It appears now likely the Yuccah Mountain Nuclear waste repository will be eliminated as a potential storage facility for the spent nuclear fuel rods around the country. In a suprising move the new administration who sent signals they were pro nuclear decide to cut funding for the Yuccah site, already near completion after 30 odd years of work. Exelon Corp. already invested $10 billion in the project partialy with the guidance of Illinois' then senetor. What then is the end game for nuclear? Are we stuck at current capicty levels because we have no where to put the waste? Will we turn to importing Indonesian coal from Chinese campaign donors like Bill Clinton did when he restricted Appalachian mining? Will we build 300,000,000,000,000,000,000 windmills? What is the alternative Mr. Obama your proposing now that you've ended Yuccah Mtn and why did you flip on the industry you supported as being "green" when you were senator?
Search wikipedia or any other source for Yucca Mtn / search todays op eds from the Trib / Live in Illinois and have an executive at Excelon in the family
A 50 by 80 square mile hydronic solar collector site in the Arizona desert could power the whole country. Solar is a viable alternative. AStek or Austek had a white paper on it. The potential is there. It's a lot simpler than nuclear energy although they don't have the lobby that nuclear does.
Its interesting make - I remember the post - but the hydro carbon chemical bond is only superseeceeded by the nuclear bond in nature. Nuclear is simply the most bang for the buck if you will. Why not have both? Yucca is a great place to store the rods until we build a processing plant for them. We already have a reactor that could process them but it turns them into stable Platonium which we dont want proliferating.
Solar is energy from a nuclear process that happens on the sun.
Our planet is going to find itself buried in waste that will contaminate our ground water and air more and more. We need more clean solutions that don't have the added cost of cleanup.
Yeah, hmm, let's see: Nuclear, another limited resource pulled from out of the ground that leaves toxic byproducts ... sounds pretty great! What could possible go wrong?
You can actualy make more energy from the byproducts with various theoretical reactor designs and the new westinghouse pile reactors are completely safe from meltdown because they dont use rods
pile reactors are completely safe from meltdown because they don't use rods
... and, in the 1950s, we were told that nuclear power would be clean and safe and so cheap that homes wouldn't even need to be metered.
the nuclear power industry simply doesn't have credibility with much of the public because their PR over the years simply wasn't based on either facts or reality.
Proponents of the Bush/Cheney interrogation program have been on a backsliding position for several years now. And sadly for them, theres a pretty clear reason for this, that methods used in the program very certainly did constitute torture, clearly outlined under US and international law, and any debate on the subject inevitably leads to the clear determination that many of the programs progenitors are in fact warcriminals.
But lets focus on this new front line of their quickly evaporating position. Not the administrations previous argument, that it didnt happen, which has been at this point unarguably exposed as a lie. Not that torture is Ok in some circumstances, that has been explicitly false since Reagan signed the International Torture Ban in 1988, not to mention since the founding of the constitution. Not that its effective, it very demonstratively is not. It was designed and has been employed from the outset as an explicit method for extracting false confessions, and is used in SERE training to defend exactly against this. And documents have now shown that [surprise!] it has had the opposite effect of collecting viable information, that subjects who were originally singing like canaries clammed up and became permanent dead ends for useful information, [not to mention functionally brain dead] after being subjected to it. No, now, the argument retreats to the supposedly semantic question of whether waterboarding is in fact "torture", or whether you can hire some nitwit lawyers to call a dead fish a rose.
Define "severe"
I mean fucking really dude? Is that the best you have? What the definition of is is? How about the fact that no human being has voluntarily sustained longer than 20 seconds of it? And the detainees were held under for 30 seconds at a time several times a day, for months? How about the fact it can cause permanent damage to the lungs from dry-drowning, bleeding of the trachea, brain damage and that subjects have suffered broken bones struggling against the restraints? How about the fact that the UN, Amnesty international, and US Military courts from the time of the Spanish American War have testified to the agony it induces, on par with electric shocks, and have jailed everyone demonstrated to have carried it out?
How about the fact that international law defines any form of mock execution, which waterboarding expressly is, as a form of torture?
Shouldnt it tell you something that John McCain, undisputed war hero, undisputed victim of torture, and rare standard bearer of dignity in the republican party and arguably your most experienced expert on military policy defines waterboarding as torture? Shouldnt it tell you something that before Dick Cheney, the its most famous proponents were the Gestapo, the Kempeitai, the Khmer Rouge and the Spanish fucking Inquisition?
Though I realize how terrible our country is at holding people accountable, how disastrous it would be for Obamas ability to get anything done while the country watched its previous administration held for war crimes, I have hope left that there is some shred of dignity left in this country, that at some point, some kind of real human accountability is still possible.
i want nuclear too, if the French can build safe and effective facilities, then certainly we can too.
i am not sure what the administration is hoping to achieve here, but they barely won Nevada, right?? unless of course they plan on building a storage facility in Texas, well then i am totally on board.
Nuclear Power
It appears now likely the Yuccah Mountain Nuclear waste repository will be eliminated as a potential storage facility for the spent nuclear fuel rods around the country. In a suprising move the new administration who sent signals they were pro nuclear decide to cut funding for the Yuccah site, already near completion after 30 odd years of work. Exelon Corp. already invested $10 billion in the project partialy with the guidance of Illinois' then senetor. What then is the end game for nuclear? Are we stuck at current capicty levels because we have no where to put the waste? Will we turn to importing Indonesian coal from Chinese campaign donors like Bill Clinton did when he restricted Appalachian mining? Will we build 300,000,000,000,000,000,000 windmills? What is the alternative Mr. Obama your proposing now that you've ended Yuccah Mtn and why did you flip on the industry you supported as being "green" when you were senator?
where are you getting your info/numbers?
Search wikipedia or any other source for Yucca Mtn / search todays op eds from the Trib / Live in Illinois and have an executive at Excelon in the family
A 50 by 80 square mile hydronic solar collector site in the Arizona desert could power the whole country. Solar is a viable alternative. AStek or Austek had a white paper on it. The potential is there. It's a lot simpler than nuclear energy although they don't have the lobby that nuclear does.
It's Ausra
Here's my old post:
Using Ausra's current solar technologies, all U.S. electric power, day and night, can be generated using a land area smaller than 92 by 92 miles.
Their solar factory goes online today:
http://www.ausra.com/news/releases/080630.html
http://www.ausra.com/technology/
http://www.ausra.com/about/
50 x 80 sq. KM? What about the stack - how tall would that be like 200 miles?
Its interesting make - I remember the post - but the hydro carbon chemical bond is only superseeceeded by the nuclear bond in nature. Nuclear is simply the most bang for the buck if you will. Why not have both? Yucca is a great place to store the rods until we build a processing plant for them. We already have a reactor that could process them but it turns them into stable Platonium which we dont want proliferating.
Evil,
Solar is energy from a nuclear process that happens on the sun.
Our planet is going to find itself buried in waste that will contaminate our ground water and air more and more. We need more clean solutions that don't have the added cost of cleanup.
Yeah, hmm, let's see: Nuclear, another limited resource pulled from out of the ground that leaves toxic byproducts ... sounds pretty great! What could possible go wrong?
You can actualy make more energy from the byproducts with various theoretical reactor designs and the new westinghouse pile reactors are completely safe from meltdown because they dont use rods
... and, in the 1950s, we were told that nuclear power would be clean and safe and so cheap that homes wouldn't even need to be metered.
the nuclear power industry simply doesn't have credibility with much of the public because their PR over the years simply wasn't based on either facts or reality.
Proponents of the Bush/Cheney interrogation program have been on a backsliding position for several years now. And sadly for them, theres a pretty clear reason for this, that methods used in the program very certainly did constitute torture, clearly outlined under US and international law, and any debate on the subject inevitably leads to the clear determination that many of the programs progenitors are in fact warcriminals.
But lets focus on this new front line of their quickly evaporating position. Not the administrations previous argument, that it didnt happen, which has been at this point unarguably exposed as a lie. Not that torture is Ok in some circumstances, that has been explicitly false since Reagan signed the International Torture Ban in 1988, not to mention since the founding of the constitution. Not that its effective, it very demonstratively is not. It was designed and has been employed from the outset as an explicit method for extracting false confessions, and is used in SERE training to defend exactly against this. And documents have now shown that [surprise!] it has had the opposite effect of collecting viable information, that subjects who were originally singing like canaries clammed up and became permanent dead ends for useful information, [not to mention functionally brain dead] after being subjected to it. No, now, the argument retreats to the supposedly semantic question of whether waterboarding is in fact "torture", or whether you can hire some nitwit lawyers to call a dead fish a rose.
Define "severe"
I mean fucking really dude? Is that the best you have? What the definition of is is? How about the fact that no human being has voluntarily sustained longer than 20 seconds of it? And the detainees were held under for 30 seconds at a time several times a day, for months? How about the fact it can cause permanent damage to the lungs from dry-drowning, bleeding of the trachea, brain damage and that subjects have suffered broken bones struggling against the restraints? How about the fact that the UN, Amnesty international, and US Military courts from the time of the Spanish American War have testified to the agony it induces, on par with electric shocks, and have jailed everyone demonstrated to have carried it out?
How about the fact that international law defines any form of mock execution, which waterboarding expressly is, as a form of torture?
Shouldnt it tell you something that John McCain, undisputed war hero, undisputed victim of torture, and rare standard bearer of dignity in the republican party and arguably your most experienced expert on military policy defines waterboarding as torture? Shouldnt it tell you something that before Dick Cheney, the its most famous proponents were the Gestapo, the Kempeitai, the Khmer Rouge and the Spanish fucking Inquisition?
Though I realize how terrible our country is at holding people accountable, how disastrous it would be for Obamas ability to get anything done while the country watched its previous administration held for war crimes, I have hope left that there is some shred of dignity left in this country, that at some point, some kind of real human accountability is still possible.
merrrggg. wrong thread ha ha.
I hate this fucking board.
i want nuclear too, if the French can build safe and effective facilities, then certainly we can too.
i am not sure what the administration is hoping to achieve here, but they barely won Nevada, right?? unless of course they plan on building a storage facility in Texas, well then i am totally on board.
I find it really ironic that people who don't trust the government with their money, trust them with nuclear waste.
Theres no incentive to steal nuclear waste - yet
like the financial disaster, this one is on the Feds too; they need to find a way to put the geenie back into the bottle.
nuclear power in france is owned and operated by the state - seems to work well.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.