http://qz.com/89336/everything-you-thoug...-is-wrong/

A little too much monologue and not enough specific data, but it's referencing a movie so maybe it's in there. Anyway, it's an interesting place to start.

Does the iPhone run on nuclear power or is that link wrong? :)

I'm getting an article about why Apple is not going to be as profitable in the near future.

Here's an article about Fukushima that has some numbers to back it up: http://www.theage.com.au/comment/japans-...2nomz.html

(06-05-2013 11:34 AM)mlb Wrote:  Does the iPhone run on nuclear power or is that link wrong? :)

I'm getting an article about why Apple is not going to be as profitable in the near future.

Link worked for me. I found this quote interesting, as I hadn't thought about all of it in context

Quote: “Most people kind of think that somehow we’re going to be reducing our energy consumption. Actually, we just find more and more uses for it. If you look at all the energy that is used by an iPhone, not just to make it and to power it, but also to power all the servers, all of the stuff that you don’t see that the iPhone is connected to, it uses as much energy as a refrigerator.”

The irrational fear of nuclear power just baffles my mind. The number of lefty commies that I find that are against it just doesn't make sense. We're always standing up and claiming to base our policy stance on science and evidence, but most of the time that's not the case when it comes to nuclear energy. Nuclear power isn't perfect, but it's cleaner than coal and would be a great bridge to get us to the point that things like solar are more feasible.

(06-05-2013 11:39 AM)mixduptransistor Wrote:  Here's an article about Fukushima that has some numbers to back it up: http://www.theage.com.au/comment/japans-...2nomz.html

Thanks. That's a good piece.

(06-05-2013 11:47 AM)mixduptransistor Wrote:  The irrational fear of nuclear power just baffles my mind. The number of lefty commies that I find that are against it just doesn't make sense. We're always standing up and claiming to base our policy stance on science and evidence, but most of the time that's not the case when it comes to nuclear energy. Nuclear power isn't perfect, but it's cleaner than coal and would be a great bridge to get us to the point that things like solar are more feasible.

I don't think it is irrational when we still don't have storage sites for the nuclear waste. Leaving it at plants just puts everyone at risk (terrorism, accident, etc.). I'm all for nuclear power as long as we find a place to safely store the waste.

(06-05-2013 11:53 AM)mlb Wrote:  

(06-05-2013 11:47 AM)mixduptransistor Wrote:  The irrational fear of nuclear power just baffles my mind. The number of lefty commies that I find that are against it just doesn't make sense. We're always standing up and claiming to base our policy stance on science and evidence, but most of the time that's not the case when it comes to nuclear energy. Nuclear power isn't perfect, but it's cleaner than coal and would be a great bridge to get us to the point that things like solar are more feasible.

I don't think it is irrational when we still don't have storage sites for the nuclear waste. Leaving it at plants just puts everyone at risk (terrorism, accident, etc.). I'm all for nuclear power as long as we find a place to safely store the waste.

That's part of the debate. We have a place, Yucca Mountain, yet we are held hostage by the most rural of rural areas and can't store the waste there, and the reason that got shut down was because of the irrational fear of having the waste stored there.

(06-05-2013 11:53 AM)mlb Wrote:  

(06-05-2013 11:47 AM)mixduptransistor Wrote:  The irrational fear of nuclear power just baffles my mind. The number of lefty commies that I find that are against it just doesn't make sense. We're always standing up and claiming to base our policy stance on science and evidence, but most of the time that's not the case when it comes to nuclear energy. Nuclear power isn't perfect, but it's cleaner than coal and would be a great bridge to get us to the point that things like solar are more feasible.

I don't think it is irrational when we still don't have storage sites for the nuclear waste. Leaving it at plants just puts everyone at risk (terrorism, accident, etc.). I'm all for nuclear power as long as we find a place to safely store the waste.

It's also based on the irrational fear of breeder reactors.

A long time ago there were discussions about launching the spent fuel into the Sun but that got shot down because of fears of an accident during launch. A cheap and reliable rocket might help solve the storage problem.

(06-05-2013 12:02 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  A long time ago there were discussions about launching the spent fuel into the Sun but that got shot down because of fears of an accident during launch. A cheap and reliable rocket might help solve the storage problem.

We are nowhere near the reliability required to launch nuclear material into space. I don't even think aircraft are reliable enough. The containers that they put spent fuel in to truck it or rail it show that they're not even confident in ground transportation.

(06-05-2013 12:02 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  A long time ago there were discussions about launching the spent fuel into the Sun but that got shot down because of fears of an accident during launch. A cheap and reliable rocket might help solve the storage problem.

Or we can store it on your property. I mean, you live in Texass, would anyone even notice or care?

(06-05-2013 11:57 AM)mixduptransistor Wrote:  That's part of the debate. We have a place, Yucca Mountain, yet we are held hostage by the most rural of rural areas and can't store the waste there, and the reason that got shut down was because of the irrational fear of having the waste stored there.

Actually we are "held hostage" by Harry Reid, who happens to have Yucca Mnt in his backyard.

We have a reason to fear nuclear power - plants are already operating past their designed life. Modular reactors and third generation, fail safe plants, are the answer. Where is Dear Leader on this? It will take a melt-down for anyone to act.

The rest of the world has them. If we don't use them out of fear of what to do with spent rods, it won't really impact the global risk.

(06-05-2013 02:20 PM)Jerry Falwell Wrote:  

(06-05-2013 11:57 AM)mixduptransistor Wrote:  That's part of the debate. We have a place, Yucca Mountain, yet we are held hostage by the most rural of rural areas and can't store the waste there, and the reason that got shut down was because of the irrational fear of having the waste stored there.

Actually we are "held hostage" by Harry Reid, who happens to have Yucca Mnt in his backyard.

We have a reason to fear nuclear power - plants are already operating past their designed life. Modular reactors and third generation, fail safe plants, are the answer. Where is Dear Leader on this? It will take a melt-down for anyone to act.

I hope you don't think I'm a fan of Harry Reid.

(06-05-2013 04:33 PM)mixduptransistor Wrote:  I hope you don't think I'm a fan of Harry Reid.

Just trying to keep you honest.

Your comment about transporting fuel is ignorant, BTW.

(06-05-2013 11:53 AM)mlb Wrote:  

(06-05-2013 11:47 AM)mixduptransistor Wrote:  The irrational fear of nuclear power just baffles my mind. The number of lefty commies that I find that are against it just doesn't make sense. We're always standing up and claiming to base our policy stance on science and evidence, but most of the time that's not the case when it comes to nuclear energy. Nuclear power isn't perfect, but it's cleaner than coal and would be a great bridge to get us to the point that things like solar are more feasible.

I don't think it is irrational when we still don't have storage sites for the nuclear waste. Leaving it at plants just puts everyone at risk (terrorism, accident, etc.). I'm all for nuclear power as long as we find a place to safely store the waste.

Or we could take a lesson from the.. *egads*French .. and learn how to use that waste for other energy purposes.

(06-05-2013 06:50 PM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  Or we could take a lesson from the.. *egads*French .. and learn how to use that waste for other energy purposes.

We do use the waste... in our warheads. Weapons grade plutonium is a by-product of commercial nuclear power, which is why the Feds started TVA. Cut off the bottom of your fuel rod, and viola (there's your French lesson)

It's also why we have less warheads. We don't need as many to inflict the same damage.

It's also why Iran will be nuclear capable very soon.

(06-06-2013 08:20 AM)Jerry Falwell Wrote:  

(06-05-2013 06:50 PM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  Or we could take a lesson from the.. *egads*French .. and learn how to use that waste for other energy purposes.

We do use the waste... in our warheads. Weapons grade plutonium is a by-product of commercial nuclear power, which is why the Feds started TVA. Cut off the bottom of your fuel rod, and viola (there's your French lesson)

It's also why we have less warheads. We don't need as many to inflict the same damage.

It's also why Iran will be nuclear capable very soon.

I like how literally every post you make, everything is made up. You don't just "cut off the end" of a spent fuel rod to make weapons grade plutonium. First off they use uranium in civilian reactors with only tiny amounts of plutonium. Second the uranium they use, even after it's used, is not weapons grade and has to be processed further which is quite a bit more complicated than "cutting the end off"

(06-06-2013 09:39 AM)mixduptransistor Wrote:  I like how literally every post you make, everything is made up. You don't just "cut off the end" of a spent fuel rod to make weapons grade plutonium. First off they use uranium in civilian reactors with only tiny amounts of plutonium. Second the uranium they use, even after it's used, is not weapons grade and has to be processed further which is quite a bit more complicated than "cutting the end off"

Actually, they do. Of course there is a little filtration that goes on, but essentially the plutonium is a FREEBIE byproduct of the 6% enriched commercial uranium. Your argumentation about it, while acknowledging it happens, indicates to me that you are a plant and are being paid by someone to post here.
The fact you think the storage casks have anything to do with transportation shows you're not as smart as your sponsor thinks you are.

They started extracting it at Watts Bar around 2005, and now all of TVA's plants do it. Your typical plant worker would never know it happens b/c it's not something they publish or do in the open. The only reason I know about it is because I've seen it done, and explained to me by a TVA nuclear engineer while it was being processed.

I have a lot of ties you guys would never believe. You leftist think I'm crazy... sometimes I wish I was.