Total cost of nuclear

[Speaker]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4spUp_LzEPM&safety_mode=true&persist_safety_mode=1&safe=active]Fukushima - Total Cost - YouTube[/ame]

watch and take in what is being told here. Forget the presumptions you think now, if everyone in America knows about the real cost of nuclear power, then we have a chance to get rid of it.


The man on right is Arnold Gunderson who was the chief executive for the Nuclear energy board, obviously this guy knows what he is talking about, because he used to be the head of Nuclear power. After retiring from his post, Arnie started to tell people the costs of nuclear power. In this video, he will talk about how maybe this way of getting energy is not the best. "Arnie" has no reason to spread fear into Americans, nor is he getting money for publicizing the truth about Nuclear power. Simply, he is speaking the truth, and it's probably in our best interest to listen.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The local nuclear plant provides fully 25% of the power for Westchester County, losing it would be catastrophic. There'd be no street lights, no refrigerators, no heat in winter or AC in summer, in short, it's the kind of life Progressives have in store for America

 

[flacaltenn]

Fukushima - Total Cost - YouTube

watch and take in what is being told here. Forget the presumptions you think now, if everyone in America knows about the real cost of nuclear power, then we have a chance to get rid of it.


The man on right is Arnold Gunderson who was the chief executive for the Nuclear energy board, obviously this guy knows what he is talking about, because he used to be the head of Nuclear power. After retiring from his post, Arnie started to tell people the costs of nuclear power. In this video, he will talk about how maybe this way of getting energy is not the best. "Arnie" has no reason to spread fear into Americans, nor is he getting money for publicizing the truth about Nuclear power. Simply, he is speaking the truth, and it's probably in our best interest to listen.

THis is a complete turd... First off -- "Arnie" is NOT the former head of Nuclear Power. That's a premise that used to validate the importance of his rants. Best I can tell, he's a washed up math teacher (who has problems with fictious big numbers) who used to work in the nuclear industry..

Second off -- calculating a cost of million dollars for anyone exposed to a single atom of exposure to Fukushima is a fantasy. Nuclear medicine saved my life last year. I VOLUNTARILY exposed myself to radiation 10 times greater than the exposure of most folks to the Fukushima explosions. Where's MY million dollars???

Don't know why you're impressed by radicalized shamans.. Thankfully, your gullibility is rare. Truth is - commercial nuclear power is safe, economical, and enviromentally sound compared to the alternatives that can provide 24/7 power with such a tiny waste stream. ESPECIALLY when one realizes that ANY toxic waste stream has to be handled and accounted for as though it has a half-life of a millenium. That goes for the millions of TONS of toxics in battery waste that the "green econauts" are unleashing for electric vehicles.

Don't waste my time with "Arnie"...

 

[bobgnote]

The "costs" of nuclear nuisance are inestimable.

With chimpy petroleum-people controlling agendas, so it gets pronounced: ooh, ooh, "nukuler," we are supposed to pray, the costly instant debacle of nuclear energy will get from construction, all the way to chill of waste, 10,000 years away, without a problem. Even on Planet of the Apes nuclear power is bound to be a problem! They chimpy up there!

As we have seen, this does not happen, for even 1000 of those years, yet. We have 31 reactors, like those at Fukushima, where the electricity can get taken out, and if the pumps fail, for any reason, we have a meltdown.

Make a mistake with uranium, somebody dies, painfully, some area must be completely avoided, for a long time, or some kid gets born, without a skull or a face or hands or arms or legs. Major chromosome damage happens, from any nuclear accident or shoot-'em-up, with depleted uranium ammo, which the US uses, a lot.

People who want to argue for nuclear power are blocking CO2-neutral biomass media, such as hemp and switchgrass, since petroleum and nuclear special interests own US media, all the way to Al Gore and any skeptic he talks to, without solving re-greening, by biomass research advocacy and by support for genetically engineered plants.

We have to address carbonic acidification, anyway, with re-greening. So we might as well get to that, rather than burden ourselves with costly problems, always about to escalate, to China-syndrome disasters. Stupid is, as stupid does.

 

[flacaltenn]

bobGnote:

Off topic -- but what the heck -- You say you like burning hemp and switchgrass for power.. You calll this "biomass" -- Question --

If we can burn hemp cleanly for power generation -- why in the world is that different then burning coal cleanly? Or do you just want to move closer to the 1st Hemp burner they build in your neighborhood for the fumes?

This ought to be good..

 

[bobgnote]

bobGnote:

Off topic -- but what the heck -- You say you like burning hemp and switchgrass for power.. You calll this "biomass" -- Question --

If we can burn hemp cleanly for power generation -- why in the world is that different then burning coal cleanly? Or do you just want to move closer to the 1st Hemp burner they build in your neighborhood for the fumes?

This ought to be good..

'CO2-neutral' means no net release of CO2 issues, from growing plant media, then burning it. Hemp can also be used to manufacture food and durable products, but no.

Hemp seed-oil is the most nutritious food oil. When the oceanic food chain collapses from carbonic acid poisoning in the CO2 exchange, we grow hemp, or we may go hungry, as well as less likely to run internal combustion engines.

Too many fuck-tards and pigs are in the way, of either legalizing hemp or growing switchgrass, including prison, war, petro, and nuke anti-industries, which are actually special-interest cartels.

Would you believe 'CO2-neutral biomass' is not self-explanatory, to all kinda fuck-tards?

Yep. I reckon so. This better be good, fuck-tard. 'Self-explanatory' is the best I can do. And then there is the added cleanliness, without sulfur or complex hydrocarbons, from chromosome-breaking petroleum.

Nuclear power is clean, until you add up the risk from fuck-tards playing with it, for the 10,000 years it takes, to chill the waste, and on the way, fuck-tards playing with it always forget to design a decent cooling system, which works in all emergency scenarios, since fuck-tards just need the money, and making nuclear plants and calling it 'nukuler' is like stealing and killing, both! In fact, it will work out to both, eventually.

 

[flacaltenn]

Less "fuck-tard" -- more reality would have been less entertaining.. You did swell..

Please continue to be an air-head and ignore reality.... Blame all the war, oil, Republican, drug warriors you want to..

IN FACT --- PLEASE BLAME THE SIERRA CLUB..

Massachusetts Chapter Sierra Club

Impacts of Biomass Energy include:

Large scale biomass used primarily for electricity generation is extremely inefficient and emits 1.5 times as much CO2 than a coal-fired power plant.

Claims of “carbon neutrality” for biomass do not account for externalities and full lifecycle accounting of carbon, including harvesting processing and transportation of fuels. Truckloads of biomass fuel would need to be transported on regional roads, adding to diesel particulate pollution and additional fuel use.

Large scale biomass calls for the harvesting of millions of trees on tens of thousands of acres - some of it on state forest lands. Multiple facilities proposed in MA all claim competing areas for harvesting fuel at a rate that is not sustainable.

Biomass consumes and removes organic forest material, including that which would normally remain behind and contribute to the forests ongoing ability to sequester carbon.

Burning biomass can release carcinogenic substances and particulates in our air water.

Biomass facilities evaporate and/or otherwise use massive volumes of water to operate and can impact rivers, streams, and water supplies.

Conclusion

The Sierra Club has significant concerns over the production of energy from biomass, including the net emissions of CO2 and airborne toxins, the inefficiency of biomass energy production, impact on ecosystems and public health, and assumptions made regarding “carbon neutrality” of such operations.

Don't tell me that HEMP solves all the problems of biomass conversion.. You HAVE NO ALTERNATIVE.. But hey -- don't wake up -- don't smell the coffee, keep on tok'king bro or sis..............

 

[RGR]

Don't tell me that HEMP solves all the problems of biomass conversion.. You HAVE NO ALTERNATIVE.. But hey -- don't wake up -- don't smell the coffee, keep on tok'king bro or sis..............

But...but...the potheads want their WEED!!!! Give them WEED or give them death! Dopers unite, weed for everyone! Some of this gang have shown up at peak oil sites, advocating the same sort of nonsense, no wonder it sounds so familiar, except even the peakers (themselves pretty retarded) spot the stoners a mile away.

 

[flacaltenn]

Don't tell me that HEMP solves all the problems of biomass conversion.. You HAVE NO ALTERNATIVE.. But hey -- don't wake up -- don't smell the coffee, keep on tok'king bro or sis..............

But...but...the potheads want their WEED!!!! Give them WEED or give them death! Dopers unite, weed for everyone! Some of this gang have shown up at peak oil sites, advocating the same sort of nonsense, no wonder it sounds so familiar, except even the peakers (themselves pretty retarded) spot the stoners a mile away.

Since we're already burning food for ethanol, it seems natural we'd just REPLACE our food producing land with Billions of acre of hemp.. Until we find out that there's a massive Doritos shortage at the next 4:20 club meeting..

 

[RGR]

Since we're already burning food for ethanol, it seems natural we'd just REPLACE our food producing land with Billions of acre of hemp.. Until we find out that there's a massive Doritos shortage at the next 4:20 club meeting..

You will find no complaint from me, replacing one type of biomass based fuel with another. However, as the sudden and massive outbreak of glaucoma, weird and unsubstantiated pain, and other diagnosis exploding when legalized weed shows up, you can understand that such coincidences happening, is a bit suspicious.

Advocates use a perfectly reasonable use for weed, say, helping out with various "pain", and suddenly "pain" is being diagnosed in 1 in 10 otherwise healthy adults. Goodness knows what they will dream up to get the stuff into every school or work place, but getting it grown all over the country as "fuel" would certainly seem to fit right in with how prior distractions have worked out.

 

[tjvh]

Don't tell me that HEMP solves all the problems of biomass conversion.. You HAVE NO ALTERNATIVE.. But hey -- don't wake up -- don't smell the coffee, keep on tok'king bro or sis..............

But...but...the potheads want their WEED!!!! Give them WEED or give them death! Dopers unite, weed for everyone! Some of this gang have shown up at peak oil sites, advocating the same sort of nonsense, no wonder it sounds so familiar, except even the peakers (themselves pretty retarded) spot the stoners a mile away.

Since we're already burning food for ethanol, it seems natural we'd just REPLACE our food producing land with Billions of acre of hemp.. Until we find out that there's a massive Doritos shortage at the next 4:20 club meeting..

Yeah, I guess these people like what Ethanol has done to food prices? I don't. They'll keep ranting "Environment this", and "Environment that" when they are dying of starvation.

 

[flacaltenn]

But...but...the potheads want their WEED!!!! Give them WEED or give them death! Dopers unite, weed for everyone! Some of this gang have shown up at peak oil sites, advocating the same sort of nonsense, no wonder it sounds so familiar, except even the peakers (themselves pretty retarded) spot the stoners a mile away.

Since we're already burning food for ethanol, it seems natural we'd just REPLACE our food producing land with Billions of acre of hemp.. Until we find out that there's a massive Doritos shortage at the next 4:20 club meeting..

Yeah, I guess these people like what Ethanol has done to food prices? I don't. They'll keep ranting "Environment this", and "Environment that" when they are dying of starvation.

Dam -- you reminded me that I left that out of the list of truly failed environmental mandates. The total failure of ethanol is not obvious today (except to Al Gore, who helped invent ethanol) -- but it's right around the corner. Right after the right people are paid off...

 

[Speaker]

first of all, when nuclear production started after WWII, it was said that each nuclear facility had a life for about forty years, and its waist was only temporarily going to be in the pond right next to the reactors. SInce then, both of these things have not happened, right as we speak we have an association of eight people who are pro industry, saying that these reactors can go on for another ten more years. How is this possible? Nuclear power is not safe to begin with, but when greedy people come into play, by not paying for things to keep these things safe! i don't know why some of you support these bastards.

 

[tjvh]

first of all, when nuclear production started after WWII, it was said that each nuclear facility had a life for about forty years, and its waist was only temporarily going to be in the pond right next to the reactors. SInce then, both of these things have not happened, right as we speak we have an association of eight people who are pro industry, saying that these reactors can go on for another ten more years. How is this possible? Nuclear power is not safe to begin with, but when greedy people come into play, by not paying for things to keep these things safe! i don't know why some of you support these bastards.

In other words: End Nuclear power NOW, dismantle our electrical grids, pitch a tent, and bicycle to whatever job you can get that exists "without" electricity, and stick your middle finger up to "those bastards". Got it.

 

[bobgnote]

But...but...the potheads want their WEED!!!! Give them WEED or give them death! Dopers unite, weed for everyone! Some of this gang have shown up at peak oil sites, advocating the same sort of nonsense, no wonder it sounds so familiar, except even the peakers (themselves pretty retarded) spot the stoners a mile away.

Since we're already burning food for ethanol, it seems natural we'd just REPLACE our food producing land with Billions of acre of hemp.. Until we find out that there's a massive Doritos shortage at the next 4:20 club meeting..

Yeah, I guess these people like what Ethanol has done to food prices? I don't. They'll keep ranting "Environment this", and "Environment that" when they are dying of starvation.

Since you are a fuck-tard, you didn't notice hemp as a resource yields about 25,000 products, starting with the best food oil, which tards need. Don't smoke pot, if you are already too stupid, to walk straight.

Hemp also yields ethanol and durable goods, made from plastic, so here's some links, since you are too stoned to hit search:

Henry Ford and Rudolf Diesel’s Vision of a Hemp Diesel Revolution « Ganja Farmer's, EMERALD TRIANGLE NEWS ~Marijuana News, Roots and Culture~

Henry Ford And Roudolph Diesel - Hemp History Video

Ford And Deisel Never Intended Cars To Use Gasoline

Also, quit huffing, f-tardying about pot and the corn-ethanol cost-structure, and read about switchgrass, which is likely the best ethanol media:

http://www.uky.edu/Ag/CDBREC/introsheets/switchgrass.pdf

There was an ad, for an operator, who has been making switchgrass into ethanol, for 40 years, but you can look that up, since even fuck-tard wing-nuts have Google.

So, are you fuck-tards stupid boys or girls or its? You sure are stupid, all at once!

 

[flacaltenn]

first of all, when nuclear production started after WWII, it was said that each nuclear facility had a life for about forty years, and its waist was only temporarily going to be in the pond right next to the reactors. SInce then, both of these things have not happened, right as we speak we have an association of eight people who are pro industry, saying that these reactors can go on for another ten more years. How is this possible? Nuclear power is not safe to begin with, but when greedy people come into play, by not paying for things to keep these things safe! i don't know why some of you support these bastards.

Hell Speaker -- I AM worried about 50 yr old power plants of ANY kind. We had one old plant in Tennessee that broke it's coal ash holding pond and dam near buried a whole town. That stuff is BOTH toxic and radioactive..

The waste is STILLL in the holding ponds because the Feds PROMISED 30 years ago to build a monitered central repository (Yucca Mtn). Plenty of Indian tribes have VOLUNTEERED to donate land as well. We're talking (USA) a chunk of waste over 40 years that barely fills a University sized gym. It's 0.7 ounces per year per household.. There's nothing like it for the utterly tiny VOLUME of the waste product.. THIS is a problem we can handle. We being the nuclear scientists and engineers.

2nd reason the ponds haven't been emptied the on-site storage is the original design choice was to manufacture fuel in giant multi-ton rods. Hard to handle and move.

Almost all newer designs consider pellets -- even liquids for the fuel design. Build a couple.. TEST THEM, STRESS THEM, and then certify the design for QUICK approvals.

 

[bobgnote]

IN FACT --- PLEASE BLAME THE SIERRA CLUB..

Massachusetts Chapter Sierra Club

Impacts of Biomass Energy include:

Large scale biomass used primarily for electricity generation is extremely inefficient and emits 1.5 times as much CO2 than a coal-fired power plant.

Claims of “carbon neutrality” for biomass do not account for externalities and full lifecycle accounting of carbon, including harvesting processing and transportation of fuels. Truckloads of biomass fuel would need to be transported on regional roads, adding to diesel particulate pollution and additional fuel use.

Large scale biomass calls for the harvesting of millions of trees on tens of thousands of acres - some of it on state forest lands. Multiple facilities proposed in MA all claim competing areas for harvesting fuel at a rate that is not sustainable.

Biomass consumes and removes organic forest material, including that which would normally remain behind and contribute to the forests ongoing ability to sequester carbon.

Burning biomass can release carcinogenic substances and particulates in our air water.

Biomass facilities evaporate and/or otherwise use massive volumes of water to operate and can impact rivers, streams, and water supplies.

Conclusion

The Sierra Club has significant concerns over the production of energy from biomass, including the net emissions of CO2 and airborne toxins, the inefficiency of biomass energy production, impact on ecosystems and public health, and assumptions made regarding “carbon neutrality” of such operations.

Don't tell me that HEMP solves all the problems of biomass conversion.. You HAVE NO ALTERNATIVE.. But hey -- don't wake up -- don't smell the coffee, keep on tok'king bro or sis..............

I'm not your bro or your sis, and if I were related to somebody as retarded as you, I'd never admit it. Your Sierra Club sucks, and so does your quote:

"Large scale biomass calls for the harvesting of millions of trees on tens of thousands of acres - some of it on state forest lands. Multiple facilities proposed in MA all claim competing areas for harvesting fuel at a rate that is not sustainable.

Biomass consumes and removes organic forest material, including that which would normally remain behind and contribute to the forests ongoing ability to sequester carbon."

Cracking plants to manufacture refined gasoline release all kinds of pollutants, DD. What I propose is switchgrass for ethanol, and hemp, for general products and backup, for ethanol. Enough should be available, with competent plant husbandry.

But you happen to be so stupid, you'd go to a timber-and-oil-and-nuker-infested PAC, like the Sierra Club, to get information, which is shit- I don't say "forests," asshole!

You are about 95% fuck-tard, except for your good post on old nuclear reactors, which suck. So how do you avoid nukes and petroleum, DD? Got hemp and switchgrass?

 

[flacaltenn]

I'm considering displaying your testimonial that I'm only 95% fucktard in my footer. Makes me proud.
Don't know how much longer I can crawl thru your disgusting posts to try and converse.

Be real clear here. I'm talking about electric generation with biomass. Burn it and boil water for steam type. THAT is an environmental disaster because of the combustion and the waste products. JUST LIKE COAL. The only diff between cyclic carbon and sequestered carbon is how long it's been stored. Is NOT zero carbon and there ARE emissions of shit much worse than CO2. (pretty much the same for gasified biomass).

You're jabbering on about ethanol which is a whole diff thing. That's FUEL production. And I'd much prefer switchgrass ethanol to corn ethanol. (except in my backyard ethanol plant here in Tenn). But the energy and water and land to support this has SEVERE economic and environmental considerations. And UNLESS ethanol starts to made from something other than corn -- it's gonna die a nasty death and be another huge embarrassment for my greenie buds.. Seems like science and industry can't figure out how to make ethanol economically from the lower sugar weeds and roughage. So it's probably a completely mute point anyway...

As for the quotes containing references to OTHER Biomass rather than YOUR favorites. You can fucktard them all, because you're not gonna stop them from burning any dam thing they want to once you get your biomass plants. THAT will be decided by price, availability and compliance with the law. Right NOW -- the law doesn't care what crap goes into the boiler room...

 

[bobgnote]

"Large scale biomass calls for the harvesting of millions of trees on tens of thousands of acres - some of it on state forest lands. Multiple facilities proposed in MA all claim competing areas for harvesting fuel at a rate that is not sustainable.

Biomass consumes and removes organic forest material, including that which would normally remain behind and contribute to the forests ongoing ability to sequester carbon.

Burning biomass can release carcinogenic substances and particulates in our air water.

Biomass facilities evaporate and/or otherwise use massive volumes of water to operate and can impact rivers, streams, and water supplies.

Conclusion

The Sierra Club has significant concerns over the production of energy from biomass, including the net emissions of CO2 and airborne toxins, the inefficiency of biomass energy production, impact on ecosystems and public health, and assumptions made regarding “carbon neutrality” of such operations.

Don't tell me that HEMP solves all the problems of biomass conversion.. You HAVE NO ALTERNATIVE.. But hey -- don't wake up -- don't smell the coffee, keep on tok'king bro or sis..............[/QUOTE]
You ranting asshole! You don't know how long you can 'crawl' through other posts because you are an inbred fuck-tard, ranting, instead of reading and then engaging in point-by-point discussion. Your posts all look like they are fueled by Jack Daniels and doughnuts.

Emissions of coal include SO2, dimmy. You just don't get the SO2 and NO2 grades, from biomass, which you find in coal and petrol fires. So clam it, about biomass emissions. The complex hydrocarbons aren't in there, special dummy! Those hail from coal and petroleum. Go back to Russia, and sell us some more oil, wingnutski! Siberia is melting.

When you rant about emissions, notice corn is a water-intensive crop, and fertilizer run-off is a problem. Hemp is not as good as switchgrass, but hemp figures well, in crop rotation schemes. Switchgrass can be taken off the top, leaving the roots, growing.

People know you as a fuck-tard, don't they. On the street, they might avoid you. You might confuse 'jabbering' with writing, which you don't read, since you aren't as smart as a monkey.

 

[Speaker]

Alright, well first of all i think you both are right to some degree. If i can understand you all is that Nuclear power is probably not the best option, but where we are getting stuck is how do you replace the gap in or energy consumption? I feel that it's everything, now let me explain. first i think the main deal is, we need to stop using so much, as a country and as a planet. And obviously when i mean we as a planet, i mean people in developed countries.

what do i mean by this? well it is said that nuclear is about 25% of our power (which to tell you the truth could be inflated) but lets just go with it. if we alone did not have huge houses, huge TVs ( i mean you would be amazed how much energy it is to heat one of those huge houses). To be honest, the list goes on... So what i'm talking about, is conservation. and if there is any extra energy we need to take care of, then you turn tooooo natural energy..

solar panels on every stinkin house in the country; every building ect. also though ,solar farms in teh southern deserts, wind farms near the coasts and idaho (boy is that place windy) and geo thermal in places (probably in the west coast.