prototype is just a first step toward realizing the elevator and that several more prototypes are needed to fine-tune details.

He estimated that the cost of the basic tower would be about $2 billion -- the equivalent of a massive skyscraper in places like New York -- and that the technology to build it could be ready in less than 10 years.

He said a more advanced -- and expensive -- elevator tower could be built to go higher into the stratosphere.

But for the purposes of actually ferrying everyday people into space, 20 kilometers makes the most sense, Quine said.

"The tower might be economically viable if you're able to transport 1,000 people a day to the to of it for about $1,000 a ticket," he said. "At the top, you'd probably want amenities -- hotels, restaurants. It could be a very pleasant experience, in contrast to zero gravity, which makes many people sick."

For now, advocates of making the elevator a reality say they'll keep at it. They'll continue reminding themselves that they wouldn't be the first to turn what started as an outlandish idea into good science.

"Every revolutionary idea seems to evoke three stages of reaction," Clarke once said. "They may be summed up by the phrases: One, it's completely impossible. Two, it's possible, but it's not worth doing. Three, I said it was a good idea all along."

http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/space/11/05...index.html
02-16-2010 03:00 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
georgia_tech_swagger Offline
Res publica non dominetur
*

Posts: 51,393
Joined: Feb 2002
Reputation: 2017
I Root For: GT, USCU, FU, WYO
Location: Upstate, SC

SkunkworksFolding@NCAAbbsNCAAbbs LUGCrappies
Post: #20
RE: 2 nuclear reactors to be built in Georgia
(02-16-2010 03:00 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  (space elevator stuff)

This would be a HUGE breakthrough to getting serious about outer space, and provide economical disposal of waste. The problem is you'd need a sizeable no-fly exclusion zone around the elevator. I'm talking SERIOUS no-fly. Military AA and surface to air missles.
(This post was last modified: 02-16-2010 03:24 PM by georgia_tech_swagger.)
02-16-2010 03:24 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.