Nuclear Energy is not the answer to the social issue of our energy crisis.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Well at least you got that degree you are so proud of right? Why don't you guys try to get somewhere w/o being condescending?

originally posted by: themightymerlin
a reply to: DBCowboy

Well at least you got that degree you are so proud of right?

I have several degrees.

And yes, I am proud of the effort it took to earn them.

Granted, I don't have a degree in FEELZ, or Gender Studies, but I try to get by regardless.

My cross to bear.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Well I will give you a blank slate, what do you want?

originally posted by: themightymerlin
a reply to: DBCowboy

Well I will give you a blank slate, what do you want?

We had energy independence with gas and oil production.

I'd call for more nuke plants as well but the Biden administration will go the other way.

*shrugs*

a reply to: DBCowboy

That is fair and intelligent, but the whole world can't do that.

originally posted by: themightymerlin
a reply to: DBCowboy

That is fair and intelligent, but the whole world can't do that.

I honestly don't care what the rest of the world does.

a reply to: DBCowboy

I'm sorry to break it to you like this.

The world -- as it stands right now -- is completely dependent upon oil and coal for its energy usage. Solar, wind power are wonderful and contribute mostly in the personal range. I have wind and solar panels, and I create 75% of my own power. It won't cover the majority of any country.

Some politicians foolishly want to mandate alternative energies. That is foolish. Where there are energies available that can replace coal and oil, the we will collectively RUSH to them, but you cannot mandate them any more than you can mandate that people be happy, or that people are wealthy.

Nuclear energy works. We have a ways to go to make it universally safe. There are likely energies yet discovered that will replace everything. We will find out those things, unless we completely screw up and create strangelet particles that consume the entire Earth. We must be careful. I hope we are careful.

Science always says, "what if". It rarely says "should we".

a reply to: argentus

You don't have anything to be sorry about? I am not a freak or something like some people around here I came to talk to about this so really just allow me to thank you for being here, to clear the air.

I am sorry but you are neglecting the Economic construct pillar of their society and what its principles are founded upon. The problem isn't a lack of ideas, the problem is funding.

Some people don't want to watch the world burn.

It does, I like Nuclear Fusion a whole lot actually, but it is just a Unicorn so far.

a reply to: themightymerlin

i also am not believing that i agree with augustus but he is right

what EXACTLY pound for pound, dollar for dollar, and "carbon footprint for carbon footprint" is better than nuclear?

btw this comparison MUST INCLUDE all steps of the process.. from gathering materials , making parts and yes disposing of used up parts...

OP you state "got the internet" well how about you use it .

because of all the energy sources nuclear material not only can be reprocessed to be reused. the waste after reprocessing is quite reduced vs throwing everything away (as it were)

but the new generation of reactors are much safer that ANYTHING before it

along with the navy has been running nuclear older gen reactors in subs and ships with a safety record to rival almost any power industry..


hell here in IL they are shutting down and attempting to shut down nuclear reactors NOT because they are unsafe or wearing out... but because they are not making the huge profits they used to because MORE ENERGY / supply vs demand.

love to see what you claim would be better..

scrounger

a reply to: scrounger

I like Geothermal.

NGL You seem to just want to attack somebody who has a different opinion. It is passive aggression and there is no need for that, you can be wrong and be nice about it.

what EXACTLY pound for pound, dollar for dollar, and "carbon footprint for carbon footprint" is better than nuclear? btw this comparison MUST INCLUDE all steps of the process.. from gathering materials , making parts and yes disposing of used up parts...

"shrugs" Guess I will jsut goto my room with a spanking then.

what is truly sad is we could in the US be energy independent in less than 10 years and with determination within 5 years tops using nuclear.

look we can never be fully rid of petroleum based products..
lubricants, plastics, ect are needed and oil based fuel is best in many applications.

but by going nuclear for power and heating you could reduce need of oil to point our own resources would be sufficient for hundreds of years alone.

hell those screaming for "electric vehicles" this would (for short term distances and reasonable applications) be what pushes that forward leaps and bounds..

cheap power entices all..


now especially with the new reactor designs that are not foolproof but damn near close.
with the tech to recycle / reprocess nuclear fuel to reduce waste easily 50 percent or greater
with the tech to store it long term and many other countries are ALREADY DOING IT.

this SHOULD be a no brainer.

what is stopping it?

two things..

one.. power industry..

right now all of them are making tons of short term profits by manipulating the system
hell in IL alone our nuclear power plants produce the power, they are ALLOWED to sell it on the open market, make a killing then BUY IT BACK to meet the needs of their customers..
making money on same power twice.. what a scam
but now since they are not making the silly profit margins (note STILL MAKING MONEY) they will shut down the plants unless they get more government handouts.

they dont want to give up the insane profit margins for just good profit margins.

two.. the radical environmentalists.

ANY POWERPLANT (much less nuclear) they go to insane and unrealistic demands for proof of safety, not effecting the environment, and demand study after study after study until they get what they want..
then even then will tie up anything they dont like in the courts with judges giving these wack jobs what they want.


look not saying REASONABLE safety and building standards should be followed..
but should not take DECADE to build a nuke power plant.

should not take decades to find out the waste storage site in the desert is safe and allow after the studies are done, billions spent (and received by NM) they can say "no not gonna do it"

look at (yes the safety and waste was bad by todays standards) the Manhattan project.
in less than oh five years we went from THEORETICAL nuclear physics to producing two weapons, processing methods and nuclear reactor technology. All of it built from literally the ground up and even including processing methods that were deemed inefficient and SWITCHED in mid stream...

then in next 10 years a booming nuclear science to include nuclear medicine that has saved who knows how many lives.


taken todays knowledge, todays NEW SAFER REACTORS, efficient/rapid building technology and (despite what ranting environmentalist say) a practical and safe waste storage site

there is ZERO REASON that in 5 years we could have SAFE nuclear plants all over the country producing so much power that as was the claim in the 60s no electric meters needed.. you just paid a monthly fee for all the power you could ever use.

with the added benefit of removing old reactor plants, reprocessing and storing safely the waste stored all over the country (a ticking time bomb if ever there was one) , and JOBS JOBS JOBS.
From parts makers for all aspects of the process, construction jobs and new electric products (from water heaters, washer/dryers, and vehicles just to name a few things).
with almost ZERO pollutants

we are FOOLS for not doing this and telling the true pair of villain's (power industry and radical environmentalists ) to go POUND SAND

scrounger

a reply to: scrounger

Right?? But have you ever stopped and consider if you should other than could?

originally posted by: themightymerlin
a reply to: scrounger

I like Geothermal.

Yes it is a good system along with hydro as well.. but not broad enough to fill all the energy needs...

NGL You seem to just want to attack somebody who has a different opinion.

im sorry but it isnt an "attack" but your "feeling" being hurt because not only are you called out .. but SHOWN how silly your point is WITH FACTS.


It is passive aggression and there is no need for that, you can be wrong and be nice about it.

the only "passive/agressive" is your emotional personal attack rantings.. im sorry YOUR OPINON doesnt change facts, definitions, ect

what EXACTLY pound for pound, dollar for dollar, and "carbon footprint for carbon footprint" is better than nuclear? btw this comparison MUST INCLUDE all steps of the process.. from gathering materials , making parts and yes disposing of used up parts...

"shrugs" Guess I will jsut goto my room with a spanking then.

if your going for childish immature ranting you nailed it by this comment

now that you got all that drivel off your chest feel better?

now care to DEBATE as an ADULT with facts and counterpoint.

along with ACTUALLY ANSWERING the question i put to you?

or is being a social media "troll" (think thats the term) all you got
with basically comments of "im gonna take my ball and go home" .

scrounger

a reply to: themightymerlin

no "lack of funding" isnt the problem

its that what your funding isnt panning out or as cheap/efficient/ low carbon footprint /ect as you claim

you can throw all the funding at anything, it isnt gonna make it work , be financially successful or efficient

for example ... i can throw all the money at "making lead into gold" in the world

it ISNT going to work in any effective way..

scrounger

a reply to: scrounger

No.

a reply to: scrounger

I am just gonna forget you're even here. You're being rediculous. I am not some educator for your pleasure, do it yourself. I told you everything I wanted you to hear in the OP.

originally posted by: themightymerlin
a reply to: scrounger

I am just gonna forget you're even here. You're being rediculous. I am not some educator for your pleasure, do it yourself. I told you everything I wanted you to hear in the OP.

and there we have it people

the last desperate rantings of someone who cant debate

"ill take my ball and go home"

well only took you 5 pages and multiple people calling you out to do so

while not a new record definitely in the top 10 of the troll awards

btw maybe next time if you want specific ego stroking comments might i suggest opening a private page on FB?

scrounger

a reply to: scrounger

I will.

a reply to: scrounger

Fine Scrounger I'm bored, you win on this one Il will entertain this.

no "lack of funding" isnt the problem its that what your funding isnt panning out or as cheap/efficient/ low carbon footprint /ect as you claim you can throw all the funding at anything, it isnt gonna make it work , be financially successful or efficient for example ... i can throw all the money at "making lead into gold" in the world it ISNT going to work in any effective way.. scrounger

You need to stop putting words in my mouth though. If you don't know something, ask.

originally posted by: themightymerlin a reply to: scrounger I like Geothermal. Yes it is a good system along with hydro as well.. but not broad enough to fill all the energy needs... NGL You seem to just want to attack somebody who has a different opinion. im sorry but it isnt an "attack" but your "feeling" being hurt because not only are you called out .. but SHOWN how silly your point is WITH FACTS. It is passive aggression and there is no need for that, you can be wrong and be nice about it. the only "passive/agressive" is your emotional personal attack rantings.. im sorry YOUR OPINON doesnt change facts, definitions, ect "shrugs" Guess I will jsut goto my room with a spanking then. if your going for childish immature ranting you nailed it by this comment now that you got all that drivel off your chest feel better? now care to DEBATE as an ADULT with facts and counterpoint. along with ACTUALLY ANSWERING the question i put to you? or is being a social media "troll" (think thats the term) all you got with basically comments of "im gonna take my ball and go home" . scrounger

This is also what I am talking about. Don't do this. It is calling the pot calling the kettle black.

Now you wanted a bunch of info right? Can I ask you though why are you so passionate about Nuclear energy that it has come to this outcome so far between us? I don't know how else to describe the interaction between us.

The info is widely available on Wikipedia:

en.wikipedia.org...

I like these other guys a lot though too and they have this to add about it:

phys.org...

My intuition tells me it will be a very long time before we do find a unicorn, per se, of energy supply. Globablly Geothermal is very a good answer if you look at this bit:

en.wikipedia.org...

This combined with our knowledge of what we already know is how we are phasing out already, yes, even the Magnum-powered unstoppable Nuclear Energy with its high capacity fun for the whole family. I am just really proud of this moment in time as a lot of power is being shifted towards favorable outcomes for my needs and belongings.

I was never a good person, unless it is chaotic good and it shows in my numbers but I hope that can at least be of friendly value to you.