# Total cost of nuclear



## Speaker (May 25, 2012)

[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 (May 25, 2012)

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 (May 26, 2012)

Speaker said:


> 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.
> 
> ...



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 (May 29, 2012)

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 (May 29, 2012)

*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 (May 30, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


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


'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 (May 30, 2012)

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.
> 
> ...



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 (May 30, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


> 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 (May 30, 2012)

RGR said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > 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..............
> ...



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 (May 30, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


> 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 (May 30, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


> RGR said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



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 (May 30, 2012)

tjvh said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > RGR said:
> ...



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 (May 31, 2012)

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 (May 31, 2012)

Speaker said:


> 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 (May 31, 2012)

tjvh said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > RGR said:
> ...


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&#8217;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 (May 31, 2012)

Speaker said:


> 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 (May 31, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


> IN FACT --- *PLEASE BLAME THE SIERRA CLUB..*
> 
> Massachusetts Chapter Sierra Club
> 
> ...


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 (May 31, 2012)

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 (Jun 1, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


> "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.
> 
> ...



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 (Jun 1, 2012)

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.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 1, 2012)

Speaker said:


> 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.



I'm a HUGE proponent of nuclear. But I'm never proposing we shove it down the market's and the people's throats. Build out the NEW designs in remote locations and ATTEMPT to test them to destruction  -- if that's what it takes to understand the safety implications. Then once tested -- Cut the heck of out of the approval process. 

Solar in the desert would still require an 80% of peak generator (some other type) to get you though the nighttime. And geothermal is a dirty mining operation that shouldn't be on the list of clean, green alternatives.


----------



## Speaker (Jun 3, 2012)

I dont trust humans with nuclear. We are to irresponsible, greedy, and ignorant of something with with the power to destroy worlds. That is my point. I dont care about the jobs lost from the Nuclear industry, hell i dont care about the jobs lost from any industry, if its destroying my fucking planet. No one should be able to walk in here and destroy my home, my planet, and ruin the lives of future people. Fuck you industy.


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 3, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


> Speaker said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



Yes, nukes, third, fourth, and even fifth, Thorium, generation nukes are going to have to be part of our energy solution. But they must have a reasonable failsafe design. The reason that there is such distrust of nuclear in this nation is the way nuclear was sold to us in the first place. "The energy will be so cheap, that you will not even need to meter it". Turned out to be very expensive. "The process is completely safe, it cannot fail catastophically".  Three Mile Island. Chernobyl. Fukashima. The trust of the people of most nations will be very hard to win back.

Solar in the desert? How about solar on the top of warehouses, commercial buildings, and home rooftops? Much more efficient there in the immediate vicinity of use. Since our greatest use of electricity is in the daytime, solar would be adding it's wattage to the grid at the time of greatest need.

Geothermal is not a 'dirty mining operation' and has very great promise for this nation, over the whole nation. This is a lengthy study from MIT;

http://web.mit.edu/mitei/research/studies/documents/geothermal-energy/geothermal-energy-full.pdf


----------



## Douger (Jun 3, 2012)

It's wonderful ! The sushi wont have any bacteria ! Eat all you want !


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 3, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Speaker said:
> ...



You want to play Whack-A-Mole again? We did this dance about a year ago.. 
Don't care how big a govt grant MIT got to write nice about geothermal, we have over 20 years of solid experience with geothermal and it stinks.. Lemme repeat.. 

Geothermal Electricity Generation is a Dirty Mining Operation

 Far Worse than nat gas extraction. And it's NOT renewable or clean.. The wells cool off, they need to be redrilled and the effluent is SOOOO corrosive that the whole dam mining operation needs to be periodically rebuilt.. Lemme also remind you of the discussion we had a year ago.. 


Puna Geothermal Blowout | Blowout Shuts Geothermal Unit in Hawaii - Los Angeles Times



> HONOLULU &#8212; Hawaii state officials ordered a geothermal company to halt all drilling Friday after a well blowout spewed toxic gas and routed 75 people from their homes on the island of Hawaii.
> 
> Opponents of geothermal drilling near the nation's last remaining tropical rain forest claimed the accident shows Hawaii's volcanic resource may be unmanageable.



I NEED A RESPONSE from you here Ole Rocks.  _________________________________________________________ sorry flacaltenn -- I forget that Geothermal is a Dirty Mining Operation.. 

Did you read about those folks in Hawaii in the MIT report? They LIED about pollution effects. Need another memory jog?

Minister urges calm after geothermal well blowout, Chile, Electric Power, news



> hile's energy minister Marcelo Tokman urged industry officials to take a recent geothermal well blowout in their stride and said the renewable energy source still had great potential in the country.



ScienceDirect.com - Geothermics - Dramatic incidents during drilling at Wairakei Geothermal Field, New Zealand



> The future of geothermal power as a potential source of power in the Hawaiian islands has been thrown into doubt by an uncontrolled release of steam at a drilling site on the Big Island near the island's active volcano.
> 
> Opponents of geothermal power say that the blowout shows that drilling is dangerous to both residents and the environment. But the drilling company insists that the mishap indicates the potential of the geothermal resource is much greater than first thought, and that it is much easier to reach than expected.
> 
> Maurice Richard, from the Puna Geothermal Venture, claims that there is a danger of an overreaction to what happened at the well. Next Thursday, reports will be made public on what went wrong, the health risks posed by the escape of hydrogen sulphide, and the slow emergency response. These are expected to result in tighter controls over the drilling of wells. ...



Need the National Parks Service to tell you that Geothermal is a dirty mining operation??? 

Mount Shasta Bioregional Ecology Center



> Approval of the Fourmile Hill project brought on wave of appeals - by the Pit River Tribe, Native Coalition for Medicine Lake Highlands Defense and Mount Shasta Bioregional Ecology Center (which have collectively formed a Native/Bioregional Alliance) represented by the EarthJustice Legal Defense Fund, and by a coalition of environmental groups. The appeals decry violations of the National Environmental Policy Act, National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act.
> 
> Even Calpine Corporation appealed the Fourmile Hill decision due to some of the stringent measures that the NHPA Section 106 Process placed on the project attempting to mitigate adverse impacts on Native American cultural uses, and the five-year moratorium temporarily preventing further geothermal development contained in the Record of Decision.
> 
> ...




It'll take another one won't it OleRocks?? You're still not gonna remember that GeoThermal is a dirty mining operation unless you hear it from the Sierra Club I bet.. 



> Sierra Club Conservation Policies - Geothermal Energy
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Unkotare (Jun 3, 2012)

Speaker said:


> if everyone in America knows about the real cost of nuclear power, then we have a chance to get rid of it.




We don't want to get rid of it and we are not going to get rid of it.


----------



## Unkotare (Jun 3, 2012)

Speaker said:


> 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.




And what will you read about next year in the 4th grade?


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 4, 2012)

I'm feeling a littte guilty about that geothermal beat-down I posted above to help OldRocks memory problem. 

All that said about geothermal being a dirty mining operation --- I don't OPPOSE it. I actually think it's a neat concept. My goal in beating on it is to get the eco-frauds to stop calling it clean and renewable (which it isn't) with absolutely no down sides or safety issues (like that phoney ass MIT grant report).

And to get the eco-frauds to admit that it is a minor SUPPLEMENT -- not an ALTERNATIVE to our energy generation composition. Just want FAIR comparisions and truth in advertising -- that's all. 

If you can have mining operations for geothermal -- you can CERTAINLY have nat gas extraction without large impact to the overall environment.


----------



## flake (Jun 5, 2012)

Well agree with you on this term that the ford and diesel never intend car to use the gasoline.

I visited that link and really get mine desired information which I was searching for...


----------



## Douger (Jun 5, 2012)

BUT BUT
GaWd Blast murka !
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FXFUUGeV1DI]Ann Coulter Says Radiation Is Good For You - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Old Rocks (Jun 5, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


> I'm feeling a littte guilty about that geothermal beat-down I posted above to help OldRocks memory problem.
> 
> All that said about geothermal being a dirty mining operation --- I don't OPPOSE it. I actually think it's a neat concept. My goal in beating on it is to get the eco-frauds to stop calling it clean and renewable (which it isn't) with absolutely no down sides or safety issues (like that phoney ass MIT grant report).
> 
> ...



Somehow I put more weight to what the engineers at MIT state, than what a ananamous internet poster states.


----------



## bobgnote (Jun 5, 2012)

And the same reasoning applies to fracking, which applies to nuclear power.  If an idiot like Fathead gets ahold of it, we don't want any.

Idiots like Fathead are all over America.  Ask me about how Fathead thinks GHGs can be voodoo'd, to look like ozone.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Jun 5, 2012)

Bullshit fear mongering.

Nuclear especially new prototype small nukes are safe as they are self limiting and do not require large volumes of water for cooling there fore they can be buried underground.

You should ask yourself what the cost is of not exploiting safe emission free nuclear energy to the maximum amount possible.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 5, 2012)

Old Rocks said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > I'm feeling a littte guilty about that geothermal beat-down I posted above to help OldRocks memory problem.
> ...



More weight than to the SIERRA CLUB and 75 families in Hawaii displaced by a Geothermal blow-out at the edge of a pristine rain forest?


----------



## Speaker (Jun 5, 2012)

has anyone watched the entire video of the thread? BECAUSE IT EXPLAINS IT ALL THERE


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 5, 2012)

Speaker said:


> has anyone watched the entire video of the thread? BECAUSE IT EXPLAINS IT ALL THERE



Yeah I did.. You misrepresented who the "brilliant man" was. Turns out he's a math teacher who has problems with fabricated large numbers. There is no $Mill liability for each person exposed to Fukishima.. I told you 20 posts ago that I VOLUNTEERED for a dose of radiation 100 times LARGER than MOST people your guy is referring to got from Fukishima. That nuclear medicine procedure saved my life..  

Do I deserve a Million bucks for that exposure "risk"?????

I asked you that before and you were unresponsive or didn't understand the bearing that question had on what's presented in the video...


----------



## Speaker (Jun 7, 2012)

do millions of people need to be exposed, just because some people are partial retards, and they think that everything that people with a title do and say are true? because of people like you, we all must suffer? maybe everyone who supports nuclear energy should live next to Fukishima, if its not so bad. walk your talk you son of a bitch.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 7, 2012)

Wouldn't want to live ANYWHERE on that coast that was wiped from the face of the earth by a terrible disaster. Idiots who project their biases and political positions on catastrophes like that are demeaning the death destruction and pain that resulted from that act of nature..


----------



## Speaker (Jun 10, 2012)

I really dont think you are smart, and i think you should get off this forum. The reason i say this is because people look at these, and the things that you say make others like the way you do. Stupidity in humans is VERY contagious.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Jun 10, 2012)

Fukishima failed because of the tsunami.

There was no problem with that reactor.  The mistake there was placement.

There are prototype reactors that are safe because there is no need to place them near a large water source.  One such small reactor could power 20,000 homes for up to 30 years without refueling and 98% of the reactor fuel can be recycled so any waste is negligible.

To foment fear of all nuclear power because of one natural disaster is disingenuous at best.


----------



## jodylee (Jun 10, 2012)

one american comsumes as much energy as 370 ethiopians. 
so my advice is instead of sitting around debating things which you have no power over
get off your fat arses and explore the wonderful us countryside that you stole off the Natives 
and you will get some way to solving the problem.


----------



## Emanamana (Jun 10, 2012)

Bobgnote, keep on posting The Truth! 
Do not let the naysayers distract you.

As a side note, electric cars were designed a century ago, using Edison batteries- some of which are still functioning today!


----------



## bobgnote (Jun 10, 2012)

Skull Pilot said:


> Fukishima failed because of the tsunami.
> 
> There was no problem with that reactor.  The mistake there was placement.
> 
> ...



"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."
-Albert Einstein 

_Fukushima-Daiichi nuke station failed because, like 31 or so similar reactors in the US, it has no provision for standing coolant supply, positioned on top of the reactor, and the cores were also designed by fucktards, who need money.

Reactors are the playthings, of people who want to construct BOMBS.  If you don't want to make a damn bomb, and if you don't want fracking, don't neglect CO2-neutral biomass, since Henry Ford and Rudolph Diesel were both alive!

Look at the wingpunks, posting for nukes and petroleum.  Nukes amount to no bridge, but the low bridge, since we have raised the CO2 levels to 400 ppm, we are headed for at least 900 ppm, the top natural equilibrium for CO2 is 280 ppm.  Methane and more CO2 are flying out, into the air, from warming lands and bodies of water.

Do you know what will happen, when the heavy tides of washover seas start massaging plates, faults, and magma chambers, assholes?_ *SEISMIC EVENTS and ERUPTIONS.*


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 10, 2012)

Speaker said:


> I really dont think you are smart, and i think you should get off this forum. The reason i say this is because people look at these, and the things that you say make others like the way you do. Stupidity in humans is VERY contagious.



If by joining this forum, you THOUGHT you could just silence anyone who disagrees with you by shooing them away -- You're in for a big dissapointment and a HUGE waste of your time.. Go find REPUTABLE sources and gain a modicum amount of critical thinking.. 

I'm actually here to observe the stupidity. So I agree -- it's very dangerous...


----------



## Skull Pilot (Jun 10, 2012)

bobgnote said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > Fukishima failed because of the tsunami.
> ...



Ok chicken little


----------



## bobgnote (Jun 10, 2012)

Skull Pilot said:


> Ok chicken little



OK, Scum Puppy.  You don't have brain 1, so don't drive number 2, in traffic.  Stupid!


----------



## Skull Pilot (Jun 10, 2012)

bobgnote said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > Ok chicken little
> ...



ooh skewered by your rapier like wit.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf06.html



> From the outset, there has been a strong awareness of the potential hazard of both nuclear criticality and release of radioactive materials from generating electricity with nuclear power.
> As in other industries, the design and operation of nuclear power plants aims to minimise the likelihood of accidents, and avoid major human consequences when they occur.
> There have been three major reactor accidents in the history of civil nuclear power - Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima. One was contained without harm to anyone, the next involved an intense fire without provision for containment, and the third severely tested the containment, allowing some release of radioactivity.
> These are the only major accidents to have occurred in over 14,500 cumulative reactor-years of commercial nuclear power operation in 32 countries.
> The risks from western nuclear power plants, in terms of the consequences of an accident or terrorist attack, are minimal compared with other commonly accepted risks. Nuclear power plants are very robust.



Safer than driving a car.

Compare that with the safety record of other power types

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf06app.html


----------



## Mr Natural (Jun 10, 2012)

In this day and age, it's absolutley ludicrous to be producing electricity with coal or oil.

Nuclear is the way to go.


----------



## beagle9 (Jun 10, 2012)

tjvh said:


> Speaker said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...


Have we somehow reached the point that if we have thoughts of returning back to when we didnot have or need so much Nuclear power in the amounts that we have it now, that the earth would soon stand still, and we would all begin to fall off of it ? This is how this response sounded to me by you.. 

In our state alone we have many Nuclear plants now, and we still have all the other sources of energy available to us that we had before (Coal & Hydro), and just as well it is all still in use, so how much energy production does a state actually need to sustain itself, or is it that these plants are supplying energy to many other states as well within the regions ? If this is the case, then it is understandable to supply regions with a sustainable power supply, if these regions are subjected to scarce resources for making their own power..... Just wondering is all....


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 11, 2012)

Do you even KNOW the diff between Hanford and making nuclear bombs and a commercial nuclear reactor for generating electricity?  Nobody reads thru shotgun spam.... 


The GOVT is the largest polluter.. Are you surprised by that?


----------



## zonly1 (Jun 12, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


> Do you even KNOW the diff between Hanford and making nuclear bombs and a commercial nuclear reactor for generating electricity?  Nobody reads thru shotgun spam....
> 
> 
> *The GOVT is the largest polluter*.. Are you surprised by that?



Yeah(side note) look at how they say TO conserve water and can only water on certain days.  In the meantime, gubermint/local, you can witness H2O run off from gubermint own rent collected land right down the drain.


----------



## bobgnote (Jun 12, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


> Do you even KNOW the diff between Hanford and making nuclear bombs and a commercial nuclear reactor for generating electricity?  Nobody reads thru shotgun spam....
> 
> The GOVT is the largest polluter.. Are you surprised by that?



_*Fatass, do you know the diff between your asshole and a hole in the ground?

Since you can't read or evaluate facts for inference, can you understand cost-overruns, tendencies, to tragic, costly out-comes, and overwhelming practical problems?  NO?  Then you are too stupid, to fuck with nuclear energy or weapons-grade materials.

Did "the" government ever hire YOU, for some job?  Sure it pollutes.  "The" government is four levels of anal-compulsive, chronic fuckup, Zionist Occupation Government.  

But it does have some pretty good science websites, which are indeterminate, about re-greening, since somebody wants retards like you to hope, for nuclear energy, and other people will try to enrich uranium and gather plutonium, to make weapons, to kill everybody, even stupid idiots, like Fatass and Wienerbitch and IanCrapforbrains and Suckassbil the meth-freak.*_


----------



## Speaker (Jun 12, 2012)

Mr Clean said:


> In this day and age, it's absolutley ludicrous to be producing electricity with coal or oil.
> 
> Nuclear is the way to go.



i can see your signature at the moment is very much they way you think. "who gives a shit"

I will give you a chance to rethink what nuclear power is really doing. you see, in your comment, you told us that nuclear power is the way to go because coal and oil is dirty. ergo nuclear power is clean. now if you really could (and i am not being mean or anything here) please tell me why you feel that nuclear power is the way of the future. and dont lie, i really do want to know. that being said, i would like to tell you that fukishima has and will change the world (for the worse) for millions of more years. people will die becuase of this, and there are 1000's more of these things on this god dam planet.


----------



## Unkotare (Jun 13, 2012)

Speaker said:


> I really dont think you are smart, and i think you should get off this forum. The reason i say this is because people look at these, and the things that you say make others like the way you do. Stupidity in humans is VERY contagious.




That would make you Typhoid Mary.


----------



## tjvh (Jun 13, 2012)

Speaker said:


> 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.
> 
> ...



Get rid of it in favor of what exactly? Some new "green technology" that hasn't been invented yet? Spare me the BS. What do you think is going to power electricity generating turbines if we arbitrarily just remove Nuclear, and Coal fired power plants from the equation? This:


----------



## Speaker (Jun 13, 2012)

tjvh said:


> Speaker said:
> 
> 
> > Fukushima - Total Cost - YouTube
> ...



This stuff is bad news. i don't want it even if it means sacrifices. earlier in this thread we were shooting around ideas to fill the gap. first conservation (but thats just me), solar on every building (maybe the government should be subsidizing solar instead of oil and nuclear+others)


----------



## Unkotare (Jun 13, 2012)

What a dopey air-head 'Speaker' is.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 13, 2012)

Look Speaker... 

Whatcha got on nuclear is a fear of technology.. Just like my mother-in-law has of computers.. The more you know -- the more it makes imminent sense for our energy starved economy.. Let's start there.

We've NegaWatted (conserved) ourselves into the belief that this will stave off the need to build NEW sources of power.. Not true. ALL generators need to be replaced periodically. Conservation by definition makes energy RARE and EXPENSIVE. It should be CHEAP and PLENTIFUL.. Please ARGUE about that if you don't agree.. 

You wanted reasons to consider nuclear... 

1) The WASTE stream from nuclear is about 0.7 of an OUNCE per household per year. That's LESS toxic waste per household than we now generate in batteries, cleaning products, paint, oil.. CERTAINLY we can handle that magnitude of waste.

2) There is more RADIOACTIVE pollution from coal fired plants than has EVER been spewed from a fatally damaged nuclear plant.. So while you're wringing your hands about Fukishima, the air continues to fill with NUCLEAR particles from coal.. 

I'll stop there for now and see if you REALLY RESPOND to a reasonable debate -0- or you revert back to hysteria and hope fairies..


----------



## bobgnote (Jun 13, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


> Look Speaker...
> 
> Whatcha got on nuclear is a fear of technology.. Just like my mother-in-law has of computers.. The more you know -- the more it makes imminent sense for our energy starved economy.. Let's start there.
> 
> ...



_*You sure are a stupid believer, in shit, rather than science or observable trends, Fatass.

Nuclear power starts with cost-overruns, moves to operational problems, and fiinishes, with a waste containment problem, which lasts 10,000 years.

Of course, only TMI, Chernobyl, and Fukushimi are meltdowns, but other plants had to be decommissioned and written off.  

Who is going to pay for this shit?  When you add up all the hidden costs, nuclear energy is the stuff of fascists, which idiots seek to manage, and neither fascists nor their ranting idiots can argue with FACTS and TRENDS:*_

Cost overruns of almost $1 billion  so far  at Ga. nuke reactors | Jay Bookman

Last month, a consortium of utilities including Atlanta-based Southern Company announced cost overruns of almost $1 billion at two new nuclear reactors being built near Waynesboro. 

Thats an arresting number under any circumstances, but it looms even larger when you realize that major construction on the Vogtle 3 and 4 reactors has basically just begun, with at least five more years of construction to come. 

And if costs soar, whos going to pay for it? Southern Company and its subsidiary, Georgia Power, own 45.7 percent of the project, so its ratepayers share of these recent overruns would come to more than $400 million. But according to Buzz Miller, Southerns executive vice president of nuclear development, that cost will be borne by contractors who are building the project. 

Our official position is that theres no way were going to pay that amount, Miller said Tuesday.

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

Nuclear power's real chain reaction: spiralling costs | Damian Carrington | Environment | guardian.co.uk

Time is money, they say, and the new nuclear power plant being built by EDF at Flamanville in France is now at least four years behind time and 2.7bn over budget. EDF blamed the delay on two fatal construction accidents and dealing with safety analyses prompted by the Fukushima disaster.

So what does the news mean for the role for nuclear power in delivering the low-carbon electricity essential to tackling climate change? The three 'Cs' of energy policy are carbon, cost and continuity of supply, and Wednesday's announcement by EDF is relevant to the latter two.

The Flamanville fiasco shows once again that new nuclear power plants are not being built on time or on budget, diminishing the arguments in favour of them.

The only other new nuclear plant being built in Europe is at Olkiluoto in Finland. Areva, like EDF a state-controlled French company, told me this will be connected to the grid no sooner than 2013 and costs are now estimated at 5.6bn. That is four years late and 2.6bn over budget.

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

*What went wrong?*

COSTS OF NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS  WHAT WENT WRONG?

No nuclear power plants in the United States ordered since 1974 will be completed, and many dozens of partially constructed plants have been abandoned. What cut off the growth of nuclear power so suddenly and so completely? The direct cause is not fear of reactor accidents, or of radioactive materials released into the environment, or of radioactive waste. It is rather that costs have escalated wildly, making nuclear plants too expensive to build. State commissions that regulate them require that utilities provide electric power to their customers at the lowest possible price. In the early 1970s this goal was achieved through the use of nuclear power plants. However, at the cost of recently completed plants, analyses indicate that it is cheaper to generate electricity by burning coal. Here we will attempt to understand how this switch occurred. It will serve as background for the next chapter, which presents the solution to these problems.

Several large nuclear power plants were completed in the early 1970s at a typical cost of $170 million, whereas plants of the same size completed in 1983 cost an average of $1.7 billion, a 10-fold increase. Some plants completed in the late 1980s have cost as much as $5 billion, 30 times what they cost 15 years earlier. Inflation, of course, has played a role, but the consumer price index increased only by a factor of 2.2 between 1973 and 1983, and by just 18% from 1983 to 1988. What caused the remaining large increase? Ask the opponents of nuclear power and they will recite a succession of horror stories, many of them true, about mistakes, inefficiency, sloppiness, and ineptitude. They will create the impression that people who build nuclear plants are a bunch of bungling incompetents. The only thing they won't explain is how these same "bungling incompetents" managed to build nuclear power plants so efficiently, so rapidly, and so inexpensively in the early 1970s. 

For example, Commonwealth Edison, the utility serving the Chicago area, completed its Dresden nuclear plants in 1970-71 for $146/kW, its Quad Cities plants in 1973 for $164/kW, and its Zion plants in 1973-74 for $280/kW. But its LaSalle nuclear plants completed in 1982-84 cost $1,160/kW, and its Byron and Braidwood plants completed in 1985-87 cost $1880/kW  a 13-fold increase over the 17-year period. 

Northeast Utilities completed its Millstone 1,2, and 3 nuclear plants, respectively, for $153/kW in 1971, $487/kW in 1975, and $3,326/kW in 1986, a 22-fold increase in 15 years. Duke Power, widely considered to be one of the most efficient utilities in the nation in handling nuclear technology, finished construction on its Oconee plants in 1973-74 for $181/kW, on its McGuire plants in 1981-84 for $848/kW, and on its Catauba plants in 1985-87 for $1,703/kW, a nearly 10-fold increase in 14 years. 

Philadelphia Electric Company completed its two Peach Bottom plants in 1974 at an average cost of $382 million, but the second of its two Limerick plants, completed in 1988, cost $2.9 billion  7.6 times as much. A long list of such price escalations could be quoted, and there are no exceptions.

The True Cost Of Nuclear Power

In May 1999, the 104 U.S. nuclear power plants produced 56 billion kilowatt-hours of electricity. This represented 21.8% of the utility-generated power for that month. These figures demonstrate what is typical of the U.S. dependence on nuclear power, a form of power generation involving enormous expense, radiation pollution, the threat of a nuclear accident, and nuclear waste. Advocates of nuclear power believe that there are adequate scientific solutions to these problems, but they are not putting up the capital for the nuclear plants. The federal government has made us, the taxpayers, the equivalent of stockholders in nuclear power; nuclear utilities depend on government bailouts, insurance and subsidies. We must put a stop to nuclear power because of the grave financial and environmental risks. 
In February 1999, residential consumers paid an average of 7.94 cents per kilowatt-hour for electricity; industrial users paid an average of 4.33 cents per kilowatt-hour. Compare that with 1997, when electricity cost about 5% more; the cost of hydroelectric power on a ratepayer's bill was from two to eight cents; gas, from three to five cents; coal, five to six cents; oil, six to eight cents; and nuclear power, 10 to 12 cents. 

The cost of nuclear power would be much higher still if not for federal subsidies. Nuclear power is tied up in what economists call "externalities" and "external costs and benefits." Externalities are when "some people bear costs that they are not paid or compensated for, these costs are said to be external costs," says Dr. Roger A. McCain, Professor of Economics at Drexel University. "The idea is that the decision-maker, who does not pay for the costs nor get paid for the benefits, doesn't take them into consideration in deciding how resources shall be allocated. He has no motive to produce benefits that he doesn't get, nor to cut back on costs that he doesn't pay. In general, if there are 'external' costs or benefits or both, we say that there are 'externalities,' and we can expect markets to be inefficient when there are externalities.

Satanic nukes? Finnish plant's cost overruns to $6.66 billion | ThinkProgress

Economics of new nuclear power plants - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

$12 Billion Nuclear Waste Treatment Plant at Risk of Cost Overruns - Waste Mangagement World


When complete, the Hanford Tank Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant will process and stabilize 53 million gallons (200 million liters) of radioactive and chemical waste currently stored at the Hanford Site.  

According to the company, the waste is a byproduct of plutonium-production during World War II and the Cold War era and is in 177 below ground aging tanks.

Bechtel says that vitrification technology will blend the waste with glass-forming materials and heat it to 2100 degrees Fahrenheit (1149 degrees Celsius). The mixture will then be poured into stainless steel canisters to cool and solidify. In this glass form, the waste is stable and impervious to the environment and safe for long-term storage. 

Construction began in October 2001 and is currently 60% complete. 

However, according to the Tri-City Herald, a briefing document by the Construction Project Review team claims that the $12.2 billion figure is at risk due to uncertainties in congressional funding for the project, increased cost growth outpacing savings and delays in resolving technical waste mixing issues.

The team of industry, academic and DoE members assesses progress and potential problems on the project and advises the DoE approximately every six months.

According to the Tri-City Herald, the document said that if Congress continues to provide the budgets that the DoE has outlined, the review team has identified a potential cost overrun of $800 million to $900 million.

However, the report goes on to add that that overrun may be offset by $350 million if the DoE proceeds with a phased commissioning of the plant, preparing some buildings to operate and then moving on to others, rather than commissioning the entire plant at once.. 

_*Oh, wow.  By maneuvering, costs can be avoided.  We'll see if that works, eh?*_

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

_*Then there's the waste:*_

The Bane of Nuclear Energy: Nuclear Waste - Storage

Radioactive waste - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

_*And the decommissioned plants:*_

Nuclear decommissioning - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nuclear Energy Institute - Reactors Shut Down or Decommissioned

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

*Technology for renewable energy hasn't been researched very well, since Henry Ford made hemp-ethanol and hemp-plastic, since the Model-T.  But despite intevening corruption, in prison industry, petroleum, war, and nuclear lobbies, renewable tech is alive and promising:*

New power capacity from renewable sources tops fossil fuels again in US, Europe

In 2009, for the second year in a row, both the US and Europe added more power capacity from renewable sources such as wind and solar than conventional sources like coal, gas and nuclear, according to twin reports launched today by the United Nations Environment Programme and the Renewable Energy Policy Network for the 21st Century (REN21).

Renewables accounted for 60 per cent of newly installed capacity in Europe and more than 50 per cent in the USA in 2009. This year or next, experts predict, the world as a whole will add more capacity to the electricity supply from renewable than non-renewable sources.

The reports detail trends in the global green energy sector, including which sources attracted the greatest attention from investors and governments in different world regions.

They say investment in core clean energy (new renewables, biofuels and energy efficiency) decreased by 7% in 2009, to $162 billion. Many sub-sectors declined significantly in money invested, including large (utility) scale solar power and biofuels. However, there was record investment in wind power. If spending on solar water heaters, as well as total installation costs for rooftop solar PV, were included, total investment in 2009 actually increased in 2009, bucking the economic trend.

New private and public sector investments in core clean energy leapt 53 per cent in China in 2009. China added 37 gigawatts (GW) of renewable power capacity, more than any other country.

Globally, nearly 80 GW of renewable power capacity was added in 2009, including 31 GW of hydro and 48 GW of non-hydro capacity. This combined renewables figure is now closing in on the 83GW of fossil-fuel, thermal capacity installed in the same year. If the trend continues, then 2010 or 2011 could be the first year that new capacity added in low carbon power exceeds that in fossil-fuel stations.

Investment in renewable energy power capacity (excluding large hydro) in 2009 was comparable to that in fossil-fuel generation, at around $100 billion each. If the estimated $39 billion of investment in large hydro is included, then total investment in renewables exceeded that in fossil-fuel generation for the second successive year.

China surpassed the US in 2009 as the country with the greatest investment in clean energy. Chinas wind farm development was the strongest investment feature of the year by far, although there were other areas of strength worldwide in 2009, notably North Sea offshore wind investment and the financing of power storage and electric vehicle technology companies

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

*Nuclear energy pimps lie, and lie, and lie, about costs.  Then they can't design a core or a cooling system I'd want, and they can't store the wastes and spent core materials, without shooting up the planet, with depleted uranium ammo, which breaks chromosomes.

So what about only three meltdowns?  Stagg Field in Chicago almost melted down, from screwing around, with nuclear energy.  Numerous decommissions have to be written off.  And then, what will happen, with the nuclear waste we already failed to store, at Yucca Mountain?

It can always come back to bite us, so kids will be born, without money, skulls, arms, or legs.

Don't let stupid people lie and steal, then kill us, while spouting crap about how cheap their instruments of mass destruction look, when they are lying and cheating, looking to steal.*


----------



## Speaker (Jun 13, 2012)

Unkotare said:


> What a dopey air-head 'Speaker' is.



if its so ok then you should have the spent fuel under your pillow you retarded fat fuck. i think that anyone who thinks that nuclear is safe and "the way to go" should live with it. right in their house. walk you talk dude, but i'll tell you what, I refuse to have a bunch of high school drop out shit heads to put me and my family in danger. who gives a fuck if the nuclear industry falls. OH NO A BUNCH OF RICH BASTARDS LOST THEIR JOBS THAT MURDER MILLIONS. its incredible the sheer power of a bunch of idiots. I will never underestimate a whole lot of stupid people again.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 13, 2012)

Speaker said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > What a dopey air-head 'Speaker' is.
> ...



And there it is.. I wasted 10 minutes of my lunch hour on this pitiful case... Doesn't want to discuss nuclear or debate energy use. He wants to just tag up the forum with his art...


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 13, 2012)

Bob:  

Your stuff is sooo devoid of understanding, so lacking in logic, reason, and science and SO DEMENTED and incoherent --- that I actually thanked you for repeating it.. I can think of no better example in my thousands of posts on science orientated forums of the sheer emotional desire to whine about stuff, mangle facts, and intentionally act stupidly... 


You're STILL repeating stuff about Hanford and other Weapons Programs mismanagement of nuclear waste as tho Americans won't know the diff between GOVT malfeasance on a BOMB program and a commercial nuclear plant. But here's the bigger piece of evidence you left behind... 



> What caused the remaining large increase? Ask the opponents of nuclear power and they will recite a succession of horror stories, many of them true, about mistakes, inefficiency, sloppiness, and ineptitude. They will create the impression that people who build nuclear plants are a bunch of bungling incompetents. The only thing they won't explain is how these same "bungling incompetents" managed to build nuclear power plants so efficiently, so rapidly, and so inexpensively in the early 1970s.



What a huge mystery eh? And what a COMPLIMENT to the nuclear industry saying that we "...managed to build nuclear plants so efficiently, so rapidly and so inexpensively in the early 1970s" Thanks -- my side of the argument appreciates that compliment from your side. 

Can't think of a single reason why nuclear construction costs SOARED in the mid -- 70s? Not a single reason can ya?  Why is that? 

It's because you didn't read the WHOLE ARTICLE and you're scientifically, politically, and historically ignorant and wish to remain that way.

HERE'S a hint for you --- from the same cut and paste and CENSOR job that you did above.



> While there is little difference in materials cost, we see from Fig. 1 that the difference in labor costs between M.E. and B.E. plants is spectacular. The comparison between these is broken down in Table 1. We see that about half of the labor costs are for professionals. It is in the area of professional labor, such as design, construction, and quality control engineers, that the difference between B.E. and M.E. projects is greatest. It is also for professional labor that the escalation has been largest &#8212; in 1978 it represented only 38% of total labor costs versus 52% in 1987. However, essentially all labor costs are about twice as high for M.E. as for B.E. projects. The reasons for these labor cost problems will be discussed later in this chapter in the section on "Regulatory Turbulence."


  Turns out to be a VERY THOROUGH and thoughtful analysis primarily for the PRO-Nuclear side.. But you STOPPED reading (or just saw the $$$$ and cut them out). 

See if you can complete the story on your own.. What public agencies came along in the mid - 70's with the political PURPOSE of increasing the construction cost of nuclear power?

Keep it up Bob.. You're a valuable member of the eco-system here. Much the same contribution as a dung beetle...


----------



## Skull Pilot (Jun 13, 2012)

Speaker said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > What a dopey air-head 'Speaker' is.
> ...



Very few people have died as a result of nuclear power and more than 98% of nuclear fuel can be recycled only here in the USA we have made it illegal to do so.

There Is No Such Thing as Nuclear Waste - WSJ.com


----------



## bobgnote (Jun 14, 2012)

*Are you quoting yourself, again, Fatass?  I chose those articles because they did a thorough analysis, from all sides of the issue.

Nuclear power still is too expensive.  You are too queer to explain, how "regulatory turbulence" may have issued in the 1970s, since nuclear plants were all screwing up, and no new constructions issued, since then, until recently, and they all screwed up, going way over budget.

You ignore any poison, you are too stupid to understand AGW, so pretending to be able to manage nukes makes you feel smart.  But you are a dumbshit.

You are a stupid, ranting, shouting punk, who can't read a graph, so fuck off, when you shout out some concept, which you will not explain, completely.

A complete explanation is you cannot justify nuclear energy projects, without some of hem being directly related to bomb-making, and others being pure scams, with federal subsidies, for scamming private profiteers, who pollute.  Fuck off, moron.  Read another story.*


----------



## Skull Pilot (Jun 14, 2012)

The cost or nuclear electricity is less than that of fossil fuel generated electricity.

Nuclear Power Economics | Nuclear Energy Costs






Low generation costs can offset the higher construction costs associated with nuclear.

Newer smaller reactors are even less expensive and do not need massive installations.  Many could be plugged into existing fossil fuel generation plants thus making nuclear less expensive than any other power source.


----------



## bobgnote (Jun 14, 2012)

*Scum Punk, your queer porn website is completely oblivious, to all cost-overruns, at all nuclear facilities, whatever kind those are, since Fermi tried to melt Stagg Field, 1942.

Without federal subsidies, your lying website wouldn't even exist.  Scammers trying to lie about the cost structure of nuclear energy would just give up.

What happens is cost-overruns and unforeseen technical fuckups take every last nuclear project into decommissioning or into the red.  You are a total asshole, into queer porn.*


----------



## Skull Pilot (Jun 14, 2012)

bobgnote said:


> *Scum Punk, your queer porn website is completely oblivious, to all cost-overruns, at all nuclear facilities, whatever kind those are, since Fermi tried to melt Stagg Field, 1942.
> 
> Without federal subsidies, your lying website wouldn't even exist.  Scammers trying to lie about the cost structure of nuclear energy would just give up.
> 
> What happens is cost-overruns and unforeseen technical fuckups take every last nuclear project into decommissioning or into the red.  You are a total asshole, into queer porn.*



One who must resort to constant name calling is displaying his inferior command of the English language as well as his lack of intellect.


----------



## Katzndogz (Jun 14, 2012)

We just permanently closed the nuclear plant at San Onofre.  Germany is phasing out its nuclear power plants after the tragedy in Japan.

Nuclear power is on its way out.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jun 14, 2012)

Katzndogz said:


> We just permanently closed the nuclear plant at San Onofre.  Germany is phasing out its nuclear power plants after the tragedy in Japan.
> 
> Nuclear power is on its way out.



You Californians are making history.. And as dark and dingy as your public spaces are getting now --- the future just isn't any brighter in Cali...


----------



## Unkotare (Jun 14, 2012)

Katzndogz said:


> Nuclear power is on its way out.




Wrong again


----------



## Skull Pilot (Jun 15, 2012)

Katzndogz said:


> We just permanently closed the nuclear plant at San Onofre.  Germany is phasing out its nuclear power plants after the tragedy in Japan.
> 
> Nuclear power is on its way out.



With no reliable replacement.

Not a very smart move.  The US Navy has been nuclear powered for decades now and the safety record is excellent.

There is no reason to be concerned with the safety of nuclear power.  In fact we should ramping up research and production of more efficient self limiting reactors.

The demand for electricity is going nowhere but up.  Windmills and solar panels will not fill the void.


----------



## bobgnote (Jun 15, 2012)

Skull Pilot said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > We just permanently closed the nuclear plant at San Onofre.  Germany is phasing out its nuclear power plants after the tragedy in Japan.
> ...



*Scum Punk logic keeps ignoring green tech, of any kind, since no petro-nuker geeks will go for proper land use, to grow hemp, switchgrass, or other CO2-neutral biomass media, which we have to grow, eventually, either to minimize CO2 emissions or to re-green, since nukes or not, emissions of GHGs will force an extinction event, which is ongoing, already.  But Scum Punks can't do accounting for budgets or climate change.  

Scum Punk logic wants us to go out of the global warming frying pan, into the Navy's line of fire.  You can operate an aircraft carrier or a submarine, with reactors, but you cannot get a civilian or military application on land to go under-budget.  No land use nuclear facilities are ever under budget, Punk!

The Navy is a write-off because the US wants dominance, on the oceans, which requires long-range vessels, which pack a nuclear weapons arsenal.  But your queer logic about cheap nuclear power is just more, "C'mon, get happy!!!"  Shove something glowing way up your own butt, Punk.*


----------

