My company awarded Nuclear Job

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Zensal
...Apparently I don't frequent P&N enough to know what is going on...

*steps back*

Maybe some kind person here will help you.

Will the Messiah come before, during or after the destructive nuclear event that will no doubt happen before our sun gets finished doing its fission thing - the oinkerettes. Or, for those who don't feel that there is a Messiah or some form of supreme being - the oinksters - will I be alive when it occurs and if it occurs after my worm feeding is concluded do I care.

Further, we know that geothermal energy is cheapest followed by wind then solar and so on.... nuclear as a means of cheapo clean source energy seems to have a bi-product that is best used for bombs or kinetic bombs - waste stored in Pigs with corks in their butts as I understand it.

We don't have an infinite supply of 'consumable stuff' to produce energy for one thing and when we use that stuff we make bad 'stuff' happen in NYC and the Pacific NW and good stuff happen in the Mid West and MN... So go figure... Assuming the earth won't stop spinning and the winds will blow, Don Quixote will right the unrightable wrong... I guess.

Don Quixote Don Quixote? Wasn't he the Man from La Jolla?

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Zensal
...Apparently I don't frequent P&N enough to know what is going on...

*steps back*

Maybe some kind person here will help you.

Will the Messiah come before, during or after the destructive nuclear event that will no doubt happen before our sun gets finished doing its fission thing - the oinkerettes. Or, for those who don't feel that there is a Messiah or some form of supreme being - the oinksters - will I be alive when it occurs and if it occurs after my worm feeding is concluded do I care.

Further, we know that geothermal energy is cheapest followed by wind then solar and so on.... nuclear as a means of cheapo clean source energy seems to have a bi-product that is best used for bombs or kinetic bombs - waste stored in Pigs with corks in their butts as I understand it.

We don't have an infinite supply of 'consumable stuff' to produce energy for one thing and when we use that stuff we make bad 'stuff' happen in NYC and the Pacific NW and good stuff happen in the Mid West and MN... So go figure... Assuming the earth won't stop spinning and the winds will blow, Don Quixote will right the unrightable wrong... I guess.

Don Quixote Don Quixote? Wasn't he the Man from La Jolla?

A bit north, I'd say...
"Some men see things as they are and asked why I dream things that never were and ask why not" That is Don Quixote....

 

[Schadenfroh]

Congratulations to your company:thumbsup:

 

[SammyJr]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Nothing though about what to do with the waste. Well that's to be expected. We'll leave that to our three eyed kids to worry about.

Call your Congressman and tell him to push for the opening of Yucca Mountain.

Better yet, call your Congressman and tell him to push for the lifting of our stupid nuclear fuel reprocessing ban.

 

[Fenixgoon]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Fenixgoon

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Nothing though about what to do with the waste. Well that's to be expected. We'll leave that to our three eyed kids to worry about.

We have run nuke plants for 50+ years.

Please identify the three eyed kids vs those that have died from coal pollution?

So far all we have is moral leprosy, the first stage. Thew opening of the third eye only comes with ego death. We won't be having much of that till some massive disaster kills our hubris and pride, maybe a Chernobyl that makes Texas uninhabitable.

sorry, but wtf is all that bullshit? first, it practically doesn't make sense. second, passive reactor design makes it literally impossible for reactors to go runaway critical.

also, we have a lot of uranium in our own backyard

NIMBY and Chernobyl shut itself down too. Nuclear reactors always do when they fall far enough through the crust to reach the molten mantle.

apparently you missed the part about "critical".

also, NIMBY = Not In My Back Yard.. perhaps you meant TMI, which despite the horror stories you may hear wasn't all that bad and was a far cry from Chernobyl.

Clearly, you think that a brand new Gen III+ reactor is equivalent to a poorly made russian reactor from the 80's.

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Nothing though about what to do with the waste. Well that's to be expected. We'll leave that to our three eyed kids to worry about.

We have run nuke plants for 50+ years.

Please identify the three eyed kids vs those that have died from coal pollution?

So far all we have is moral leprosy, the first stage. Thew opening of the third eye only comes with ego death. We won't be having much of that till some massive disaster kills our hubris and pride, maybe a Chernobyl that makes Texas uninhabitable.

Only two things in Texas anyway.

 

[SigArms08]

Originally posted by: Fenixgoon

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Fenixgoon

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Nothing though about what to do with the waste. Well that's to be expected. We'll leave that to our three eyed kids to worry about.

We have run nuke plants for 50+ years.

Please identify the three eyed kids vs those that have died from coal pollution?

So far all we have is moral leprosy, the first stage. Thew opening of the third eye only comes with ego death. We won't be having much of that till some massive disaster kills our hubris and pride, maybe a Chernobyl that makes Texas uninhabitable.

sorry, but wtf is all that bullshit? first, it practically doesn't make sense. second, passive reactor design makes it literally impossible for reactors to go runaway critical.

also, we have a lot of uranium in our own backyard

NIMBY and Chernobyl shut itself down too. Nuclear reactors always do when they fall far enough through the crust to reach the molten mantle.

apparently you missed the part about "critical".

also, NIMBY = Not In My Back Yard.. perhaps you meant TMI, which despite the horror stories you may hear wasn't all that bad and was a far cry from Chernobyl.

Clearly, you think that a brand new Gen III+ reactor is equivalent to a poorly made russian reactor from the 80's.

Right you are - several design issues led to the catastrophe at Chernobyl.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
"You do realize that Three Mile Island is a perfect example of why modern nuclear power is safe."

It takes a real idiot to ask me that, but do I ever.

But, in that is the ideal way to eliminate the previous waste products... first, you insure the site has no water pockets en route to the earth's core... second, you store the waste in the area of the core... third, you induce a China Syndrome event about the time the reactor has used up its usefullness... and lastly, you insure the structure is such that no explosive events will occur... and if you want you can then dump trash in the big hole.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
"You do realize that Three Mile Island is a perfect example of why modern nuclear power is safe."

It takes a real idiot to ask me that, but do I ever.

But, in that is the ideal way to eliminate the previous waste products... first, you insure the site has no water pockets en route to the earth's core... second, you store the waste in the area of the core... third, you induce a China Syndrome event about the time the reactor has used up its usefullness... and lastly, you insure the structure is such that no explosive events will occur... and if you want you can then dump trash in the big hole.

You don't want to talk that way around engineers. To them this is going to look like a good idea.

 

[QuantumPion]

Originally posted by: WHAMPOM
Gonna have to buy a lot of uranium from Russia and Africa to fuel those plants. Too bad the supply runs out before oil.

Actually our uranium comes from the US, Canada, and Australia, and there is enough on the planet to supply our growing energy demand for a few billion years.

 

[QuantumPion]

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
"You do realize that Three Mile Island is a perfect example of why modern nuclear power is safe."

It takes a real idiot to ask me that, but do I ever.

But, in that is the ideal way to eliminate the previous waste products... first, you insure the site has no water pockets en route to the earth's core... second, you store the waste in the area of the core... third, you induce a China Syndrome event about the time the reactor has used up its usefullness... and lastly, you insure the structure is such that no explosive events will occur... and if you want you can then dump trash in the big hole.

Cute, but that's not physically possible (un)fortunately.

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Nothing though about what to do with the waste. Well that's to be expected. We'll leave that to our three eyed kids to worry about.

I welcome this. My company deals in storing industrial and nuclear waste.

Oh, and Commanche Peak is not in Dallas. It's in/near Glen Rose, TX

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Nothing though about what to do with the waste. Well that's to be expected. We'll leave that to our three eyed kids to worry about.

Call your Congressman and tell him to push for the opening of Yucca Mountain.

Not a chance. I heard a story once that makes me circumspect about doing any such thing:

A group of scientists were running an experiment in their lab on a pig. They put a plug in its ass. Then, of course they fed the pig which swoll up to rather large proportions. Well there was a monkey in that lab, and it's not going to be me. It seems there was a huge explosion and the scientists, blown thither and yon finally crawled back together, covered in shit, to assess what had happened. Nobody knew anything except for one of them who said that all he saw was the monkey trying to get the cork back in the pig's ass.

And this story has particular meaning for me, because, as you may know, I liken the nuclear industry to a pig. It likes to eat and poop radiation, and it is a pig because although it likes to eat it doesn't like to clean up its messes and nobody likes pig shit all over them so Congress put a cork in that pigs ass by nixing Yuck Yuck mountain.

You truely show your ignorance. Nuclear is the least polluting effective source of power we have.
But I guess you're ok with Hydro power even though it destroys ecologies.
The Chrenobl incident can not happen in the Us because we use a completely different reactor design and those huge concrete stacks and domes you see are to contain the radiation in the event of a melt down. But don't let facts and science get in the way of you forming your decision based on emotion and logical fallacies.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Nothing though about what to do with the waste. Well that's to be expected. We'll leave that to our three eyed kids to worry about.

Call your Congressman and tell him to push for the opening of Yucca Mountain.

Not a chance. I heard a story once that makes me circumspect about doing any such thing:

A group of scientists were running an experiment in their lab on a pig. They put a plug in its ass. Then, of course they fed the pig which swoll up to rather large proportions. Well there was a monkey in that lab, and it's not going to be me. It seems there was a huge explosion and the scientists, blown thither and yon finally crawled back together, covered in shit, to assess what had happened. Nobody knew anything except for one of them who said that all he saw was the monkey trying to get the cork back in the pig's ass.

And this story has particular meaning for me, because, as you may know, I liken the nuclear industry to a pig. It likes to eat and poop radiation, and it is a pig because although it likes to eat it doesn't like to clean up its messes and nobody likes pig shit all over them so Congress put a cork in that pigs ass by nixing Yuck Yuck mountain.

You truely show your ignorance. Nuclear is the least polluting effective source of power we have.
But I guess you're ok with Hydro power even though it destroys ecologies.
The Chrenobl incident can not happen in the Us because we use a completely different reactor design and those huge concrete stacks and domes you see are to contain the radiation in the event of a melt down. But don't let facts and science get in the way of you forming your decision based on emotion and logical fallacies.

I think he's talking about the waste aspect. But for that I'd agree that nuclear power is clean... It is all about the stuff left over that concerns Moonbeam. Now if you can confirm that how the waste is secure for the duration of its 'danger' life that makes that aspect moot. Some waste has a 'danger' life of some 200,000 yrs, I'm told... What do we have that will ensure that waste is secure ... again for its 'danger' life?

 

[Paratus]

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Nothing though about what to do with the waste. Well that's to be expected. We'll leave that to our three eyed kids to worry about.

Call your Congressman and tell him to push for the opening of Yucca Mountain.

Not a chance. I heard a story once that makes me circumspect about doing any such thing:

A group of scientists were running an experiment in their lab on a pig. They put a plug in its ass. Then, of course they fed the pig which swoll up to rather large proportions. Well there was a monkey in that lab, and it's not going to be me. It seems there was a huge explosion and the scientists, blown thither and yon finally crawled back together, covered in shit, to assess what had happened. Nobody knew anything except for one of them who said that all he saw was the monkey trying to get the cork back in the pig's ass.

And this story has particular meaning for me, because, as you may know, I liken the nuclear industry to a pig. It likes to eat and poop radiation, and it is a pig because although it likes to eat it doesn't like to clean up its messes and nobody likes pig shit all over them so Congress put a cork in that pigs ass by nixing Yuck Yuck mountain.

You truely show your ignorance. Nuclear is the least polluting effective source of power we have.
But I guess you're ok with Hydro power even though it destroys ecologies.
The Chrenobl incident can not happen in the Us because we use a completely different reactor design and those huge concrete stacks and domes you see are to contain the radiation in the event of a melt down. But don't let facts and science get in the way of you forming your decision based on emotion and logical fallacies.

I think he's talking about the waste aspect. But for that I'd agree that nuclear power is clean... It is all about the stuff left over that concerns Moonbeam. Now if you can confirm that how the waste is secure for the duration of its 'danger' life that makes that aspect moot. Some waste has a 'danger' life of some 200,000 yrs, I'm told... What do we have that will ensure that waste is secure ... again for its 'danger' life?

The problem I see with the waste argument is the lack of understanding of what that waste really is: FUEL. Comprehnsive reprocessing would allow us to use that waste again and reduce the radioactivity from 200000 years to 200 years.

There's also the point that of what those 1000's of tons of nuclear waste DOESN'T represent: BILLIONS of tons of CO2, arsenic, mercury, and even radiation relased into the air and water by conventional power plants.

MB sees nuclear as a pig sty - I see the nuclear industry as having contained all it's waste for decades instead of spreading around like other piggier industries.

 

[Moonbeam]

I think he's talking about the waste aspect. But for that I'd agree that nuclear power is clean... It is all about the stuff left over that concerns Moonbeam. Now if you can confirm that how the waste is secure for the duration of its 'danger' life that makes that aspect moot. Some waste has a 'danger' life of some 200,000 yrs, I'm told... What do we have that will ensure that waste is secure ... again for its 'danger' life?

There are a couple of ways to look at this issue in my opinion. One can do a risk benefit analysis and conclude that the risks of a nuclear waste calamity are minuscule in comparison to the benefits. Such an argument could perhaps be done quite rationally. I favor burial of nuclear waste in a subduction zone, for example. Once in such a deposit I would feel rather secure we won't be hearing from that waste for a long long time. But getting it to such a deposit site would be very risk.

But two hundred thousand years ago Neanderthal roamed all over Europe. Two hundred thousand years is probably on the outside limit of true modern man's appearance. Two hundred thousand years is enough time for many vastly improbable things to happen. I object to nuclear energy, therefore on moral grounds. No real assessment of what will happen to our nuclear waste in two hundred thousand years is possible. Nobody can possibly predict all future events. It is therefore, in my opinion, unethical to try. You don't leave to chance for the destruction of others, a loaded gun. It is morally wrong. The problem I have is that in my opinion most people are not very moral. They had their empathy destroyed in childhood. They can't put themselves in the shoes of some person in the future who wants to know what is buried in Yucca mountain and what is inside all those strange statues. All they are worried about is their pay check or a cheap light bill.

It's all about not living in a way that shows your self hate, to say no to what one will only do in self contempt. We are what we do and if you ship pig shit you are a pig.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Paratus

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Nothing though about what to do with the waste. Well that's to be expected. We'll leave that to our three eyed kids to worry about.

Call your Congressman and tell him to push for the opening of Yucca Mountain.

Not a chance. I heard a story once that makes me circumspect about doing any such thing:

A group of scientists were running an experiment in their lab on a pig. They put a plug in its ass. Then, of course they fed the pig which swoll up to rather large proportions. Well there was a monkey in that lab, and it's not going to be me. It seems there was a huge explosion and the scientists, blown thither and yon finally crawled back together, covered in shit, to assess what had happened. Nobody knew anything except for one of them who said that all he saw was the monkey trying to get the cork back in the pig's ass.

And this story has particular meaning for me, because, as you may know, I liken the nuclear industry to a pig. It likes to eat and poop radiation, and it is a pig because although it likes to eat it doesn't like to clean up its messes and nobody likes pig shit all over them so Congress put a cork in that pigs ass by nixing Yuck Yuck mountain.

You truely show your ignorance. Nuclear is the least polluting effective source of power we have.
But I guess you're ok with Hydro power even though it destroys ecologies.
The Chrenobl incident can not happen in the Us because we use a completely different reactor design and those huge concrete stacks and domes you see are to contain the radiation in the event of a melt down. But don't let facts and science get in the way of you forming your decision based on emotion and logical fallacies.

I think he's talking about the waste aspect. But for that I'd agree that nuclear power is clean... It is all about the stuff left over that concerns Moonbeam. Now if you can confirm that how the waste is secure for the duration of its 'danger' life that makes that aspect moot. Some waste has a 'danger' life of some 200,000 yrs, I'm told... What do we have that will ensure that waste is secure ... again for its 'danger' life?

The problem I see with the waste argument is the lack of understanding of what that waste really is: FUEL. Comprehnsive reprocessing would allow us to use that waste again and reduce the radioactivity from 200000 years to 200 years.

There's also the point that of what those 1000's of tons of nuclear waste DOESN'T represent: BILLIONS of tons of CO2, arsenic, mercury, and even radiation relased into the air and water by conventional power plants.

MB sees nuclear as a pig sty - I see the nuclear industry as having contained all it's waste for decades instead of spreading around like other piggier industries.

Well... As I understand it... Transuranic elements (produced artificially by appropriate nuclear reactions), including plutonium-239, remain high for like 100,000 years after reprocessing. I could be wrong but I don't think you can consume these elements in any further nuclear power generation. I do suppose the volume could be reduced via Reprocessing but not the danger or the substantial time the stuff remains a killer.

I think the alternative Moonbeam spoke to was like Wind, Solar, Geothermal ummmm Water wave thingi and some other... not fossil fuel or the other dirty methods.

Containing waste for decades is a good start... but gee... we've so much laying about now.. it will be dangerous for a couple hundred thousand plus the added transuranic stuff IF we do fund that operation... I know the Senate Energy Committee has tried to amend a bit of legislation regarding this so maybe there are some partial solutions to the pig... but no matter what comes off... no matter what the pig eats... it will be poop at the end of the day...

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: Paratus

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Nothing though about what to do with the waste. Well that's to be expected. We'll leave that to our three eyed kids to worry about.

Call your Congressman and tell him to push for the opening of Yucca Mountain.

Not a chance. I heard a story once that makes me circumspect about doing any such thing:

A group of scientists were running an experiment in their lab on a pig. They put a plug in its ass. Then, of course they fed the pig which swoll up to rather large proportions. Well there was a monkey in that lab, and it's not going to be me. It seems there was a huge explosion and the scientists, blown thither and yon finally crawled back together, covered in shit, to assess what had happened. Nobody knew anything except for one of them who said that all he saw was the monkey trying to get the cork back in the pig's ass.

And this story has particular meaning for me, because, as you may know, I liken the nuclear industry to a pig. It likes to eat and poop radiation, and it is a pig because although it likes to eat it doesn't like to clean up its messes and nobody likes pig shit all over them so Congress put a cork in that pigs ass by nixing Yuck Yuck mountain.

You truely show your ignorance. Nuclear is the least polluting effective source of power we have.
But I guess you're ok with Hydro power even though it destroys ecologies.
The Chrenobl incident can not happen in the Us because we use a completely different reactor design and those huge concrete stacks and domes you see are to contain the radiation in the event of a melt down. But don't let facts and science get in the way of you forming your decision based on emotion and logical fallacies.

I think he's talking about the waste aspect. But for that I'd agree that nuclear power is clean... It is all about the stuff left over that concerns Moonbeam. Now if you can confirm that how the waste is secure for the duration of its 'danger' life that makes that aspect moot. Some waste has a 'danger' life of some 200,000 yrs, I'm told... What do we have that will ensure that waste is secure ... again for its 'danger' life?

The problem I see with the waste argument is the lack of understanding of what that waste really is: FUEL. Comprehnsive reprocessing would allow us to use that waste again and reduce the radioactivity from 200000 years to 200 years.

There's also the point that of what those 1000's of tons of nuclear waste DOESN'T represent: BILLIONS of tons of CO2, arsenic, mercury, and even radiation relased into the air and water by conventional power plants.

MB sees nuclear as a pig sty - I see the nuclear industry as having contained all it's waste for decades instead of spreading around like other piggier industries.

Well... As I understand it... Transuranic elements (produced artificially by appropriate nuclear reactions), including plutonium-239, remain high for like 100,000 years after reprocessing. I could be wrong but I don't think you can consume these elements in any further nuclear power generation. I do suppose the volume could be reduced via Reprocessing but not the danger or the substantial time the stuff remains a killer.

I think the alternative Moonbeam spoke to was like Wind, Solar, Geothermal ummmm Water wave thingi and some other... not fossil fuel or the other dirty methods.

Containing waste for decades is a good start... but gee... we've so much laying about now.. it will be dangerous for a couple hundred thousand plus the added transuranic stuff IF we do fund that operation... I know the Senate Energy Committee has tried to amend a bit of legislation regarding this so maybe there are some partial solutions to the pig... but no matter what comes off... no matter what the pig eats... it will be poop at the end of the day...

If we use reprocessing and transuranic burners we can get the waste below the radioactivity of natural uranium ore in about 500 years and make a boatload of extra energy doing it.

The US should license the CANDU for this purpose, have the DOE build the reactors/reprocessing plants using the money the industry sets aside for waste disposal, then then whatever is left over after at the end gets interred at the WIPP site along with the military waste.

 

[Moonbeam]

"If we use reprocessing and transuranic burners......."

And if we don't we will find clean alternatives. Nuclear will always mean nuclear waste.

 

[Fenixgoon]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
"If we use reprocessing and transuranic burners......."

And if we don't we will find clean alternatives. Nuclear will always mean nuclear waste.

and what do you propose will provide stable and around the clock energy?

solar operates 12 hours a day, and is only good in select regions.
wind has limited operation as well, and is only good in select regions.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Fenixgoon

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
"If we use reprocessing and transuranic burners......."

And if we don't we will find clean alternatives. Nuclear will always mean nuclear waste.

and what do you propose will provide stable and around the clock energy?

solar operates 12 hours a day, and is only good in select regions.
wind has limited operation as well, and is only good in select regions.

Actually, the wind can be made to blow day and night:

Check out the simulation at the bottom of this page.

Or we could get this Danish problem.

How about a power plant that if it explodes will fertalize the earth instead of killing for 200,000 years. Link

Lots of other ideas out there like sterling engines.

Maybe this will pan out.

 

[QuantumPion]

If only the world could be powered by your imagination, moonbeam, all of our problems would be solved.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
"If we use reprocessing and transuranic burners......."

And if we don't we will find clean alternatives. Nuclear will always mean nuclear waste.

No, we'll just keep burning up more coal/ng. There is no alternative technology on the horizon that stands a serious shot at replacing these other than nuclear.

 

[Jeffg010]

I lived 10 miles from shippingport pa all my life and nothing has happen to me or anyone I know of. Even 10 miles from the nuclear plant you can see the smoke coming out of it from beaver PA kind of cool. Moonbeam needs to get off his hippy horse and get with reality. Nuclear is the best solution for the future.

 

[Zensal]

There is no way to contain something for 200,000 years in a single container. But it is possible to change the container and keep it refreshed.

Also, withing 200,000 years, I hope we could find a way to reach the ultimate endgame for nuclear waste: either fusion power, or ejecting the waste into space.