Comments 1 - 13 of 13 Search these comments
justme
2014 Sep 17, 1:57am
It's Obama's Fault (TM).
No, actually it is the fault of brain-dead soccer-moms with zero analytic capability. They are the voting block that prevents proper and sustainable nuclear energy. Once the lights start going out, though, they will change their minds. Much too late.
HydroCabron
2014 Sep 17, 2:00am
We should be doing both solar and nuclear.
Unfortunately, nuclear waste disposal is stalled by opposition in any proposed area, with the possible exception of north Texas, where they're actively welcoming it. Yucca Mountain seems to be dead - Nevadans are idiots.
WIPP (Waste Isolation Pilot Project) in New Mexico is stalled due to a minor leak they can't (or won't) explain.
I would avoid referring to Russia as an example of any sort of nuclear power technology, FWIW.
Store all the waste in Nantucket, or Napa Valley, is my suggestion.
For some reason, a lot of people on the right are now hysterically anti-nuclear, which means they have adopted one of the worst habits of knee-jerk leftists.
Sigh.
FortWayne
2014 Sep 17, 2:08am
Unfortunately, nuclear waste disposal is stalled by opposition in any proposed area, with the possible exception of north Texas, where they're actively welcoming it. Yucca Mountain seems to be dead - Nevadans are idiots.
In that article they have nuclear "supposedly" without nuclear waste. It's something that impresses me a lot, provided that article is accurate.
HydroCabron
2014 Sep 17, 2:20am
provided that article is accurate
The source is RT, which is all over the place as to veracity.
Grain o' salt.
Peter P
2014 Sep 17, 2:23am
I prefer the good old oil. They call it black gold for a reason.
Otherwise, nuculur sounds good too.
MisdemeanorRebel
2014 Sep 17, 2:29am
It's the BN-800, a 4th Gen Nuclear plant, where they can use uranium-plutonium weapons-grade material or old reactors in the core. It'll also greatly reduce this material from thousands of years of radioactivity to centuries.
justme
2014 Sep 17, 2:38am
proper and sustainable nuclear energy
I think I need to clarify this statement. By "proper and sustainable nuclear energy" I mean reactors, such as the Russian reactors mentioned in the linked article, which run on the nuclear waste from traditional reactors.
The russians know this, the french know this, the germans failed to know this and the US collectively failed to know this.
Peter P
2014 Sep 17, 2:58am
Sustainability is overrated. History has the uncanny ability to course correct. Things will turn out just fine. Why promote stagnancy?
MisdemeanorRebel
2014 Sep 17, 3:43am
Sustainability is overrated. History has the uncanny ability to course correct. Things will turn out just fine. Why promote stagnancy?
Ask Easter Islanders.
We'll chop down the last tree if that's what it takes to be the first clan to get the first spring egg of the Sooty Turn!
They never did find a replacement for trees...
justme
2014 Sep 17, 3:45am
Sustainability is overrated. History has the uncanny ability to course correct. Things will turn out just fine. Why promote stagnancy?
Are you willing to go first?
Peter P
2014 Sep 17, 3:47am
Ask Easter Islanders.
But the world is bigger than Easter Island. This is why we need a diversity of cultures. People want different things. Such dialectical forces will form a path.
Moreover, Easter Island turns out just fine. It is now a tourist attraction.
Peter P
2014 Sep 17, 3:48am
Sustainability is overrated. History has the uncanny ability to course correct. Things will turn out just fine. Why promote stagnancy?
Are you willing to go first?
Go where?
I prefer alternative ecologies like cruise ships. Good food. Great people.
In that article they have nuclear "supposedly" without nuclear waste. It's something that impresses me a lot, provided that article is accurate.
It's not very accurate. They're still left over with a radioactive mess of various isotopes, but they're nowhere near as toxic or long lived as spent uranium or plutonium. The waste from breeder reactors needs to be buried for a century or so, then it's safe to handle like any other toxic waste that's not radioactive.
LFTR's (Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors) are another technology which can "burn" waste from existing fission plants and reprocess it into less toxic materials.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor#Waste_reduction
http://rt.com/news/188332-mox-nuclear-fuel-production/
Saw this article today about how Russia is producing nuclear energy without nuclear waste. Seems very impressive, however, how does it stand up to Obama's solar initiative or our dated oil burning system?
Are we simply going in a wrong direction, and picked an inferior energy source? What do you folks think?
#politics