Extreme Nuclear Makeover

☭proletarian☭;2030367 said:
☭proletarian☭;2030353 said:
Don't bother, Z-B.

This country will never use anything but oil because the oil companies own this country.

Besides---no one wants one in their back yard.


Out west, we've huge expanses of dirt where nobody will give a fuck.

Modern nuclear plants, properly regulated and with safety regulations strictly enforced, are safe. Sure, there's always a risk, but drastic improvements have been made since 3 Mile Island.


There are only two snags: Making sure we have enough American sources of nuclear fuel and killing Republicans who keep putting CEOs and VPs of oil companies into political office.

The only problem is mis-informed fools such as you.

The Democrats are as connected to big oil just the same as Republicans.

Nothing wrong with big oil anyhow, it gave you life, it gave you your computer you pontificate with.

Wake up fool, and if your not a fool people need to see you as the problem, pretending its only one political party that is the problem.

[quoteUntil the efficiency of solar and wind, not to mention the efficiency of batteries, can improve. Nuclear is the best alternative. Especially if the research from TerraPower proves as successful as theoretical yields and bench studies][/quote]

Wind is as efficient as it will ever be, poor, weak, and dirty power, unreliable at best.

Solar uses to much water, is weak, and is extemely polluting.

Wind Turbines are extremely polluting.

Both sources rely on oil, without oil no wind or solar energy, best not to waste resources on garbage.

BTW, the big nuclear fuel producer is Exxon. You provide a way for an oil company to make money from energy, they are SO THERE.

So what, you dont think people should make money, talk about sour grapes and ignorance. You think politicians are not making themselves rich, you dont think the environuts and not making millions through lawsuits that are killing this country.

Thank god for the Oil Companies, no other corporation nor industry has done as much good for all of the world than oil.

Oil is life
 
Big oil gave me life?

And here I thought that was my parents and the nurse who removes the umbilical cord from around my neck.

You keep claiming that everything but oil is 'extremely polluting', yet you're attacking others as uninformed?
 
☭proletarian☭;2102751 said:
Big oil gave me life?

And here I thought that was my parents and the nurse who removes the umbilical cord from around my neck.

You keep claiming that everything but oil is 'extremely polluting', yet you're attacking others as uninformed?

Ah, you poor baby, you feel attacked, your not misinformed, its not the nurse who delivers you, its the doctor, last time I checked everything in the hospital is the result of oil right down to the stainless steel scissors used to cut the umbilical cord. Of course maybe oil is not involved in your life at all, but thats not true is it, cant have computers without oil so maybe its time for you to become informed.

Unfortunately there is no waking the fools.
 
its not the nurse who delivers you, its the doctor

The doctor didn't arrive on time ;)

last time I checked everything in the hospital is the result of oil right down to the stainless steel scissors used to cut the umbilical cord

pssst.... steel's not a petroleum product:eusa_shhh:
 
☭proletarian☭;2110339 said:
its not the nurse who delivers you, its the doctor

The doctor didn't arrive on time ;)

last time I checked everything in the hospital is the result of oil right down to the stainless steel scissors used to cut the umbilical cord

pssst.... steel's not a petroleum product:eusa_shhh:

Sure, I believe you, psst, you cannot make steel without petroleum.

Are you really that ignorant, seriously, how did your mother get to the hospital, she walked? No car, even if she walked did she wear shoes, no petroleum in shoes, okay she was barefoot, she did not walk on a street that was paved, it was cement, cement does not take energy to make, trucks dont deliver cement, gee, where do you live, in your imagination.
 
you cannot make steel without petroleum.

How did samurais make their swords? :eusa_shhh:

(they were made of steel)

You can make shoes without petroleum- they did for a long time.

All we really need petroleum for is plastics, and only until alternatives become viable.
 
☭proletarian☭;2110503 said:
you cannot make steel without petroleum.

How did samurais make their swords? :eusa_shhh:

(they were made of steel)

You can make shoes without petroleum- they did for a long time.

All we really need petroleum for is plastics, and only until alternatives become viable.

You were born in Japan 500 years ago.

Your mother wore shoes made a long time ago, before the discovery of oil.
 
Nuclear is hardly the best alternative. What do we do with all the radioactive waste? Oh! Put it in concrete boxes burried deep in the desert. Oh, whats that?! Your drinking water is radioative? No way! The waste is in the desert! Could it really have gotten all the way back to civilization!?! YES!
 
Nuclear is hardly the best alternative. What do we do with all the radioactive waste? Oh! Put it in concrete boxes burried deep in the desert. Oh, whats that?! Your drinking water is radioative? No way! The waste is in the desert! Could it really have gotten all the way back to civilization!?! YES!

Recycle the waste in breeder reactors.

Let it set at the site of the nuclear power plant where it is harmless.

What do you plan to do with the waste from creating Solar, Wind, and Geothermal energy. Given it takes millions of tons more of our natural resources to create a far weaker for of energy the waste is astronomical, as of today that waste is polluting ground water, soil, and the air we breath, why are you not addressing this deadly issue.
 
Nuclear is hardly the best alternative. What do we do with all the radioactive waste? Oh! Put it in concrete boxes burried deep in the desert. Oh, whats that?! Your drinking water is radioative? No way! The waste is in the desert! Could it really have gotten all the way back to civilization!?! YES!

Recycle the waste in breeder reactors.

Let it set at the site of the nuclear power plant where it is harmless.

What do you plan to do with the waste from creating Solar, Wind, and Geothermal energy. Given it takes millions of tons more of our natural resources to create a far weaker for of energy the waste is astronomical, as of today that waste is polluting ground water, soil, and the air we breath, why are you not addressing this deadly issue.

Hey dummy, why don't you have a look at how harmless the waste is at Hanford.

Wash. cleanup gets bulk of stimulus funds.(News)(Hanford Nuclear Reservation recieves funds to control radioactive wastes)(Brief article) - Waste & Recycling News | Encyclopedia.com
 
Nuclear is hardly the best alternative. What do we do with all the radioactive waste? Oh! Put it in concrete boxes burried deep in the desert. Oh, whats that?! Your drinking water is radioative? No way! The waste is in the desert! Could it really have gotten all the way back to civilization!?! YES!

Recycle the waste in breeder reactors.

Let it set at the site of the nuclear power plant where it is harmless.

What do you plan to do with the waste from creating Solar, Wind, and Geothermal energy. Given it takes millions of tons more of our natural resources to create a far weaker for of energy the waste is astronomical, as of today that waste is polluting ground water, soil, and the air we breath, why are you not addressing this deadly issue.

Hey dummy, why don't you have a look at how harmless the waste is at Hanford.

Wash. cleanup gets bulk of stimulus funds.(News)(Hanford Nuclear Reservation recieves funds to control radioactive wastes)(Brief article) - Waste & Recycling News | Encyclopedia.com

Hey Old Crock, still cant think on your own, boy that cut/paste took you three days, Old Crock must be tired.

Old Crock, Hanford is not a Commercail Nuclear Reactor, in this thread we are discussing commercial nuclear reactors, you may have a good point so why not put something in your own words using intellect and start a new thread, I am a bit tired following your links and than having Old Crock fail to respond to Old Crocks sources when the source Old Crock provided proves Old Crock is wrong. Hanford is not producing electricity for consumer use, Hanford is not a commercial nuclear reactor, Hanford is irrelevant to the discussion.

Old Crock, I know with advanced age you suffer Dementia but please try and stay on subject within the threads.
 
Last edited:
I am not a nuclear scientist but from what I have been seeing on the news the problem at the reactor is that because the pumps are not working the pools of water are drying up. Why don't they build these reactors below see level with a pipe or channel leading out to the ocean and in the event of a emergency like this simply open values a flood reactor with water preventing a melt down. Can anyone tell me why this would not work?
 
First, you would want to avoid sea water if possible. Second, why not build an elevated fresh water reservoir or tank that can gravity feed the pool as a back up. Easy fix.

We need to look at the developments in reprocessing fuel rods, even on site, to both deal with the stock pile and safety. Building below or at sea level is part of the problem. Flooding is a problem. When St.Helen's blew in 1981, the Trojan Nuclear Power Plant was put at risk, from the Columbia River flooding.
 

Forum List

Back
Top