US to build new nuke power plants...

[Mike70]

with billions of dollars in guaranteed loans from the US govt.:rockbrow:

if this is obama's genius plan to "meet our future energy needs" then we are all in a world of shit. he also claims they will be safe and clean. the safe part i will buy but clean? no. the byproducts of fission are anything but clean.

creating more fission power plants that are going to generate literally tons of radioactive waste, much of which will be dangerous as all hell for several thousand years, is just not a good idea.

take those billions and put them into research on future energy sources that don't create pollutants and waste products in such large measures as fission power does. solar, wind, waves, fusion. those are future energy sources worth pursuing at full gallop.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8518670.stm

[bassman]

Two new plants are to be constructed in the state of Georgia by US electricity firm Southern Company.

Shit.:|


Oh well....potential business...

[darth los]

if this is obama's genius plan to "meet our future energy needs" then we are all in a world of shit. he also claims they will be safe and clean. the safe part i will buy but clean? no. the byproducts of fission are anything but clean.

creating more fission power plants that are going to generate literally tons of radioactive waste, much of which will be dangerous as all hell for several thousand years, is just not a good idea.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8518670.stm


Dude, and that's not even taking into account the terror threat that they would be if a a jihadist wanted to blow one of them up.

Why would they need black market nukes when they're alraedy out in the open.

:cool:

[blind2d]

Aww man! And hear I thought Obama was a liberal! Silly me... I'd still vote for him, though.
anyhow, yes, nukes are not the way to go. Wind, solar, fusion... all these things are waaaay better. So... I don't know... try to stop this from happening somehow?

[darth los]

Aww man! And hear I thought Obama was a liberal! Silly me... I'd still vote for him, though.
anyhow, yes, nukes are not the way to go. Wind, solar, fusion... all these things are waaaay better. So... I don't know... try to stop this from happening somehow?

We are powerless to stop our gov't from doing anything. Once people wake up and realize that, it's the first step...

:cool:

[Danny]

sounds like m'a'fakke's needs some thorium up in that bitch: http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf62.html

[darth los]

Reading stuff like that makes my head hurt.

Can i get an interpretation please? :lol:

:cool:

[Danny]

Reading stuff like that makes my head hurt.

Can i get an interpretation please? :lol:

:cool:

the basic stuff ive been told about thorium is, roughly from memory (and not completely certain so dont quote me on all this) is:

much smaller reactor and 'radiation area', from the size of 3 mile island to a normal semi detached house.
thorium is way less toxic than uranium, can be put in your pocket in its raw form and not kill you like uranium.
much cheaper to dispose of than uranium.
does not need 100+ years under the ground to be "safe" like uranium.
cannot be used in weapons development like uranium.
uranium reactors can cost $100,000 a year to run, a thorium reactor costs $10,000.
a throium reactor could small, very small in comparison to a uranium reactor.

Basically you could have something the size of the small local power building supplying power to the same size area as the current giant uranium powered nuclear plants we have today. Its so cheap that chinas making any and all thorium veins found in mines be put aside for the goverment there.
So far the biggest problem with thorium is the casing for the actual process, given the energy given off by a smaller amount needed it burns through the actual "furnace" so to speak far to fast in terms of what we currently use in uanium reactors so right now people are working on a stronger alloy or something to hold for longer.

im recalling this form hearing about it a month ago so expect me to be corrected a lot,the gist of it is the same as alternatives to petrol, its so cheap that all the big buisness with money in the current source we rely will lobby it into the ground before we have a cleaner cheaper way to live.

One fact i know for sure is that thorium isnt a new idea as a fuel, it was rejected over uranium because you could use the end product as weapons grade fuel which was a big "leg up" in the mid to early 20th century.

[darth los]

And that's what stood out to me, that it can't be weaponozed. Interesting how no one is really interested in it if that's the case, huh?

Leave it to humans to weaponize whatever they can.

Some egghead could come up with a pen that never runs out of ink and the Pentagon would be at his door the next day. :rolleyes:

:cool:

[Mike70]

the basic stuff ive been told about thorium is, roughly from memory (and not completely certain so dont quote me on all this) is:

much smaller reactor and 'radiation area', from the size of 3 mile island to a normal semi detached house.
thorium is way less toxic than uranium, can be put in your pocket in its raw form and not kill you like uranium.
much cheaper to dispose of than uranium.
does not need 100+ years under the ground to be "safe" like uranium.
cannot be used in weapons development like uranium.
uranium reactors can cost $100,000 a year to run, a thorium reactor costs $10,000.
a throium reactor could small, very small in comparison to a uranium reactor.

Basically you could have something the size of the small local power building supplying power to the same size area as the current giant uranium powered nuclear plants we have today. Its so cheap that chinas making any and all thorium veins found in mines be put aside for the goverment there.
So far the biggest problem with thorium is the casing for the actual process, given the energy given off by a smaller amount needed it burns through the actual "furnace" so to speak far to fast in terms of what we currently use in uanium reactors so right now people are working on a stronger alloy or something to hold for longer.

im recalling this form hearing about it a month ago so expect me to be corrected a lot,the gist of it is the same as alternatives to petrol, its so cheap that all the big buisness with money in the current source we rely will lobby it into the ground before we have a cleaner cheaper way to live.

One fact i know for sure is that thorium isnt a new idea as a fuel, it was rejected over uranium because you could use the end product as weapons grade fuel which was a big "leg up" in the mid to early 20th century.

that is it in a nutshell. the reason thorium is cheaper to run is because thorium is a far, far more common (about 5 times so) element than uranium. thorium itself isn't fissile. it has to be converted (through neutron absorbtion) to uranium-233, which is fissile. still, it is cheaper and cleaner to run a reactor on thorium.

[DubiousComforts]

if this is obama's genius plan to "meet our future energy needs" then we are all in a world of shit.
This has been in the works long before Obama was even in the running.

[Mike70]

This has been in the works long before Obama was even in the running.

the energy policy act of 2005. still doesn't change the fact that this is now being presented as an official policy of the obama admin.

[darth los]

the energy policy act of 2005. still doesn't change the fact that this is now being presented as an official policy of the obama admin.

And they say Obama needs to stop blaming Bush for things. :rolleyes:

:cool:

[DubiousComforts]

the energy policy act of 2005. still doesn't change the fact that this is now being presented as an official policy of the obama admin.
Right, so what do you propose that Obama do? The industry has been bidding jobs and contracts for the last couple of years (I know this from working in manufacturing). Should they try to block the construction of these plants even though it means new jobs?

Jesus Christ -- think, man!

[SRP76]

Right, so what do you propose that Obama do? The industry has been bidding jobs and contracts for the last couple of years (I know this from working in manufacturing). Should they try to block the construction of these plants even though it means new jobs?

Jesus Christ -- think, man!

Building some of the previously-mentioned types of plants instead would create jobs, too. It's not like only nuclear plants require manpower to construct and then operate and maintain.

[Kaos]

Third generation plants would be a lot cleaner, but these would be second gen plants.

[Exatreides]

Nuke plants are a fortress. They are some of the most heavily defended places in the United States. My step dads an electrician that worked in one a few years back. Insane amount of security, background checks, safety redundancy ect.

If it's one thing I'm completely confident is this country's grasp on its Nuke plants.

Solar and Wind isn't always viable in some parts of the country. Thats a fact, while I'd hate to see more nuke waste...I'd much rather see less power in the oil lobby and less of my fellow troops sent to fight oil wars.

[Eyebiter]

What they don't tell you is the world is looking at a near future uranium shortage.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601081&sid=a7ro7rXqYCB0