PDA

View Full Version : Chernobyl Legacy


Pitt Gorilla
05-02-2006, 03:00 PM
It makes you stop and think about nuclear power.

http://todayspictures.slate.com/inmotion/essay_chernobyl/

HC_Chief
05-02-2006, 03:19 PM
Not really.

If we were to let RUSSIANS, people who couldn't even build a frigging decent washing machine, build and man nuclear plants on our soil then yes, I'd be worried.

We have how many nuclear plants in the US? How many have gone into radioactive meltdown?

The environazis are full of shit. We need MORE nuclear power, not less.

jiveturkey
05-02-2006, 03:22 PM
Is there such a thing as anti-environment? :hmmm:

Cochise
05-02-2006, 03:26 PM
The environazis are full of shit. We need MORE nuclear power, not less.

BS, we need windmills on every square foot of America. ;)

Pitt Gorilla
05-02-2006, 03:27 PM
Not really.

If we were to let RUSSIANS, people who couldn't even build a frigging decent washing machine, build and man nuclear plants on our soil then yes, I'd be worried.

We have how many nuclear plants in the US? How many have gone into radioactive meltdown?

The environazis are full of shit. We need MORE nuclear power, not less.
I don't know. I've always been a huge supporter of nuclear power. It just seems that one mistake could have incredible consequences.

HC_Chief
05-02-2006, 03:27 PM
Is there such a thing as anti-environment? :hmmm:

lol, I guess suicidals could be considered "anti-environment"... they certainly don't give a shit if the air, water, and soil are completely screwed.

HC_Chief
05-02-2006, 03:29 PM
BS, we need windmills on every square foot of America. ;)

haha

ted Kennedy says no to that.

I don't know. I've always been a huge supporter of nuclear power. It just seems that one mistake could have incredible consequences.

There is no doubt about that. It's also why nuclear power plants have as many failsafes as they do. You should take the tour at Wolf Creek some time... it's really cool :)

Dave Lane
05-02-2006, 04:03 PM
Not really.

If we were to let RUSSIANS, people who couldn't even build a frigging decent washing machine, build and man nuclear plants on our soil then yes, I'd be worried.

We have how many nuclear plants in the US? How many have gone into radioactive meltdown?

The environazis are full of shit. We need MORE nuclear power, not less.


I agree 100%. If we have to build them in the middle of the desert build 20 of them side by side and lets make some electric (chargable) cars. Plug in and fill up yep I like it! No more oil robbers.

Dave

2bikemike
05-02-2006, 04:23 PM
You can bet we will be seeing more nuc plants built in the coming years it is inevitable. Several companies are in the preliminary stages of developing them now. Technology is certainly better. Our unerstandings of any nuclear accidents is greater. That is all from an operational standpoint.

The problems I still see is what in the fug do we do with all the spent radioactive material.

mlyonsd
05-02-2006, 04:24 PM
The problems I still see is what in the fug do we do with all the spent radioactive material.

I thought Iran was looking for radioactive stuff....or am I missing something?

Baby Lee
05-02-2006, 05:06 PM
The problems I still see is what in the fug do we do with all the spent radioactive material.
Just the most kick-ass day-glo watches EVAR!!!

Eye Patch
05-02-2006, 05:12 PM
I don't know. I've always been a huge supporter of nuclear power. It just seems that one mistake could have incredible consequences.

France supplies 80% of their energy use by nuclear. So even frogs can get this one right.

Each American nuclear carrier has two nuclear reactors on board and numerous submarines also cruise on uranium with little or no problems for decades.

As for dispensing of nuclear waste.... launch it towards the sun.

banyon
05-02-2006, 05:14 PM
I'm not for nuclear.

I don't think we have a good solution for waste, and in post 9-11 times, the reactors make too inviting a target for terrorists.

Adept Havelock
05-02-2006, 06:08 PM
There's only one real problem right now with nuclear power. The waste.

This stuff is going to be deadly dangerous for tens of thousands of years. The longest lived political institution man has come up with yet lasted a little over a thousand years (i.e. Roman Empire).

Does anyone really believe we are up to the task of dealing with this stuff long-term?

One thought of what to do. Build a long magnetic catapult along an E-W running Mt. Chain, and fling the crap into orbit. Then use cheap boosters to send it into the big incinerator in the center of the solar system. Pretty cheap cost per lbs to orbit, and it gets rid of the stuff for good.

I can't support an increase in Nuclear power until we've dealt with the long-term waste issues, and seriously increased security around the plants. Personally, I want those bastards more hardened than a Minuteman Lauch Capsule, and not just the "containment domes".

HC_Chief
05-02-2006, 07:26 PM
Heh, NASA would become the world's most expensive trash collection company EVAR! :D

Actually I like the idea. At least NASA would serve a purpose.

Adept Havelock
05-02-2006, 07:40 PM
Heh, NASA would become the world's most expensive trash collection company EVAR! :D

Actually I like the idea. At least NASA would serve a purpose.

That's the beauty of it. It can be a private venture. As there's no booster tech to be used for the "to-orbit phase" and only a rudimentary one to push it into an orbit that would intersect the sun, NASA's involvement would be minimal.

Personally, I've never forgiven the bastards at NASA for killing the Phoenix SSTO. Just because private industry proved they could put something in orbit for about 1/100 the cost per payload pound that Shuttle requires. They never let it past the proof-of-concept stage. I think the prototype is still sitting out at Edwards.

'Hamas' Jenkins
05-02-2006, 08:13 PM
That's the beauty of it. It can be a private venture. As there's no booster tech to be used for the "to-orbit phase" and only a rudimentary one to push it into an orbit that would intersect the sun, NASA's involvement would be minimal.

Personally, I've never forgiven the bastards at NASA for killing the Phoenix SSTO. Just because private industry proved they could put something in orbit for about 1/100 the cost per payload pound that Shuttle requires. They never let it past the proof-of-concept stage. I think the prototype is still sitting out at Edwards.

The current cost is 10,000 bones/pound....and we had something that could launch it out of the atmosphere for 1/100 of that...:hmmm:...the only problem with that solution is what happens if the rocket fails in the upper atmosphere?? you basically have blown up a massive dirty bomb.

Adept Havelock
05-02-2006, 09:25 PM
The current cost is 10,000 bones/pound....and we had something that could launch it out of the atmosphere for 1/100 of that...:hmmm:...the only problem with that solution is what happens if the rocket fails in the upper atmosphere?? you basically have blown up a massive dirty bomb.

:shake:

If you read what I actually wrote, you would have seen I didn't advocate using SSTO technology to deal with the waste issue. I suggested using a very large magnetic "catapult" built along an E-W mountain chain (preferably near the equator). No booster technology at all for the to-orbit stage. Just a simple booster used in space to point and send it on a solar intercept course. Problem solved, and NO risk of a "dirty bomb" explosion during the boost phase, as there is no booster technology involved.

I was lamenting NASA's killing of the Phoenix SSTO because it killed a great alternative to the 1970's space bus we are waddling along with.

That's the trouble with psychopaths. They don't pay close attention. They just cue up "Hip to be square" and start wacking away with an axe... :p

'Hamas' Jenkins
05-02-2006, 10:50 PM
:shake:

If you read what I actually wrote, you would have seen I didn't advocate using SSTO technology to deal with the waste issue. I suggested using a very large magnetic "catapult" built along an E-W mountain chain (preferably near the equator). No booster technology at all for the to-orbit stage. Just a simple booster used in space to point and send it on a solar intercept course. Problem solved, and NO risk of a "dirty bomb" explosion during the boost phase, as there is no booster technology involved.

I was lamenting NASA's killing of the Phoenix SSTO because it killed a great alternative to the 1970's space bus we are waddling along with.

That's the trouble with psychopaths. They don't pay close attention. They just cue up "Hip to be square" and start wacking away with an axe... :p

Try getting a reservation at Dorsia now you stupid bastard.

I'm just trying to fathom how many trillions of dollars a macroscopic *Big Particle* accelerator like that might actually cost.

banyon
05-03-2006, 09:05 AM
Try getting a reservation at Dorsia now you stupid bastard.

I'm just trying to fathom how many trillions of dollars a macroscopic *Big Particle* accelerator like that might actually cost.

Don't worry, Halliburton can build that thing at a very low cost bid. :)

Cochise
05-03-2006, 09:22 AM
What do people propose we power our lives with? Putting a Dam on a lake creates negative environmental consequences. Coal-fired power plants create pollution. Fuel-fired ones increase our dependence on those fuels.

I'm all for the environment, but hey... I don't see a future where every inch of America is covered with solar panels.

banyon
05-03-2006, 09:38 AM
What do people propose we power our lives with? Putting a Dam on a lake creates negative environmental consequences. Coal-fired power plants create pollution. Fuel-fired ones increase our dependence on those fuels.

I'm all for the environment, but hey... I don't see a future where every inch of America is covered with solar panels.

A combination that makes sense. I think the tree-huggers who b!tch about birds getting killed in windmills and the like just need to get over themselves and realize that they might have to give a little to win the war.

I would be for putting clean renewable sources where they are best suited. Hydroelectric perhaps in Oregon and California for their grid. Some solar in Death Valley, Arizona and Nevada (to help augment the West Coast Grid), Wind in Nebraska, Kansas (God knows we have enough of it), Texas to an extent. Some biodiesel fuels in the Midwest where they have the acreage and soil to cultivate them. Maybe some more hydro on the East Coast, perhaps offshore nuclear (that might reduce the terrorist threat).

Dave Lane
05-03-2006, 11:05 AM
offshore nuclear (that might reduce the terrorist threat).


This would be extra scary a old tugboat could cause a nuclear meltdown. You do know the cloud can cover 100s of miles?

Dave

banyon
05-03-2006, 11:10 AM
This would be extra scary a old tugboat could cause a nuclear meltdown. You do know the cloud can cover 100s of miles?

Dave

I guess I meant that the potential terrorists might have more difficulty accessing it and that a potential meltdown would at least be away from population centers.

I'm really against nuclear for the reasons I stated earlier, but if it's part of a reasonable compromise to wean us of of fossil fuels, I might be willing to accept it.

Adept Havelock
05-03-2006, 06:21 PM
Try getting a reservation at Dorsia now you stupid bastard.

I'm just trying to fathom how many trillions of dollars a macroscopic *Big Particle* accelerator like that might actually cost.


Did you get upset because I referred to your new avatar? :deevee:

A Mag Catapult would cost billions, no doubt about it. Guess what, it can be used for many other things than a cheap way to get rid of nuclear waste. With a cheap to-orbit cost, you could massively increase the sat. launch capability. Zero-G manufacture of perfect crystals and other industry (how about true monofilament?), biomedical research and other industrial applications become a realistic possibility, and we could stop consuming so many resources here by seeking minerals and metals in the Asteroid Belt, instead of strip-mining our home.

To quote the late Dr. Asimov, It's raining soup out there, and we don't even know about soup bowls.

IMO, you are being penny wise and pound foolish.

If we're going to trade movie quotes...well, to quote the great Lee Marvin in The Professionals:

"A Bastard? Yes sir. In my case, an accident of birth. But you, now you're a self-made man."

;)

WoodDraw
05-03-2006, 06:41 PM
One large scale nuclear disaster, by the Russians no less, in the history of nuclear reactors is actually pretty amazing. The consequences would be horrendous if another large scale mistake was to happen, but there just isn't any evidence to back up the widespread fear. It is environmentally friendly and practical right now. There are definitely negatives but the same can be said for every power source.

Adept Havelock
05-03-2006, 07:14 PM
One large scale nuclear disaster, by the Russians no less, in the history of nuclear reactors is actually pretty amazing. The consequences would be horrendous if another large scale mistake was to happen, but there just isn't any evidence to back up the widespread fear. It is environmentally friendly and practical right now. There are definitely negatives but the same can be said for every power source.

True enough. For example, some people who wouldn't live near a nuclear plant don't pay much attention when they live downstream from a hydroelectric dam.

Until the flood goes through their living room because the owning power company decided to defer upkeep and repairs one time too many, that is.