US is the no. 1 polluter in the world - Page 6

12-12-09, 01:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

Neal - I can answer that.

We are #1 in nuclear waste - though "pollution" is a stretch because our waste gets buried in Yucca Mountain where it won't harm the environment. But I guess one could say that its existance equals pollution.

However the real crime against humanity comes from the fact that our philosophy of self determination, independance and a refusal to embrace global collectivism means our views, ideals and way of life is the largest possible "pollutant" to many people like OTH.

I guess scale is the issue here, what scale do various nations operate with. As far as nuclear power plants, the Soviets already had one accident. I haven't yet been convinced by the end storage systems and facilities in any country. Yes, Finland buries it's nuclear waste in some bed rock somewhere but it's a matter of debate.

How can we know there's not earthquakes or some kind of cracks in the earths core or some similar type system that might rupture the nuclear waste storage. Nuclear waste stays 'live' for millenia so I'd say it's a cause for concern.

The US produces the most nuclear waste but I haven't yet found a reliable list. This one doesn't have Russia in it so it's probably not 100% correct.

Ok according to this Russia is no. 5 but the emerging eastern economies are catching up to the west fast.

And as far as do I have problem with the US 'way of life', yea I guess I do. Partly because Finland is said to be most like the US in Europe in that we brainlessly emulate the States in almost everything. I've even seen some Hummers in the streets.

CaptainHaplo · 12-12-09, 12:55 PM

OTH - now we are getting somewhere.

What exactly about the US "way of life" do you have a problem with? If you can give specifics - without turning it into an attack, I can try to represent why it can - and often (but not always) is a good thing. If you want, we can do it in a PM if you are worried that it might cause a negative reaction from the mods.

Your point on radioactive waste is a perfect example of how to present issues. Its not just a US problem - though as the biggest producer we do need to be concerned over the waste that gets put underground. I agree we need to have a better solution. In fact - better solutions are out there. European technological breakthroughs (I forget which European country did it) devised reactors that are much more efficient in their fuel use, and the end "waste" products decays in something like a decade. I read about it in Wired magazine - but don't have a link. It was a couple of years ago I think. Anyway, this style of reactor, though it does put out slightly less energy due to its design, in the end uses like 99.5% of the potential of the fuel - meaning the waste is almost non-existant compared to the reactors in use today.

The problem with its adoption in the US is two-fold. One is capitalism - because the design costs about twice as much to build than a "standard" reactor. Since the initial cost is so high, and the return via energy output is lower, the power generation industry is not screaming for it. I will grant that this style also would save them money in the long run on waste disposal. It is also worth noting that the waste, being so drained of energy - is also no longer capable of being enriched into weapons grade, meaning that it removes a big issue in proliferation.

The second problem is the environmental lobby in the US. Every nuclear plant proposal is met with an onslaught of environmentalists out to stop it - regardless of how safe and clean it can be. Just as a corporation has the knee jerk reaction to "hoard wealth" - the environmentalists have the knee jerk reaction of "no nukes". The fight becomes too hard to actually build a clean source of energy, so it never happens.

Both sides stand in the way of progress. See - I can criticize our system too. Its not perfect - and no - corporations don't just need a free ride to do what they want. There needs to be a level of regulation, just as there needs to be some common sense applied when a clean and safe source of energy is available.

12-12-09, 02:25 PM

CH,

what do I have problem with US specifically? I don't think there is any single issue. I think in Europe the UK and possibly Ireland are the closest to the States for obvious reasons, language and culture. The continental Europe is much less connected to the States and could be seen to be more hostile toward the US and things it represents. I don't think it's necessarily a problem of the continental Europe, I think the US is responsible for this state of affairs. My opinions only represent this status quo.

Ok I'm moving on the third point on my list, solid waste. Have been looking at several links but can't find definite comparison of the world's top producers of solid waste. According to one link US was the no. 1 until 2004 when China passed it. Or again, if there was a sample of who has been the no. 1 producer of solid waste during the last 10 years it might very well be US.

Haven't yet found any definite lists about top producers of liquid waste either but since they are often linked to oil products I wouldn't be surprised if US placed high on that list also.

12-12-09, 03:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

OTH - now we are getting somewhere.

Your point on radioactive waste is a perfect example of how to present issues. Its not just a US problem - though as the biggest producer we do need to be concerned over the waste that gets put underground. I agree we need to have a better solution. In fact - better solutions are out there. European technological breakthroughs (I forget which European country did it) devised reactors that are much more efficient in their fuel use, and the end "waste" products decays in something like a decade. I read about it in Wired magazine - but don't have a link. It was a couple of years ago I think. Anyway, this style of reactor, though it does put out slightly less energy due to its design, in the end uses like 99.5% of the potential of the fuel - meaning the waste is almost non-existant compared to the reactors in use today.

Pleasantly surprised. We certainly are getting somewhere.

Very educational post. Although I'm not a supporter of nuclear energy, this is extremely positive news. This kind of technology is definately food for thought.

It's a-bit surprising USA hasn't made more of an effort towards wind power. The price is definately right, and there are no fuel transport costs either.

AVGWarhawk · 12-12-09, 05:56 PM

Quote:

It's a-bit surprising USA hasn't made more of an effort towards wind power

It is coming! Plenty in the mid-west. Here is on problem and it is just stupid. Some of these mills were proposed to be installed off the coast of Marth's Vineyard. Well, we know the Kennedy's reside there and they felt that their view of the ocean would be spoiled by these mills. The project scrapped.

There was one case of a town that said the mills gave them migraine headaches or something like that. You can hear them woosh woosh of the blades. There was one program I watched were a small town installed a mill and this mill provided electricity for all in the town. That is a good success story. Mills are just part of the overall picture but certainly a part. I think looking at ocean currents and wave action as the energy to turn turbine needs to be looked at more closely.

12-12-09, 06:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

Mills are just part of the overall picture but certainly a part.

Very true. Danmark is big on wind power, while Norway is big on water power.
When one has an excess of electricity they send it to the other. It works realy well.
Danmark doesn't import any oil, and Norway is an oil exporter.

AVGWarhawk · 12-12-09, 08:37 PM

We do have the dams. Hoover Dam for electricity and water supply. But that even comes at a price to the environment. For this to work there needs to be a culmination of all types of energy to make any sense.

AVGWarhawk · 12-12-09, 08:53 PM

This is why I laugh at all the finger pointers who blame it all on America. Seems others do follow suit.

Quote:

$1.5 Million Dollar Russian SUV One Of A Kind Must See!

Whale penis leather interior.

That's all you really need to know about the $1.5 million Dartz Prombron Monaco Red Diamond Edition. Yes, the diamond-encrusted white gold gauges and gold-plated bulletproof windows are impressive, but seriously, whale penis leather interior.

The already bulletproof and wildly over-the-top 8.1 liter GM V8-powered Dartz Kombat T98 is getting a name change to Prombron and along with it will come a complete and brain-maimingly bourgeoisie upgrade with the Monaco Red Diamond Edition. The world's most expensive ultra-luxury SUV will debut at the 2010 Top Marques Monaco show with luxe features crazy enough to make a Maybach blush. For your $1.5 million you get the following features:

1. Ruby Red matte paint
2. Gold-plated bulletproof windows
3. 22" Kremlin Red Star bulletproof wheels
4. Whale Penis Leather interior
5. Tungsten exhaust
6. Tungsten and white gold gauges with diamonds and rubies
7. White gold diamond and ruby encrusted badges - grill, side and dashboard
8. Special edition Vertu mobile phone with "alert" button
9. Additional outside kevlar coating
10. Rogue Acoustic Audio System.

And, of course, of course -
THREE BOTTLES OF World Most Expensive Vodka - RussoBaltique Vodka, drink edition, same as in the RussoBaltique car when it visited Monaco at 1912.

We have a lot of questions about this car, most of them whale penis leather-related, but in the bigger picture, this brazen finger-in-the-eye raises a good point, so to speak. What makes a luxury vehicle? Things we used to think of as luxury - bovine leather, wood trim, high-end audio, etc., have become mainstream. Does it take exceptionally ridiculous material selection and bold ostentatious flair to define new luxury? Is it encapsulating yourself in a vehicle capable of taking a direct hit from a rocket propelled grenade? Does it mean emulating the wild excess of past luxury much like the Red Diamond is doing? Who knows. But we're betting the tzars would roll in one of these babies.

Hummer go nothing on this baby!

CaptainHaplo · 12-12-09, 09:10 PM

Wind power - in places - is feasible. However it has a number of obstacles here in the states. Some people consider it "unsightly" (I'd rather have electricity than a view personally), the wind doesn't always blow, you have acute standards on how to get the energy onto the grid in a usuable form, etc. I honestly doubt wind is a long range answer - but its foolish not to use it where its appropriate.

The reality is - when it comes to nuclear power - we have the technology and ability to make it "walk away" safe - as in you could walk away for a pizza. A perfect example is the chinese HT-10 reactor - a Pebble Bed design.

The only problem with that design is the waste, being encase in graphite pebbles, creates more volume for the same amount of waste. However, a rollback of the reproccessing rules (that originated with President Peanut... I mean uh.... Carter) would allow for a drastic reduction in waste.

After doing some research, my memory has been refreshed - it is not a new nuclear plant design that provides the increased efficiency, it is the continual reprocessing of the fuel that results in it being used until inert. Basically, old fuel in, new fuel out, in a safe and controlled fashion. The fissionable material (aka the nuke fuel) is seperated from the mass that is no longer usuable for fuel. Without reprocessing, about 95% of the energy in a modern fuel rod is unused when it is "spent". With reprocessing, you can continually strip away the unusable portion and continue to use the fuel source.

France for example, uses reprocessing to not only fuel its standard reactors, but also to fuel its MOX style reactors.

Combine reprocessing with a reactor that by design is inherently safe, and you have a clean, safe source of energy. And another bonus - the Pebble Bed design can be used to create hydrogen in the vast quantities economies would need to move from petroleum to hydrogen.

12-12-09, 09:10 PM

AVG,

Except number of units actually in use. Not that the Hummer has been a huge success story but that thing is pretty much a one (or maybe two) off.

AVGWarhawk · 12-13-09, 09:57 AM

Quote:

Wind power - in places - is feasible. However it has a number of obstacles here in the states. Some people consider it "unsightly" (I'd rather have electricity than a view personally), the wind doesn't always blow, you have acute standards on how to get the energy onto the grid in a usuable form, etc. I honestly doubt wind is a long range answer - but its foolish not to use it where its appropriate.

This is something that has to be overcome. People get so worried over property value, noise and unsightly turbines.....live next to an airport then we will talk! I believe these mills also have a storage center for those days they do not turn. Energy is pulled from these batteries. I could be wrong here but it makes sense.

Quote:

The reality is - when it comes to nuclear power - we have the technology and ability to make it "walk away" safe - as in you could walk away for a pizza. A perfect example is the chinese HT-10 reactor - a Pebble Bed design.

The only problem with that design is the waste, being encase in graphite pebbles, creates more volume for the same amount of waste. However, a rollback of the reproccessing rules (that originated with President Peanut... I mean uh.... Carter) would allow for a drastic reduction in waste.

Same as you wrote above. Unsightly reactors. Remember Three Mile Island. People start screaming Chernobyl. Not storing the waste in a bunker near my backyard!!!! Get's ugly.

AVGWarhawk · 12-13-09, 09:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OneToughHerring

AVG,

Except number of units actually in use. Not that the Hummer has been a huge success story but that thing is pretty much a one (or maybe two) off.

True but what a waste of time, energy and materials. Not to mention the poor whale missing his penis skin

12-13-09, 10:13 AM

Is there a domestic (USA) fuel source for these nuclear plants, or does that too have to be imported, thus continueing the exportation of USDs (Dollars)?

ETR3(SS) · 12-13-09, 12:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snestorm

Is there a domestic (USA) fuel source for these nuclear plants, or does that too have to be imported, thus continueing the exportation of USDs (Dollars)?

AFAIK all the U-235 is from the US and we don't import any. The majority of our reactors are in our submarines too.

Catfish · 12-13-09, 01:16 PM

Hello,
pollution is not all about CO2 and such. Spent nuclear reactors, that are just being sunk east of Novaja Semlja (and the territory afterwards being leased out to Norway, for fishing) by the evil russians, are counterwise sunk in the Bering strait, by the USA.

And then there is Depleted Uranium (DU), a major export article, used in those (in)famous A-10 Thunderbolt "Warthogs". Buried in the ground they only intoxicate is slowly for the next 10000 or so years, while the bullets hitting steel explode into a fine mist, which once getting into the lungs is sure to cause cancer and all kinds of health diseases.

After dropping hundreds of tons of cluster bombs in Afghanistan, an US general - after being asked whether he was sure that all those bomblets really exploded - answered that the only damn sure thing was that "they will reach the ground".

And don't get me started on land mines.

Greetings,
Catfish

Just found tons on that, e.g.:
The US Atomic Energy Commission sunk 15000 pounds of high-radiaoctive material, including plutonium, in the Bering strait within one year. Some reactors that are spent beyond refuelling, are also sunk completely for the impossibilty of scrapping them, regularly. They call it disposal.
There's quite some information on the glowing deep ...
Poison in the Well: Radioactive Waste in the Oceans at the Dawn of the Nuclear Age by Jacob Darwin Hamblin, Rutgers University Press

12-12-09, 12:55 PM	#77
CaptainHaplo Silent Hunter Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 4,404 Downloads: 29 Uploads: 0	OTH - now we are getting somewhere. What exactly about the US "way of life" do you have a problem with? If you can give specifics - without turning it into an attack, I can try to represent why it can - and often (but not always) is a good thing. If you want, we can do it in a PM if you are worried that it might cause a negative reaction from the mods. Your point on radioactive waste is a perfect example of how to present issues. Its not just a US problem - though as the biggest producer we do need to be concerned over the waste that gets put underground. I agree we need to have a better solution. In fact - better solutions are out there. European technological breakthroughs (I forget which European country did it) devised reactors that are much more efficient in their fuel use, and the end "waste" products decays in something like a decade. I read about it in Wired magazine - but don't have a link. It was a couple of years ago I think. Anyway, this style of reactor, though it does put out slightly less energy due to its design, in the end uses like 99.5% of the potential of the fuel - meaning the waste is almost non-existant compared to the reactors in use today. The problem with its adoption in the US is two-fold. One is capitalism - because the design costs about twice as much to build than a "standard" reactor. Since the initial cost is so high, and the return via energy output is lower, the power generation industry is not screaming for it. I will grant that this style also would save them money in the long run on waste disposal. It is also worth noting that the waste, being so drained of energy - is also no longer capable of being enriched into weapons grade, meaning that it removes a big issue in proliferation. The second problem is the environmental lobby in the US. Every nuclear plant proposal is met with an onslaught of environmentalists out to stop it - regardless of how safe and clean it can be. Just as a corporation has the knee jerk reaction to "hoard wealth" - the environmentalists have the knee jerk reaction of "no nukes". The fight becomes too hard to actually build a clean source of energy, so it never happens. Both sides stand in the way of progress. See - I can criticize our system too. Its not perfect - and no - corporations don't just need a free ride to do what they want. There needs to be a level of regulation, just as there needs to be some common sense applied when a clean and safe source of energy is available. __________________ Good Hunting! Captain Haplo

12-12-09, 02:25 PM	#78
OneToughHerring Stowaway Posts: n/a Downloads: Uploads:	CH, what do I have problem with US specifically? I don't think there is any single issue. I think in Europe the UK and possibly Ireland are the closest to the States for obvious reasons, language and culture. The continental Europe is much less connected to the States and could be seen to be more hostile toward the US and things it represents. I don't think it's necessarily a problem of the continental Europe, I think the US is responsible for this state of affairs. My opinions only represent this status quo. Ok I'm moving on the third point on my list, solid waste. Have been looking at several links but can't find definite comparison of the world's top producers of solid waste. According to one link US was the no. 1 until 2004 when China passed it. Or again, if there was a sample of who has been the no. 1 producer of solid waste during the last 10 years it might very well be US. Haven't yet found any definite lists about top producers of liquid waste either but since they are often linked to oil products I wouldn't be surprised if US placed high on that list also. Last edited by OneToughHerring; 12-12-09 at 02:36 PM.

12-12-09, 08:37 PM	#82
AVGWarhawk Lucky Jack Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: In a 1954 Buick. Posts: 28,293 Downloads: 90 Uploads: 0	We do have the dams. Hoover Dam for electricity and water supply. But that even comes at a price to the environment. For this to work there needs to be a culmination of all types of energy to make any sense. __________________ “You're painfully alive in a drugged and dying culture.” ― Richard Yates, Revolutionary Road

12-12-09, 09:10 PM	#84
CaptainHaplo Silent Hunter Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 4,404 Downloads: 29 Uploads: 0	Wind power - in places - is feasible. However it has a number of obstacles here in the states. Some people consider it "unsightly" (I'd rather have electricity than a view personally), the wind doesn't always blow, you have acute standards on how to get the energy onto the grid in a usuable form, etc. I honestly doubt wind is a long range answer - but its foolish not to use it where its appropriate. The reality is - when it comes to nuclear power - we have the technology and ability to make it "walk away" safe - as in you could walk away for a pizza. A perfect example is the chinese HT-10 reactor - a Pebble Bed design. The only problem with that design is the waste, being encase in graphite pebbles, creates more volume for the same amount of waste. However, a rollback of the reproccessing rules (that originated with President Peanut... I mean uh.... Carter) would allow for a drastic reduction in waste. After doing some research, my memory has been refreshed - it is not a new nuclear plant design that provides the increased efficiency, it is the continual reprocessing of the fuel that results in it being used until inert. Basically, old fuel in, new fuel out, in a safe and controlled fashion. The fissionable material (aka the nuke fuel) is seperated from the mass that is no longer usuable for fuel. Without reprocessing, about 95% of the energy in a modern fuel rod is unused when it is "spent". With reprocessing, you can continually strip away the unusable portion and continue to use the fuel source. France for example, uses reprocessing to not only fuel its standard reactors, but also to fuel its MOX style reactors. Combine reprocessing with a reactor that by design is inherently safe, and you have a clean, safe source of energy. And another bonus - the Pebble Bed design can be used to create hydrogen in the vast quantities economies would need to move from petroleum to hydrogen. __________________ Good Hunting! Captain Haplo

12-13-09, 01:16 PM	#90
Catfish Dipped Squirrel Operative Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: ..where the ocean meets the sky Posts: 17,802 Downloads: 38 Uploads: 0	Hello, pollution is not all about CO2 and such. Spent nuclear reactors, that are just being sunk east of Novaja Semlja (and the territory afterwards being leased out to Norway, for fishing) by the evil russians, are counterwise sunk in the Bering strait, by the USA. And then there is Depleted Uranium (DU), a major export article, used in those (in)famous A-10 Thunderbolt "Warthogs". Buried in the ground they only intoxicate is slowly for the next 10000 or so years, while the bullets hitting steel explode into a fine mist, which once getting into the lungs is sure to cause cancer and all kinds of health diseases. After dropping hundreds of tons of cluster bombs in Afghanistan, an US general - after being asked whether he was sure that all those bomblets really exploded - answered that the only damn sure thing was that "they will reach the ground". And don't get me started on land mines. Greetings, Catfish Just found tons on that, e.g.: The US Atomic Energy Commission sunk 15000 pounds of high-radiaoctive material, including plutonium, in the Bering strait within one year. Some reactors that are spent beyond refuelling, are also sunk completely for the impossibilty of scrapping them, regularly. They call it disposal. There's quite some information on the glowing deep ... Poison in the Well: Radioactive Waste in the Oceans at the Dawn of the Nuclear Age by Jacob Darwin Hamblin, Rutgers University Press Last edited by Catfish; 12-13-09 at 04:50 PM.

12-13-09, 10:13 AM	#88
Snestorm Stowaway Posts: n/a Downloads: Uploads:	Is there a domestic (USA) fuel source for these nuclear plants, or does that too have to be imported, thus continueing the exportation of USDs (Dollars)?