America is back in the nuke biz...

[SUBMAN1]

Looking at a spec for 2 nuke reactors, the first in 29 years. 2,700 Megawatt, $60 Bill project.

It's about d*mn time.

-S

[The WosMan]

It sure is. It is also the only way to ween ourselves off of foreign fossil fuels and gain a better level on energy independence. I would like to see a nationwide network of these plants generating enough power that we could sell some energy for a profit to our friendly neighbors up north and our friendly interlopers down south.

[Letum]

What kind of reactor will they be useing?

[waste gate]

It sure is. It is also the only way to ween ourselves off of foreign fossil fuels and gain a better level on energy independence. I would like to see a nationwide network of these plants generating enough power that we could sell some energy for a profit to our friendly neighbors up north and our friendly interlopers down south.

The US already have the kind of energy researves which you are speaking of to generate electricity......coal.
China is using it, we should also. Coal is a known commodity as it pertains to general knowledge and none of the glowing.

[The WosMan]

Yes, you have a point but coal is a bit dirty. Then again people have issues with nuclear waste. Personally I think we should save our coal for conversion to petrol and thumb our noses completely at the middle east. We could do it now and have gasoline for about 2.50 a gallon, which is cheaper than what we are paying now.

[waste gate]

Don't get me wrong, I have no dislike for nuclear energy as a power source, in fact I support it.

But wait for the left to scream about our need to stop using latent oil reserves, and start screaming about all our alternatives.

It is their modus operandi.

[fatty]

It sure is. It is also the only way to ween ourselves off of foreign fossil fuels and gain a better level on energy independence. I would like to see a nationwide network of these plants generating enough power that we could sell some energy for a profit to our friendly neighbors up north and our friendly interlopers down south.

But, but, but... your friendly neighbours up north are already making a handsome profit selling energy to you! :D

[SUBMAN1]

What kind of reactor will they be useing?Advanced Boiling Water Reactor or ABWR.

[waste gate]

It sure is. It is also the only way to ween ourselves off of foreign fossil fuels and gain a better level on energy independence. I would like to see a nationwide network of these plants generating enough power that we could sell some energy for a profit to our friendly neighbors up north and our friendly interlopers down south.

But, but, but... your friendly neighbours up north are already making a handsome profit selling energy to you! :D

My point.

[nikimcbee]

What kind of reactor will they be useing?

Liquid metal reators from the alfa-class???:hmm: :hmm: :hmm: :rotfl: :dead:

[fatty]

It sure is. It is also the only way to ween ourselves off of foreign fossil fuels and gain a better level on energy independence. I would like to see a nationwide network of these plants generating enough power that we could sell some energy for a profit to our friendly neighbors up north and our friendly interlopers down south.

But, but, but... your friendly neighbours up north are already making a handsome profit selling energy to you! :D

My point.

Eh, what's that?

[waste gate]

It sure is. It is also the only way to ween ourselves off of foreign fossil fuels and gain a better level on energy independence. I would like to see a nationwide network of these plants generating enough power that we could sell some energy for a profit to our friendly neighbors up north and our friendly interlopers down south.

But, but, but... your friendly neighbours up north are already making a handsome profit selling energy to you! :D

My point.

Eh, what's that?

Many special interests. None of which look beyond their own POV.

[The WosMan]

I would rather purchase energy from Canada then Mohammad but generating our own is the best. I have nothing against coal either, especially since the state I live in is at the top of the list for reserves. Also, lets tap that shale oil out west while we are at it and put some off shore rigs up. We can do it better, more efficient, and cleaner than any other country. No more Exxon Valdez tanker crashes if we were drilling our own. Also, all that pollution dust can be blown into the atmosphere and be used to counter global warming. Yes sir, polluting our way toward a better planet. Did anyone see that article where they want to put dust and dirt into the upper atmosphere with hoses and cannons? These global warming scientists are some real brainiacs. Also, we can divert hurricanes with bits and pieces of chewed up tires.

[waste gate]

I would rather purchase energy from Canada then Mohammad but generating our own is the best. I have nothing against coal either, especially since the state I live in is at the top of the list for reserves. Also, lets tap that shale oil out west while we are at it and put some off shore rigs up. We can do it better, more efficient, and cleaner than any other country. No more Exxon Valdez tanker crashes if we were drilling our own. Also, all that pollution dust can be blown into the atmosphere and be used to counter global warming. Yes sir, polluting our way toward a better planet. Did anyone see that article where they want to put dust and dirt into the upper atmosphere with hoses and cannons? These global warming scientists are some real brainiacs. Also, we can divert hurricanes with bits and pieces of chewed up tires.

Also, all that pollution dust can be blown into the atmosphere and be used to counter global warming. Yes sir, polluting our way toward a better planet.

Hard to agrue with if one really believes the warming is occuring.

[SUBMAN1]

Hard to agrue with if one really believes the warming is occuring.I believe it is happening. I do not believe it is entirely our fault, and is most likely the cause of stardust. I also believe that we can do a thing or two to minimize it by our own output, so I am not against the fact that the spec on this reactor has 0 tolerance for greenhouse gas emmisions. It is as green as you can be without removing energy creation or energy use from the face of the planet.

-S

[waste gate]

Hard to agrue with if one really believes the warming is occuring.I believe it is happening. I do not believe it is entirely our fault, and is most likely the cause of stardust. I also believe that we can do a thing or two to minimize it by our own output, so I am not against the fact that the spec on this reactor has 0 tolerance for greenhouse gas emmisions. It is as green as you can be without removing energy creation or energy use from the face of the planet.

-S

I believed global cooling was happening in the late '70s early '80s. The next ice age. What happened to that? I believed it b/c I was young and impressionable.
That is what the global warming snake oil salesman are counting on now. Naivte.

[Tchocky]

I believed global cooling was happening in the late '70s early '80s. The next ice age. What happened to that? I believed it b/c I was young and impressionable.
That is what the global warming snake oil salesman are counting on now. Naivte.
There wasn't nearly the same scientific weight behind the Ice Age theory than there is today, supporting the idea that human activity over the last 200 years is adversely affecting our climate in dangerous ways.

[Seth8530]

What kind of reactor will they be useing?
Liquid metal reators from the alfa-class???:hmm: :hmm: :hmm: :rotfl: :dead:

Dear lord no! lol i love nuclear i belive its the futute.

[SUBMAN1]

I believed global cooling was happening in the late '70s early '80s. The next ice age. What happened to that? I believed it b/c I was young and impressionable.
That is what the global warming snake oil salesman are counting on now. Naivte. There wasn't nearly the same scientific weight behind the Ice Age theory than there is today, supporting the idea that human activity over the last 200 years is adversely affecting our climate in dangerous ways.When all is said and done, I think you will find human activity accounts for less than 20%. That means 80% is caused by forces outside of our control. This does not mean that we shouldn't try to limit our 20%, but it does mean that we are ultimately at the mercy of mother nature.

-S

[Sea Demon]

Very true, and well said Subman. I think the ideas in implementing a variety of energy sources is a good idea. It looks like solar will be coming down in costs very soon, and it will be easier and cheaper to put your house on it. There is a concerted effort out here in California to do that, and I like the idea. I like nuclear power myself, but I'm still uncertain about the storing methods for waste. In a nation as large as the USA, with many more nuclear plants, we would need to determine newer and better methods of long-term storage, or reprocessing of nuclear materials.

As far as the Ice Age stuff, there was indeed a push and a concerted effort. The only difference I see today is that information flows faster and easier and with more widespread access with the onset of the Internet and such. Unfortunately, that has also resulted in alot of misinformation, scare tactics, political posturing in scientific organizations, and heated fanatacism. Gone are the days when we ask questions, and look at data with a raised eyebrow without some fanatics going into near hysterical frenzies.

[SUBMAN1]

...I like nuclear power myself, but I'm still uncertain about the storing methods for waste. In a nation as large as the USA, with many more nuclear plants, we would need to determine newer and better methods of long-term storage, or reprocessing of nuclear materials...

So are you saying we have a storage problem? I think it is no problem at all personally. A little leakage is good for the environment. It makes the wildlife much more entertaining:

http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc38/marypoppins_bucket/z107235377.gif

-S

[Tchocky]

When all is said and done, I think you will find human activity accounts for less than 20%. That means 80% is caused by forces outside of our control. This does not mean that we shouldn't try to limit our 20%, but it does mean that we are ultimately at the mercy of mother nature.
The 70% caused by natural sources isn't the problem. The Earth can deal with that 70% and the 10% from animals etc as well but the 20% from humans isn't balanced, it keeps going up and up (our release of CO2) and the Earth has trouble coping with this imbalance.

[SUBMAN1]

The 70% caused by natural sources isn't the problem. The Earth can deal with that 70% and the 10% from animals etc as well but the 20% from humans isn't balanced, it keeps going up and up (our release of CO2) and the Earth has trouble coping with this imbalance.Hardly. It's not that fragile, as proven time and time again.

-S

[fatty]

The 70% caused by natural sources isn't the problem. The Earth can deal with that 70% and the 10% from animals etc as well but the 20% from humans isn't balanced, it keeps going up and up (our release of CO2) and the Earth has trouble coping with this imbalance.Hardly. It's not that fragile, as proven time and time again.

-S

I'm not so certain about that...
http://imet.csus.edu/imet3/vito/webquest/dino-meteor1.gif
;)

[Tchocky]

The 70% caused by natural sources isn't the problem. The Earth can deal with that 70% and the 10% from animals etc as well but the 20% from humans isn't balanced, it keeps going up and up (our release of CO2) and the Earth has trouble coping with this imbalance.Hardly. It's not that fragile, as proven time and time again.
It certainly seems to be. Never before (that we know of) has the Earth warmed so mch so fast.
If we haven't been able to find a natural cause for all this warming, and an alternative explanation, a workable theory, backed up by empirical evidence exists, then what are we to conclude?

Check out this graph of temperature variations. Does the 2004 level look natural?
Going back 12,000 years, it doesn't look natural.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/ca/Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png

[SUBMAN1]

The 70% caused by natural sources isn't the problem. The Earth can deal with that 70% and the 10% from animals etc as well but the 20% from humans isn't balanced, it keeps going up and up (our release of CO2) and the Earth has trouble coping with this imbalance.Hardly. It's not that fragile, as proven time and time again. It certainly seems to be. Never before (that we know of) has the Earth warmed so mch so fast.
If we haven't been able to find a natural cause for all this warming, and an alternative explanation, a workable theory, backed up by empirical evidence exists, then what are we to conclude?

Check out this graph of temperature variations. Does the 2004 level look natural?
Going back 12,000 years, it doesn't look natural.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/ca/Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png

Don't use Wikipedia. It could be written by someone with about your knowledge on the subject.

If you study all the data from Medieval times, it was worse back then than it is today:

http://biocab.org/GWMA-002_op_987x740.jpg

Also, 1935 was hotter than any year on record, so all this BS that is is hotter now than was at any time in the past is pure BS.

-S

[Tchocky]

Don't use Wikipedia. It could be written by someone with about your knowledge on the subject. Sorry, should have posted the commons link. Here - http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png
That should fill you in on who is making the images and where the data comes from.
Nice you-don't-know-nothing snap, though. We've discussed this issue enough to know that neither of us are climate scientists moonlighting on forums.
If you study all the data from Medieval times, it was worse back then than it is today:
http://biocab.org/GWMA-002_op_987x740.jpgWho are "The Biology Cabinet"? I can find one scientist behind this, Nasif Nahle. Google isn't being very helpful either.
The NOAA don't seem to agree. HERE (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/medieval.html)
The idea of a global or hemispheric "Medieval Warm Period" that was warmer than today however, has turned out to be incorrect. I know that Nahle has used some NOAA data, but I'd prefer to take it from source. Also, the biocab graph isn't labelled very clearly, there's a lot of stuff going on in it that ain't labelled.
Also, 1935 was hotter than any year on record, so all this BS that is is hotter now th7an was at any time in the past is pure BS. I said it's never warmed so much so fast. Not that it's hotter now than it's ever been.

[SUBMAN1]

Sorry, should have posted the commons link. Here - http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png
That should fill you in on who is making the images and where the data comes from.
Nice you-don't-know-nothing snap, though. We've discussed this issue enough to know that neither of us are climate scientists moonlighting on forums.Don't take that as a negative. I'm in the same boat. We are not experts. Also, I don't buy the whole model as provided as I will describe below.
Who are "The Biology Cabinet"? I can find one scientist behind this, Nasif Nahle. Google isn't being very helpful either.
The NOAA don't seem to agree. HERE (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/medieval.html)
The idea of a global or hemispheric "Medieval Warm Period" that was warmer than today however, has turned out to be incorrect. I know that Nahle has used some NOAA data, but I'd prefer to take it from source. Also, the biocab graph isn't labelled very clearly, there's a lot of stuff going on in it that ain't labelled.
I said it's never warmed so much so fast. Not that it's hotter now than it's ever been.On the NOAA front - they have only run simulations, and while they may be a good at being close to a few degrees, this is the also the very problem with a simulation. You must also look at record data from the period which their simulation does not incorporate. Read the source material for the link I provided. It shows you that NOAA is not the exclusive source since they can only guess at what was what at any certain point in time unless it was extremely hot or an Ice Age. What is also included is record data from the period.

Regardless of what is or isn't the case with the data, what I really think is happening here is a case of people all a sudden realizing they have a ton of data for the 20th century - the first time EVER! They see a temp fluctuation and then freak out and speculate on what could be the cause, when this is probably quite normal. This is what is happening - they are freaking out because they think we are the only force at work here. People need to take a chill pill and follow things for much longer than the short term data they actually have. It could very well be that in 5 years, things cool off and then they'll freak out about that and say we did too much. 80%+ of all climate change will have no direct result of human activity, intentional or not, so I speculate that mother nature will correct the small percentage we are contributing at some point.

In the meantime, it is not a bad thing to try to limit our contributing factor in this matter either. What I am more concerned about is my own health from the emissions polluting our atmosphere than have an inch rise in sea level or worse weather. It is the very pollution that concerns me much more.

-S

PS. How did this thread get so far off topic? Maybe if this discussion is going to continue, you start a new thread on it. This thread is supposed to be about nukes.