[RELEASE][IMG]http://www.coolhandnuke.com/Portals/0/Images/Yurman/220px-Tenzin_Gyatzo_foto_1.jpg[/IMG]
The Dalai Lama, a revered spiritual leader whose influence is felt far beyond the boundaries of Tibetan Buddhism, startled his followers and the anti-nuclear community this week. In an interview with the news media in Tokyo, he said that there is a role for nuclear energy in the development process. His comments follow a tour of the earthquake and tsunami devastated areas in Japan about 40 miles from Fukushima.
[B]He said that he is in support of nuclear energy for peaceful means as a way to bridge the socioeconomic gap in developing nations and in the absence of more efficient alternative energy sources.[/B]
"There are still many developing countries with a huge gap between rich and poor … millions of people's live remain under the poverty level."
[B]He added that energy sources like wind and solar are too inefficient to put into realistic practice[/B] to meet the needs of developing nations.
The Dalai Lama's influence extends to many new age communities and even into the philosophical underpinnings of some American environmental groups. So it must come as a profound shock for them to find that he is urging both opponents and proponents to look at the issue "holistically."
The Dalai Lama also addressed some of the emotion laden communication that has been in the forefront of opposition to nuclear energy. In a statement that could just as easily come from an expert on probabilistic risk assessment, the Dalai Lama said that no amount of preparation can completely rule out danger.
NRC may hit a stand up double
The NRC may issue two combined construction and operating licenses (COL) at the same time by the end of 2011 if the commission also clears the design certification for the Westinghouse AP1000 nuclear reactor. The COLs for Southern's Vogle site in Georgia and Scana's V.C. Summer Station in South Caroline might be issued as the same time.
What is holding things up is that the two projects include two of the AP1000s at each site for a total of four 1,150 MW reactors.
NRC spokesman Scott Burnell told the Augusta Chronicle Nov 2, "The expectation is that there will be a final commission vote on certification [of the AP1000] by the end of the year. Once that is resolved, then it clears the path for Vogtle and Summer."
Burnell says with all the hearings and paperwork complete on the two projects, "the commission could move on both projects at the same time."
North Anna could restart this week
The NRC said Nov 1 that it could issue permission for Dominion's North Anna reactors to restart this week. Eric Leeds, who heads the NRC effort to review safety issues for the reactor, told a public meeting, "We're going to make sure everything is safe."
David Heacock, the head of Dominion's nuclear operating unit, told the Richmond Times Dispatch the reactors are ready to re-start. Each reactor takes about a week to go from cold shutdown to full power.
Entergy's Vermont Yankee 620 MW nuclear reactor exited a 25 day shutdown to refuel. The work cost approximately $100 million and is a major bet that the State of Vermont will lose a lawsuit designed to close the recently relicensed plant by March 2012.
A U.S. District Court decision is expected later this month on a lawsuit filed by Entergy over the State of Vermont's decision not to issue a certificate of public good. Vermont Governor Peter Schumlin claims he has the authority to close the reactor even though the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission is the sole agency that can issue a license to an operator.
Regardless of how the District Court rules, the case will go to appeal and could continue for years without resolution.
From a political point of view, the plant open is probably more valuable to Gov Shumlin than it is closed. After all, who or what would be the next "enemy of the state" if he succeeded?
Maybe Gov. Shumlin should have a talk with the Dalai Lama?
[/RELEASE]
Source: [url]http://www.coolhandnuke.com/Cool-Hand-Blog/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/88/Progress-for-nuclear-energy-in-unusual-places.aspx[/url]
Good, maybe he can convince more people to support nuclear power now!
Enjoy the nuclear waste and deformed babies.
He's also a racist so this is conclusive proof that if you are a supporter of nuclear power you are a racist.
And a hitler.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;33278053]He's also a racist so this is conclusive proof that if you are a supporter of nuclear power you are a racist.
And a hitler.[/QUOTE]
And hitler was friends with Ferdinand Porsche. So that means that everyone who drives one is a dirty nazi.
Wow. Didn't expect those words from him.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;33278053]He's also a racist so this is conclusive proof that if you are a supporter of nuclear power you are a racist.
And a hitler.[/QUOTE]
He's racist..?
[QUOTE=Florence;33278044]Enjoy the nuclear waste and deformed babies.[/QUOTE]
Enjoy living in a cave
[QUOTE=Zeke129;33278053]He's also a racist so this is conclusive proof that if you are a supporter of nuclear power you are a racist.
And a hitler.[/QUOTE]
i am the hitler
[QUOTE=pyschomc;33278119]He's racist..?[/QUOTE]
idk I heard that before, not sure what people were referring to and I don't really care to look since I wasn't being serious
I'm diggin' that source URL.
I hate when people try to argue that it is really dangerous, when it reality it is one of the safest when done safely/correctly.
[QUOTE=Florence;33278044]Enjoy the nuclear waste and deformed babies.[/QUOTE]
You're an idiot. Look up all the safety mechanisms that modern nuclear plants have.
Or, maybe you'd prefer to run out of oil. Or pollute the atmosphere by burning coal/gas.
The Dalai Lama is awesome
[QUOTE=Florence;33278044]Enjoy the nuclear waste and deformed babies.[/QUOTE]
I detect a troll....
Nice. Possibly one of the last people I would've thought would voice their opinion on nuclear power, but whatever
[QUOTE=teh pirate;33278141]Enjoy living in a cave[/QUOTE]
I think you mean a Vault.
And I like how everyone here is sold on nuclear. So tell me guys, what happens when a nuclear station has a serious malfunction?
Care to compare it to the malfunction of a wind turbine, of solar panels or of a geothermal station -- which unlike McHoliness says is a viable alternative from nuclear? (Hint: One fucks over an entire generation, the other is trivial.)
Even with that out of the way, do you wonder what we do with the [URL="http://stgvisie.home.xs4all.nl/extremedeformities.html"]depleted uranium[/URL]?
Page through that and revel in the wonders of the nuclear industrial complex -- hell, it's good enough to be used for Libya's population!
Protip: Being opinionated doesn't equal being a troll -- it just means you don't have any arguments to rebuke the "troll-ish" claims, so you dismiss anything outside of your field of understanding.
[QUOTE=viperfan7;33278374]I detect a troll....[/QUOTE]
The nuclear waste argument is actually completely valid
There's no such thing as a containment procedure that will last forever, everything breaks down eventually. It might be 1000 years from now but it [i]will[/i] eventually leak
If it gets into rivers and streams it could destroy entire ecosystems
I found a really good unbiased site that informs about nuclear waste and the difficulties with disposing safely of it
[url]http://www.whatisnuclear.com/articles/waste.html[/url]
Ha. When I first saw the title I thought it meant nuclear weapons. That is probably the last thing he would support. But yeah, new reactors are very safe, and I imagine there will be a lot more research into ways to make them even safer after Fukushima.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;33278537]The nuclear waste argument is actually completely valid
There's no such thing as a containment procedure that will last forever, everything breaks down eventually. It might be 1000 years from now but it [i]will[/i] eventually leak
If it gets into rivers and streams it could destroy entire ecosystems[/QUOTE]
Can we use that as an excuse to build colonies on the moon?
[QUOTE=Turnips5;33278663]I found a really good unbiased site that informs about nuclear waste and the difficulties with disposing safely of it
[url]http://www.whatisnuclear.com/articles/waste.html[/url][/QUOTE]
Reading this it sounds like we should recycle what we have, and then replace everything with Thorium reactors
[editline]14th November 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=bobsmit;33278781]Can we use that as an excuse to build colonies on the moon?[/QUOTE]
If we were able to get the waste to the moon it wouldn't be much harder to just fire it into the sun
[QUOTE=Florence;33278505]I think you mean a Vault.
And I like how everyone here is sold on nuclear. So tell me guys, what happens when a nuclear station has a serious malfunction?
Care to compare it to the malfunction of a wind turbine, of solar panels or of a geothermal station -- which unlike McHoliness says is a viable alternative from nuclear? (Hint: One fucks over an entire generation, the other is trivial.)
Even with that out of the way, do you wonder what we do with the [URL="http://stgvisie.home.xs4all.nl/extremedeformities.html"]depleted uranium[/URL]?
Page through that and revel in the wonders of the nuclear industrial complex -- hell, it's good enough to be used for Libya's population!
Protip: Being opinionated doesn't equal being a troll -- it just means you don't have any arguments to rebuke the "troll-ish" claims, so you dismiss anything outside of your field of understanding.[/QUOTE]
Oh shit
An out of date nuclear power plant might have a meltdown if you shut down the safety mechanisms and coolant flow in a test that's unauthorized by the head scientists or plant owners
It might also have a meltdown if it's [I]hit with a fucking 9.0 earthquake and a fucking tsunami[/I]
Also, [I]The Simpsons[/I] isn't a scientific documentary.
We do need to solve the waste problem. However, it's not like gas, oil, and coal don't have their own waste problems.
I'm pretty sure nuclear waste can be repurposed and burned for fuel again.
Use Thorium until we unlock the secrets to fusion power. Simple as that.
[QUOTE=OvB;33278954]Use Thorium until we unlock the secrets to fusion power. Simple as that.[/QUOTE]
Massive solar array around the sun with lasers to get the energy back!!!
[QUOTE=Zeke129;33278962]Massive solar array around the sun with lasers to get the energy back!!![/QUOTE]
I believe that's called a [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyson_sphere]Dyson Sphere[/url] and lies, for now, in the realm of science fiction
Why don't they make a giant dam over the straits of Gibraltar and use that to get electricity????
[QUOTE=Florence;33278505]I think you mean a Vault.
And I like how everyone here is sold on nuclear. So tell me guys, what happens when a nuclear station has a serious malfunction?
Care to compare it to the malfunction of a wind turbine, of solar panels or of a geothermal station -- which unlike McHoliness says is a viable alternative from nuclear? (Hint: One fucks over an entire generation, the other is trivial.)
Even with that out of the way, do you wonder what we do with the [URL="http://stgvisie.home.xs4all.nl/extremedeformities.html"]depleted uranium[/URL]?
Page through that and revel in the wonders of the nuclear industrial complex -- hell, it's good enough to be used for Libya's population!
Protip: Being opinionated doesn't equal being a troll -- it just means you don't have any arguments to rebuke the "troll-ish" claims, so you dismiss anything outside of your field of understanding.[/QUOTE]
What happens when a coal mine/oil rig seriously malfunctions? What about all the deaths and illnesses caused by coal and oil production (it's a lot more than nuclear!), not to mention the pollution.
Wind turbines and solar power both require lots of maintenance, and at the same time they need to be spread out over a large area to be effective, which also makes them expensive.
That article is very biased. Nuclear waste can be reprocessed and used for a fuel catalyst in more reactors, and it also doesn't acknowledge that Iraq is generally a horrible place to live.
Protip: Saying 'protip' doesn't make you witty anymore.
Tottally expected we would have another Gandhi on our hands from the title.
[img]http://img846.imageshack.us/img846/8500/civ1.jpg[/img]
[QUOTE=Zeke129;33278537]The nuclear waste argument is actually completely valid
There's no such thing as a containment procedure that will last forever, everything breaks down eventually. It might be 1000 years from now but it [i]will[/i] eventually leak
If it gets into rivers and streams it could destroy entire ecosystems[/QUOTE]
Especially in developing states where this risk is magnified immensely
[editline]15th November 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Florence;33278505]I think you mean a Vault.
And I like how everyone here is sold on nuclear. So tell me guys, what happens when a nuclear station has a serious malfunction?
Care to compare it to the malfunction of a wind turbine, of solar panels or of a geothermal station -- which unlike McHoliness says is a viable alternative from nuclear? (Hint: One fucks over an entire generation, the other is trivial.)
Even with that out of the way, do you wonder what we do with the [URL="http://stgvisie.home.xs4all.nl/extremedeformities.html"]depleted uranium[/URL]?
Page through that and revel in the wonders of the nuclear industrial complex -- hell, it's good enough to be used for Libya's population!
Protip: Being opinionated doesn't equal being a troll -- it just means you don't have any arguments to rebuke the "troll-ish" claims, so you dismiss anything outside of your field of understanding.[/QUOTE]
Depleted uranium isn't dangerous because it's slightly radioactive, it's dangerous because it's fucking heavy
If they didn't use DU they've be using another heavy metal which produces the same issues as DU
You know that coal plants emit more radioactive waste than nuclear power plants at the moment, straight into the atmosphere, right?
More research is needed into thorium reactors, and other kinds of breeder reactors
Not to mentioned increased radiological capacity will allowed the developing world to better produce radiopharmaceuticals, increased scientific research and so on
[editline]15th November 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Zeke129;33278784]Reading this it sounds like we should recycle what we have, and then replace everything with Thorium reactors
If we were able to get the waste to the moon it wouldn't be much harder to just fire it into the sun[/QUOTE]
Good job America, fund the research into the reactors which produce lots of material for nuclear weapons
You wouldn't want to stick any kind of radioactive material in a rocket, considering the relative frequency at which they explode
You'd be better of burying it back in the uranium mines in the form of geologically stable compounds
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.