Obama announces loan guarantees for two nuclear reactors - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Rygar69;20253539][img]http://www.freewebs.com/nubpwner3000/Fallout-3.jpg[/img][/QUOTE] i want this to happen

[QUOTE=TheChantzGuy;20256005]i want this to happen[/QUOTE] [img]http://www.facepunch.com/image.php?u=244439&dateline=1265412449[/img] I'm sure you do

We need to get some non-profits to dispel rumors about nuclear energy ASAP. This widespread ignorance could cripple chances of this working.

[QUOTE=TheChantzGuy;20256005]i want this to happen[/QUOTE] you're just as dumb as the nerds what wish there was a zombie apocalypse

[QUOTE=BrainDeath;20255697]Anyway, the events of Fallout were from nuclear weapons, not power stations. I may not be american, but more nuclear power stations=less greenhouse gases, that has got to be a good thing, right?[/QUOTE] What..?? Because mountains full of extremely radioactive refuse is way better than a bit of air pollution? At least with greenhouse gasses, they go away after about 20 years of clean air practices, the millions of tonnes of radioactive refuse buried in mountainsides is going to be there probably for hundreds of thousands of years before it even hits it's half life, do you think those storage facilitates will be around forever? Besides that, air pollution may be a bit bad for your health, but if radiation leaches into your soil and water, you'll fucking die.

[QUOTE=Lankist;20255950]Our currency is backed by a national stockpile of Hope in Fort Knox. [editline]04:58PM[/editline] We also make due with some spare Change.[/QUOTE] Great, I'm now imagining Obama reaching down the back of the white house sofas to look for change. [editline]10:18PM[/editline] In fact, I wonder what kind of change you find in the white house sofas. [editline]10:18PM[/editline] Probably gold bullion.

So THAT'S why we haven't had any good reforms yet. It's all still in the couch. Bush, you fucking slob you hid all the Change.

[QUOTE=Lankist;20256448]So THAT'S why we haven't had any good reforms yet. It's all still in the couch. Bush, you fucking slob you hid all the Change.[/QUOTE] Its not like he did it on purpose, no one really MEANS to drop things down there. Of course, that doesn't change anything when you can't find the remote, and theres something good on.

[QUOTE=Lankist;20256448]So THAT'S why we haven't had any good reforms yet. It's all still in the couch. Bush, you fucking slob you hid all the Change.[/QUOTE] I think he gave me a bit a while back to go by some tacos for him.

We need to drop the shitty and dangerous as hell Fission reactors, ITER is the future. THE POWER OF THE SUN IN OUR HANDS!

[QUOTE=T2L_Goose;20255814]but guys what about chernobel and 15,840 foot island those were nuclear powerplants what about NUCLEAR EXPLOSIONS[/QUOTE] Read page 1.

[QUOTE=Lankist;20251793]All of our nuclear plants were constructed decades ago. It's about time we upgraded our shit.[/QUOTE] Western built reactors are actually extremely safe, despite being decades old in design. It was the processes of maintaining and running them that led to accidents like Three Mile Island. The accomplishment that there hasn't been an accident in over thirty years in the States can be chalked up to the NRC. And the loans are going towards building new reactors, which is pretty good. Less dependence on fossil fuels I believe.

[QUOTE=Kidd;20263077]Read page 1.[/QUOTE] Do you know what satire is or what [editline]07:31AM[/editline] This is really overdue to be honest. I hated how the Left was crying a fucking river about fossil fuels and how we need alternative ways to get energy. Wind energy is a joke, and so is Solar. Nuclear is where it's really at. People are just so brainwashed and ignorant and think that anything with the word NUCLEAR in it will explode like an atomic bomb. And as for nuclear waste, Yucca Mountain has more than enough space for it. It's going to be used for disposal of nuclear waste created by reactors in submarines and aircraft carriers, but they have plenty of room for other shit. It's just shortsighted, stubborn, ignorance that has put this great producer of electricity on hold for so long.

[QUOTE=Swebonny;20252483]Three Mile Island? Edit: Accidents happens. Does not work to blame on "cheap designs".[/QUOTE] Not one person died in Three Mile Island, because we had safety precautions. Chernobyl happened because they disregarded safety.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;20264502]Not one person died in Three Mile Island, because we had safety precautions. Chernobyl happened because they disregarded safety.[/QUOTE] Chernobyl happened because of a skeleton crew who was hired at the last second who literally was reading the reactor manual and trying to do the test. They had no background in Nuclear Reactors whatsoever. Not to mention the Soviet reactor was a piece of shit.

[QUOTE=T2L_Goose;20264446] Half the world probably doesn't realize they have a nuclear device in their home and use it every day. [/QUOTE] What is that? [editline]07:37AM[/editline] [QUOTE=T2L_Goose;20264523]Chernobyl happened because of a skeleton crew who was hired at the last second who literally was reading the reactor manual and trying to do the test. They had no background in Nuclear Reactors whatsoever. Not to mention the Soviet reactor was a piece of shit.[/QUOTE] There were a huge amount of factors that played into it, but it all leads up to the Soviet Union disregarding what should be common sense safety rules.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;20264541]What is that? [/QUOTE] Never mind my bad I misunderstood something. Forget I said that. How embarrassing. For the record I was going to say Microwave but yeah that's not true.

Hmm why not make Thorium nuclear plants. They produce no waste and even provides more electricity. Then again processing thorium would require whole branch of mining and processing it. When Uranium fueled plants already have all that.

[QUOTE=hypno-toad;20256404] Because mountains full of extremely radioactive refuse is way better than a bit of air pollution? At least with greenhouse gasses, they go away after about 20 years of clean air practices, the millions of tonnes of radioactive refuse buried in mountainsides is going to be there probably for hundreds of thousands of years before it even hits it's half life, do you think those storage facilitates will be around forever? Besides that, air pollution may be a bit bad for your health, but if radiation leaches into your soil and water, you'll fucking die.[/QUOTE] I'll agree with you on the radiation leeching thing, but the mountains of toxic waste is pretty ignorant. Unless you mean [i]actual[/i] mountains full of it. Which still wouldn't happen. There is a [i]lot[/i] of energy made by using Uranium. A lot. You really, really don't need much to power a town with it.

[QUOTE=Aries;20264698]I'll agree with you on the radiation leeching thing, but the mountains of toxic waste is pretty ignorant. Unless you mean [I]actual[/I] mountains full of it. Which still wouldn't happen. There is a [I]lot[/I] of energy made by using Uranium. A lot. You really, really don't need much to power a town with it.[/QUOTE] No, there are actually storage facilitates in mountains full of nuclear waste. That seems to be quite a popular place to store it, I assume because it's less likely to leak into ground water if the storage facility and waste ever degrades, because most mountains are made of solid bedrock, with little dirt or soil. They are generally places in geographically stable locations. Nuclear waste is nasty stuff, because there's [I]nothing [/I]you can do with it (well, nothing significant). it is very hazardous. You can't bury it, you can't burn it; all you can do is hide it away in storage and hope that it doesn't come back to bite you in the ass. And there is a lot of nuclear waste generated by power plants and nuclear powered vessels. Some nuclear refuse can last anywhere between 10,000 years and 100,000 possibly more than that. I have my doubts about society remaining stable for that long, so that brings up the question, if these storage facilities are forgotten and left unattended, how long will they last for? When it comes down to it, that's the problem with Nuclear Power, compete disregard for the future. the waste doesn't really propose a big threat today, but in 400-500 years, it could potentially be a massive problem in areas. But that's really the mindset behind it [I]"Well, we won't be alive then, let them deal with it"[/I]

[QUOTE=Aries;20264698]I'll agree with you on the radiation leeching thing, but the mountains of toxic waste is pretty ignorant. Unless you mean [i]actual[/i] mountains full of it. Which still wouldn't happen. There is a [i]lot[/i] of energy made by using Uranium. A lot. You really, really don't need much to power a town with it.[/QUOTE] Do you not understand that the reason its IN A DESERT is because that way there will be very little to no rainfall at all, so you won't have to worry about run off. Not to mention the place is sealed pretty well so water can't get it. Just in case there was a flood or something in the desert. (Which if there was, you'd have some bigger problems because that means the world is probably ending anyway). I mean come on people think for once.

[QUOTE=demoguy08;20252941]Vodka is a fairly decent coolant as long as you avoid sub -40c temps. Edit 100% proof vodka, that is. But hey, it's Russians.[/QUOTE] Don't you mean like, 200 proof or something?

[QUOTE=ripsipiirakk;20264651]Hmm why not make Thorium nuclear plants. They produce no waste and even provides more electricity. Then again processing thorium would require whole branch of mining and processing it. When Uranium fueled plants already have all that.[/QUOTE] You answered your own question. The reason no one is wanting to build a thorium reactors is because the 'waste' uranium reactors make can be used to make nuclear bombs. Even so, Thorium reactors can be crazy small, small enough to fit in a bathtub.

As long as they aren't being built near me, I am fine with them.

[QUOTE=kidwithsword;20264870]As long as they [B]aren't being built near me[/B], I am fine with them.[/QUOTE] Why.

[QUOTE=hypno-toad;20264714]No, there are actually storage facilitates in mountains full of nuclear waste. That seems to be quite a popular place to store it, I assume because it's less likely to leak into ground water if the storage facility and waste ever degrades, because most mountains are made of solid bedrock, with little dirt or soil. They are generally places in geographically stable locations. Nuclear waste is nasty stuff, because there's [I]nothing [/I]you can do with it (well, nothing significant). it is very hazardous. You can't bury it, you can't burn it; all you can do is hide it away in storage and hope that it doesn't come back to bite you in the ass. And there is a lot of nuclear waste generated by power plants and nuclear powered vessels. Some nuclear refuse can last anywhere between 10,000 years and 100,000 possibly more than that. I have my doubts about society remaining stable for that long, so that brings up the question, if these storage facilities are forgotten and left unattended, how long will they last for? When it comes down to it, that's the problem with Nuclear Power, compete disregard for the future. the waste doesn't really propose a big threat today, but in 400-500 years, it could potentially be a massive problem in areas. But that's really the mindset behind it [I]"Well, we won't be alive then, let them deal with it"[/I][/QUOTE] The half life of a hell of a lot of stuff we've made and use is a long time, yet that shouldn't stop us progressing. I agree with you, we shouldn't forget it. It is going to be there for a very long time. But we should be able to find better ways of dealing with it, like sending it into space. And all that costs money. But you're right. And the money shouldn't be the reason future generations have to deal with a crapload of problems. [QUOTE=T2L_Goose;20264721]Do you not understand that the reason its IN A DESERT is because that way there will be very little to no rainfall at all, so you won't have to worry about run off. Not to mention the place is sealed pretty well so water can't get it. Just in case there was a flood or something in the desert. (Which if there was, you'd have some bigger problems because that means the world is probably ending anyway). I mean come on people think for once.[/QUOTE] Hey, I'm all for nuclear power, but shit can happen. I'm not saying we shouldn't do it because of possible accidents, but we should still be able to prevent the waste from having any chance of killing the Earth. Ergo, the space idea, but alas, money.

[QUOTE=dryer-lint;20264751]Don't you mean like, 200 proof or something?[/QUOTE] 200 proof is pure alcohol.

hahaha, i remember rudd was using john howard building nuclear reactors if he was elected as a negative so uneducated people would go "oh hurr durr it will blow up liek in da simpsons lolololol" and vote for rudd instead

Relating to your "hurr chernobyl" Chernobyl was multiple failures not just one.

[quote][b]Nuclear power critics[/b] have slammed the administration's decision to back the construction of new reactors.[/quote] I wonder why? [quote]"The last thing Americans want is another government bailout for a failing industry, but that's exactly what they're getting from the Obama administration," energy analyst Ben Schreiber said in a press release issued this past weekend.[/quote] 2 things, Ben Schreiber has a B.A. in Sociology, he is hardly qualified to speak on the state of the industry let alone be unbiased towards it. Also, as Obama said, Nuclear power provides the majority of non-coal energy. Because he claims it isn't clean, doesn't make it so. [quote]Schreiber works for the progressive group [b]Friends of the Earth[/b], which opposes nuclear power.[/quote] Their name alone is rage-inducing. They're probably all vegan tree huggers who who live in the forrest, of course they hate Nuclear power. [quote]"The Department of Energy is putting taxpayers on the hook for bailing out costly and dangerous nuclear reactor projects when the loans used to finance those projects default. This is great news for Wall Street but a bad deal for Main Street."[/quote] I'm pretty sure he stole this from somewhere else and replaced the names. This statement fits so many other things it's barely worth mentioning. Not hard to see why they stole it though, good statement for getting ignorant people to "guvmint iz bad" rallies. [quote]The risk of default is high, Schreiber argued, while nuclear power "remains unsafe and dirty."[/quote] Do you have any proof these plants are high risk? Any evidence, opinions or even guesses that aren't just assertions based on your hate for Nuclear power? What proof do you have that Nuclear power is even "unsafe and dirty", you are hardly a scientist. Find irrefutable proof for me and I will suck your dick.