• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama needs to shut this down

Jack Fabulous said:
Nuclear power is cheap and sustainable.

If I had my way I'd build thousands of nuclear power plants.
Click to expand...

We only have a few dozen plants. And you'd build thousands? How would you like glow-in-the-dark beef and corn?
 
AtlantaAdonis said:
We only have a few dozen plants. And you'd build thousands? How would you like glow-in-the-dark beef and corn?
Click to expand...

What's with these hysterics? The rest of the modern world uses nuclear power profusely. Is France "glowing in the dark"?
 
Dragonfly said:
I've stood on the roof of my house in winter time. I can see the steam rising from the Salem Nuclear power plant that sits right on the Delaware River.

B9316617836Z.1_20150316082604_000_GV7A807SE.1-0.jpg


So I kinda do have one in my back yard.

No worries here.
Click to expand...

I grew up with the cooling tower of the Davis-Besse NPS clearly visible directly out my front door. From a point about five miles from the house, the Fermi and Perry plants were visible, too.

Histrionics about nuclear power are exactly that.
 
AtlantaAdonis said:
Fukushima anyone?

And it may not have to be a tsunami. Could be an earthquake or a terrorist attack or a flood. Why do people have to latch on to minutiae and miss the main point?
Click to expand...

The same accident that caused exactly 0 deaths due to the poweplant failure? The same accident that required the 4th most powerful earthquake EVER recorded AND a huge Tsunami, AND technology from the 60's and you don't think we can do better in the future with updated technology?

I highly recommend you put some research into LFTR (Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors) as I think a lot of your concerns can be dealt with with this gen 4 type reactor, and that's only one out of many promising gen 4 reactors that are in development right now.

And regardless, without Nuclear how are we supposed to meet the industrial economies energy demands without using Coal/Oil/Gas as our power source?
 
AtlantaAdonis said:
We only have a few dozen plants. And you'd build thousands? How would you like glow-in-the-dark beef and corn?
Click to expand...
At the current conversion efficiency, it would take about 764 plants like that one to
replace out gasoline usage. Adding in jet fuel and Diesel would only add to the number.
 
AtlantaAdonis said:
TVA: First new US nuclear reactor in 20 years goes live - CNN.com

Leave it to a red state to go in the complete wrong direction when it comes to energy. I hope that Obama can shut this thing down. They will get everything coming to them if a tsunami hits Tennessee.
Click to expand...

Not only is the "tsunami" statement laughably incompetent, you also seem to think that approval of a nuclear power station is a "state" matter. Indeed, no; this plant was given federal approval only a few years ago. That's right; during Obama's administration.
 
longview said:
At the current conversion efficiency, it would take about 764 plants like that one to
replace out gasoline usage. Adding in jet fuel and Diesel would only add to the number.
Click to expand...

We'll need nuclear power plants to perform electrolysis on the sea waters to extract carbon and hydrogen to make our Diesel and Jet Fuels of the future, which would be a hydro-carbon of a higher quality than what we currently use, and be, most importantly, carbon neutral, and nuclear power can also be used for desalination, important for a certain looney left state ;)
 
Ellis_G said:
We'll need nuclear power plants to perform electrolysis on the sea waters to extract carbon and hydrogen to make our Diesel and Jet Fuels of the future, which would be a hydro-carbon of a higher quality than what we currently use, and be, most importantly, carbon neutral, and nuclear power can also be used for desalination, important for a certain looney left state ;)
Click to expand...
To the extent that the fossil fuels will only become more expensive and difficult to extract in the future we really do need an alternative,
that carries the same energy density as the existing fuels. If we can make compatible fuels, it is a good near term solution.
 
AtlantaAdonis said:
Fukushima anyone?

And it may not have to be a tsunami. Could be an earthquake or a terrorist attack or a flood. Why do people have to latch on to minutiae and miss the main point?
Click to expand...

Using the Fukushima incident to rule out all future nuclear power isn't rational. The reactor there was a very old design long overdue for replacement. The earthquake there was unusually severe, but modern reactor designs would have withstood it.
 
AtlantaAdonis said:
TVA: First new US nuclear reactor in 20 years goes live - CNN.com

Leave it to a red state to go in the complete wrong direction when it comes to energy. I hope that Obama can shut this thing down. They will get everything coming to them if a tsunami hits Tennessee.
Click to expand...

Well, let's see. What electrical generation choices the ecomentalists demand as off the table.

Can't have coal, it's too dirty.
Can't have oil, it too is too dirty, and way too expensive.
Can't have fracking, for fear of earthquakes, although I'm not so sure that's such a problem as it's made out to be.

There are limited locations where hydrogeneration is possible.

We know that wind, solar and waves can't possibly meet the electrical demand, which I do believe is increasing year on year.

I propose the solution would be to send all the ecomentalists to live on a log cabin in the woods, aka 1700's style.

At least nuclear is green house gas neutral, so you get that as a concession.
 
Ellis_G said:
The same accident that caused exactly 0 deaths due to the poweplant failure? The same accident that required the 4th most powerful earthquake EVER recorded AND a huge Tsunami, AND technology from the 60's and you don't think we can do better in the future with updated technology?

I highly recommend you put some research into LFTR (Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors) as I think a lot of your concerns can be dealt with with this gen 4 type reactor, and that's only one out of many promising gen 4 reactors that are in development right now.

And regardless, without Nuclear how are we supposed to meet the industrial economies energy demands without using Coal/Oil/Gas as our power source?
Click to expand...

I think the genereal idea is that we dont, instead we return to a rural farming based soceity using human powered equipment (horse drawn plows are mean to horses so we cant use them), but he gets to keep his iphone.
Yes I know that cannot work with the current population of the planet but once we get rid of all the people who arent needed (you know anyone who questions the NWO) then itll all be OK
 
AtlantaAdonis said:
We only have a few dozen plants. And you'd build thousands? How would you like glow-in-the-dark beef and corn?
Click to expand...
I'd like to see one powering every home, every business, every school.

The military has operated nuclear subs and aircraft carriers for years. Don't you think it's about time that technology be made available to the civilian market? I do.
 
Last edited:
Dragonfly said:
I've stood on the roof of my house in winter time. I can see the steam rising from the Salem Nuclear power plant that sits right on the Delaware River.

B9316617836Z.1_20150316082604_000_GV7A807SE.1-0.jpg


So I kinda do have one in my back yard.

No worries here.
Click to expand...

That explains the third arm growing out of the middle of your back.
 
AtlantaAdonis said:
We only have a few dozen plants. And you'd build thousands? How would you like glow-in-the-dark beef and corn?
Click to expand...

You might want to reign in the hyperbole a bit.
 
AtlantaAdonis said:
Fukushima anyone?

And it may not have to be a tsunami. Could be an earthquake or a terrorist attack or a flood. Why do people have to latch on to minutiae and miss the main point?
Click to expand...

Are you aware that Fukushima was in Japan, near the ocean, on an island. Tennessee is landlocked hundreds of miles between it and the ocean.

And terrorists could take out a nonnuclear power plant or chemical plant and do just as much if not more damage and they're less protected. Earthquakes can take out nonnuke plants too, as well as chemical facilities.

It's called risk vs benefit and the risks of what you've described have been assessed and found to either be minimal or mitigated in some way.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
Dragonfly said:
I've stood on the roof of my house in winter time. I can see the steam rising from the Salem Nuclear power plant that sits right on the Delaware River.

B9316617836Z.1_20150316082604_000_GV7A807SE.1-0.jpg


So I kinda do have one in my back yard.

No worries here.
Click to expand...

I lived on or close to several for about 8 years in the Navy. It was my job after all.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
azgreg said:
That explains the third arm growing out of the middle of your back.
Click to expand...

You got it all wrong. Nuke power makes you glow in the dark. Or your kids. Maybe both.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Jack Fabulous said:
I'd like to see one powering every home, every business, every school.

The military has operated nuclear subs and aircraft carriers for years. Don't you think it's about time that technology be made available to the civilian market? I do.
Click to expand...

Not that easy. They are very practical and really quite easy to maintain (comparatively) on a ship in the water (constant cooling supply literally right there), not as easy or efficient on land. The Army abandoned its own portable nuclear powered mobile commands dreams/experiments years ago when there was an accident.

Wind, solar, and hydro would be much better on the lower scale, using nuclear power to supplement.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Roadvirus said:
It's 1000x cleaner then a coal plant.
No mercury contaimination, no high levels of carbon dioxide, no smog, etc
Click to expand...

The safety nets in place make it far safer overall as well. Operators will take out power in 4 states before they operate any reactor without enough backups in place. It's happened.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom