posted 07-29-2001 12:21            

I, of course, am shootin' for alternative energy. 'Dubya continues to deny that they work, because all the bigshots in petroleum who got him elected said so. The claim is that the technology is immature and inefficient....obviously, this will be filed in the "WELL, DUH" category, as most alternative energy sources have existed for little more than half a century. The only way they're gonna get better is to put them into use, so they can be further developed.

On the other hand, that's gonna take some time. And because much of the United States' population consists of whiny SUV-driving baby-boomers, everyone wants cheaper petroleum (despite the fact that we already pay the lowest prices on the planet), which would require more drilling of domestic oil.

So...let's hear it!

posted 07-29-2001 16:22            

Jimbo - How much do you know about Chernobyl? Sounds like you are talking out your ass or maybe repeating something you heard Rush say, but I'll give you a chance to back it up before I say any more.

Of course this would assume that someone has knowledge of all the possibe effects of releasing a crapload of radiation into an environment ... any idea how much acreage around the plant will be unliveable for 10,000 years or more?

Find a way to neutralize or safely dispose of the waste (you have plenty to experiment with already) and I will change my mind on nuclear power. Until then solar/wind/geothermal is my pick for the best ideas going.

posted 07-29-2001 19:27            

Folks, this country is currently generating a whopping 71% of its electrical power by burning fossil fuels (see figures here) - and a lot of that is coal. Maybe you're scared of nuclear power because you've read too many uninformed stories about people glowing in the dark - but are you aware that COAL BURNING PLANTS generate more nuclear waste than actual nuclear power plants do?

quote:

---

With regard to wastes from energy systems, Dr. Wilson noted that many experts are of the opinion that nuclear power is the only energy system for which society has any idea of a sensible long-term solution. Coal wastes are not perceived by the public as a major problem, yet these wastes contain radioactive materials with half lives comparable to long-lived nuclear wastes. Furthermore, the volume or weight of wastes from coal production and burning dwarfs that from the nuclear fuel cycle. In the United States, for example, about 800 million tons of coal are mined in the country each year, producing some 120 million tons of ashes and 20 million tons of sulphur compounds when it is burned for electricity generation.

---

(above quote lifted from the International Atomic Energy Agency)

Wanna see something reminiscent of a Phillip Morris "we care about your health" PSA? Check out this article at fossilfuels.org, entitled "Want To Improve Your Nation's Health? Burn Coal." Note that the author says NOTHING about the actual cleanliness - or in this case, lack thereof - of burning fossil fuels for power generation... instead, he knocks down his own straw man by showing that countries which consume more electrical power have higher average lifespans than those which consume less. He SPECIFICALLY fails to examine the case of two countries or regions with similar power use and DIFFERENT environmental standards concerning their power generation...

"But we never knew nicotine was addictive!"

If you're still wondering about the idea of nuclear waste generated (and typically discharged directly into the atmosphere, btw) as a byproduct of burning coal for electrical power, check out these bullets, quoted from this page over at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory:

• Americans living near coal-fired power plants are exposed to higher radiation doses than those living near nuclear power plants that meet government regulations
  
• The population effective dose equivalent from coal plants is 100 times that from nuclear plants
  
• The energy content of nuclear fuel released in coal combustion is greater than that of the coal consumed
  
• The amount of uranium-235 alone dispersed by coal combustion is the equivalent of dozens of nuclear reactor fuel loadings
  
• The amount of thorium (another highly radioactive element) contained in coal is about 2.5 times greater than the amount of uranium

The nice folks over at Oak Ridge have a VERY detailed and informative page fleshing out the concepts outlined in those bullets, so if you are really interested in the subject by all means head on over and take a look.

-----------------------

I'd also like to point out - again - that burning coal not only produces the sulfites that cause acid rain, but it produces greater quantities of toxic radioactive waste PER KILOWATT OF POWER GENERATED than actually running a nuclear power plant does - and that waste is FAR less closely managed, because the vast majority of the greenfreaks doesn't even realize that coal-burning DOES produce radioactive waste.

It's absolutely RETARDED to target nuclear fission - which generates less than 20% of our electrical power - when a far, FAR nastier method of power generation is currently generating SEVENTY percent of the nation's power.

posted 07-29-2001 19:33            

quote:

---

Originally posted by LonMabonJovi:
Jimbo - Sounds like you are ... maybe repeating something you heard Rush say

---

posted 07-30-2001 02:41            

They also let me help make the replacement for Hanford's rock on a string test equipment you may have heard about. My uncle, who is a QA engineer up there was pissed off when I spoke to him about it... apparently he was supposed to be checking measurements along with the six other numbnuts in white coats staring at a machined stainless box with two pulleys and stainless cable out on our shop floor. Color me impressed.

Of course, being in the military I was privy to stories about nuclear subs changing reactor water at sea and advising ships to clear of the hot spots. Made me feel warm and fuzzy inside.

Maybe your experience with the nuclear power industry has been positive, but I honestly believe your faith is misplaced.

Personally I love hydro. Hell if we just line dams up down the Columbia we could use some of the extra electricity to transport the salmon directly to their spawning grounds. Who knows, if they didn't have to exert all that energy getting upstream maybe they could get a little more enjoyment out of spawning.

put your hands away

posted 07-30-2001 02:56            

...and yet we're in an energy crisis....

Right.

And what do they do with these abandoned small town power companies? Nothing. They ignore them until the dam starts to crack and then launch big "restoration" fund raisers in order to keep their man-made lake.

Of course, to be fair we've also shut down one or two Nuclear plants.

Looks like Natural Gas and coal for Wisconsin right now... Wind isn't enough.

posted 07-30-2001 15:55            

quote:

---

Originally posted by LonMabonJovi:
Of course, being in the military I was privy to stories about nuclear subs changing reactor water at sea and advising ships to clear of the hot spots. Made me feel warm and fuzzy inside.

---

Dude, what branch were you in? I was a Navy Nuke - that's where I got to play with the rods, I got the hell out of the field when I got out of the military (too damn boring, all you do is sit around like a fucking lump and watch gauges). Anyway, I NEVER - repeat, NEVER - heard jack shit about primary coolant discharge to sea... intentional or otherwise. And I was IN the program. Primary coolant discharge is done STRICTLY to tenders.

If you look at this page - an unapologetically anti-nuke page - you'll note no Naval nuclear-related incidents since 1978.

(It's also worth noting that a lot of the "incidents" he mentions aren't really nuclear-related at all - the Thresher imploded due to a hull failure at test depth (but did not lose reactor compartment security), the "explosions" on the Enterprise were fuel-oil explosions and were neither caused by nor caused any nuclear problems; same goes for the maintenance fuckup that sank the USS Guitarro in '69.)

Discharging secondary coolant, sure - but that stuff's not radioactive in the slightest. That's why there IS a primary loop and a secondary loop; to isolate the radioactivity away from the steam side.

quote:

---

Maybe your experience with the nuclear power industry has been positive, but I honestly believe your faith is misplaced.

---

Actually my only DIRECT experience was with the Navy, and I hate the fucking Navy's guts with a flaming passion - but that doesn't change the fact that I STILL think it's the least environmentally harmful mass-scale power generation technology we have today.

What we REALLY need is fusion, though - fission plants are just a tide-me-over until somebody finally perfects magnetic bottle technology so we can operate fusion plants that produce nothing but nice, clean helium as a byproduct. Mmmmm. Couple that with hydrogen-powered cars, and we're all set.

edited because I made like Corky with a link.

posted 07-30-2001 16:52            

So the clear choice seems to me to be developing a way of converting sunlight to energy that is more efficient than the process of growing trees and burning the woodchips (as is done in parts of europe), which I can't imagine is all that efficient. Then clear some forests and use the space for this technology, whatever it is. Right?
(I'm only about 30% serious here, mind you.)

It occurred to me the other day- all this talk about global warming... imagine the earth sitting around soaking up the suns energy for a few million years, slowly converting it into coal and oil and gas, and then suddenly, in the space of, say, 150 years we release (burn) damn near all of that energy, isn't it kind of obvious that the earth's temperature will go up, carbon dioxide or no?

posted 07-30-2001 21:55            

I can remember just a few short months ago, the moron-types were just sooo sure that Bush intended to do nothing about the 'energy crisis', and that by doing nothing, he would ensure that the Petroleum companies would continue to charge outrageously high prices... since OF COURSE, Bush was totally in thier pocket... owned, so to speak.

"Prices will fall naturally. In the meantime, conserve, you fuckin' dolts. You, with the 12mpg SUV, shut your fugga piehole."

This was the gist of his message, and it fell on deaf ears.

Now, after several months have passed, I can see prices on 93 octane gas that put the 87 octane prices of old to shame. In fact, locally, prices now are lower than they were last year this time.

Which of the proletariat demanded socialist price controls is responsible for this miraculous drop in gasoline prices? Why, none of course.

Could it be that having a bona fide business man in the White House is turning out to be a good thing? Naw.

"But Al Gore actually won the election." you say. Well, no, he didn't. Several independent counts have confirmed that Bush carried Florida all proper like.

"But Al won the popular vote!" you say. Well... So what? That's not how the system works, and the system has served America pretty well.

"But Al Gore invented the fugga internet!" you say. "And pants! And Star Wars! And he's married to Tipper Gore!" Sigh. You, sir, are a Darwin Award waiting to happen.

posted 07-30-2001 22:33            

It was originally fitted with an ASROC up forward, but when I got there in 1988 she was up on drydock at NASSCO getting fitted with a VLS and Phalanx systems. We got a spiffy plaque for the mess decks when we test fired the first vertically launched ASROC.

The source of the reactor water stories was a RM buddy, the time period he was referring to was probably mid to late 70's, and who knows he could have been completely full of shit. Maybe I am too.

I don't know about you guys, but on our boat we had a Bilge Fairy. Sometimes late at night in port it would come and magically clean the bilges before an inspection.

But the wierdest thing of all, our ships motto was 'Be just and fear not' which if you think back was also painted on a board on the gates around Frankfurter castle.

Never Again Volunteer Yourself

posted 07-31-2001 12:51            

quote:

---

Originally posted by zippy:
gonads and strife
gonads and strife
gonads and strife....

sorry, i get carried away sometimes.

---

Hey, it made me laugh.