So I'm watching the evening news and some guy from NC WARN says we need to "prevent the building of the new nuclear reactors to prevent even more global warming gases". I'm paraphrasing a bit here of course.

This angers me.

What is wrong with you people?

How are you going to power your electric cars? Sunshine and happy faces?

Since when did nuclear power release green house gases?

It seems to me that the real danger to the enviroment is NC WARN.
Their particular brand of ignorance is the worst.

[Edited on February 3, 2008 at 11:58 PM. Reason : .]

2/3/2008 11:56:40 PM

agreed on all counts, but. . . i read this the other day and it was pretty interesting (if a little optimistic):

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=a-solar-grand-plan

2/4/2008 12:00:08 AM

While these people strike me as idiots, frankly, it's the local news which strikes me as more idiotic. Namely because NC WARN's website seems to indicate they're opposed to an expansion of Cliffside power facility, which is a coal-based plant.

http://www.ncwarn.org/

Then again, somehow the idea of them opposing an expansion of Shearon Harris wouldn't surprise me either.

2/4/2008 12:00:44 AM

Nuclear has the potential to save the world from the eminent energy crisis that will result from peak oil. Unfortunately, as soon as the ignorant masses hear the word "nuclear" they shut out any and all arguments that don't jive with their preconceived notions.

2/4/2008 12:07:14 AM

You know what? Nevermind. NC WARN are a bunch of fucking idiots.

http://www.ncwarn.org/docs/news%20rel/2007%20releases/nr%206-6-07%20PE%20delays%20nukes.htm

Quote :

"2) Every delay in building coal and nuclear plants is a boost toward climate protection. Pursuing multi-billion dollar plants is squandering the time and resources needed to slow global warming. In particular, debate over more nuclear energy is a dangerous distraction from genuine climate solutions: cutting waste, ramping up clean generation, and cogeneration at commercial and industrial facilities."

Jesus tap-dancing Christ. How do these people even manage to function in modern society?

2/4/2008 12:08:46 AM

Quote :

"How do these people even manage to function in modern society?"

Let's move them to a primitive society and see if they could function.

Then move the nuclear engineers and everyone who is not basically retarded somewhere else, equally as primitive


I know who I'm betting on to survive

2/4/2008 12:31:18 AM

these guys suck almost as bad as the MADD bitches.

2/4/2008 12:32:10 AM

wind and solar produce like 1 to 5 times as much CO2 as nuclear, but you know...

it must not be the same kind of CO2.

And everyone posting in this thread is paid by the nuclear industry.

2/4/2008 12:38:01 AM

^ i'm assuming you are talking of the manufacturing process to create solar panels.

2/4/2008 12:55:53 AM

the problem with nuclear is political not environmental. the whole "not in my backyard" thing with the nuclear waste.

2/4/2008 10:31:46 AM

The issue is deeper then that. I believe NC had agreed to build a nuclear waste storage facility in exchange for shipping our waste to other states for X amount of years. Now that the chickens have come home to roost, we've realized that not very many people want nuclear garbage stored in their back yard.

At least thats the story I had heard. Could be wrong.

2/4/2008 10:35:15 AM

NC WARN has always been stupid.

I have an idea:
Since the federal government likes to throw money at NASA, they should start researching something that would help everyone here on earth... an efficient way to throw nuclear waste into space. Once that problem is solved, only the complete fucktards would have a problem with building more nuclear facilities across the US.

(Note: That was sarcasm... mostly)

2/4/2008 10:41:13 AM

yeah until the rocket explodes on launch spreading nuclear waster material all over the upper atmosphere.

2/4/2008 10:51:29 AM

^^they don't like to throw all that much money at nasa these days.

2/4/2008 10:53:43 AM

^^^i know that was sarcasm, but a lot of people actually believe that should be the solution. once you throw it in space you probably wont be able to get it back. sooner than later, there will be a use for nuclear waste- either figuring a way to get more energy out of it or a safer way to dispose of it. The storage site in arizona seems to be the best solution right now.

2/4/2008 12:14:00 PM

Here's the thing. We could reprocess spent fuel right now. You extract the Uranium, Plutonium, and a few other transuranics chemically, leaving a relatively small volume of cesium, iodine, and a few other nasty things which actually have a relatively short lifespan (relative being a few hundred years). Take the extracted products and burn them in a fast reactor (generating more electricity in the process). It would dramatically cut the volume of the waste and leave us without having to store things for hundreds of thousands of years.

In fact this is what we were going to do until Carter shut the program down, citing proliferation concerns. Which is half-true - the reprocessing technology could in theory be used by nations to generate weapons-grade material by extracting Plutonium. But not reprocessing hasn't done anything to discourage proliferation activity, or to discourage Russia, France, and the U.K. from pursuing it.

Of course, one problem is that reprocessing costs more right now than dumping it into geologic storage. Of course, the cost of geologic storage doesn't accurately reflect the true scarcity either, since this cost is just the 1 mil/kWh fee imposed by the feds on nuclear energy... But it's not like we don't have ways to deal with this waste other than to dump it in the ground.

2/4/2008 12:19:11 PM

NUCLEAR POWER IS EVIL! COMMUNISTS WANT YOU TO USE IT!

2/4/2008 12:19:55 PM

AND THE TERRORISTS.

2/4/2008 12:34:22 PM

Everyone should email them and let them know how ignorant they are. I did.

2/4/2008 12:53:39 PM

NC WARN is probably funded indirectly by the coal and oil companies.

Kind of like a medical study on the "harms of cigarettes" funded by a tobacco company or the "dangers of drugs" by a medical research company funded by the DEA and fed gov't

[Edited on February 4, 2008 at 12:56 PM. Reason : a]

[Edited on February 4, 2008 at 12:56 PM. Reason : aa]

2/4/2008 12:54:53 PM

ARGH LOOK AT ALL THAT DIHYDROGEN MONOXIDE COMING OUT OF THOSE TOWERS! IT GOES RIGHT INTO THE AIR WE BREATHE!!!



These people are either monumentally stupid or backed by oil companies.

2/4/2008 1:04:39 PM

ZOMG DIHYDROGEN MONOXIDE WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE!!!

I'VE HEARD RUMORS THIS SUBSTANCE OCCUPIES A MAJOR % OF THE TOTAL CONTENT OF OUR LAKES AND RIVERS

[Edited on February 4, 2008 at 1:09 PM. Reason : A]

2/4/2008 1:08:36 PM

NOT TO MENTION THAT IT'S A WIDELY USED INDUSTRIAL SOLVENT. IF IT'S INDUSTRIAL OR IF IT'S A SOLVENT, IT MUST BE BAD FOR THE ENVIRONMENT!!!!1

2/4/2008 1:23:16 PM

I'm on the same page as most of you all, but...

Quote :

"Since when did nuclear power release green house gases? "

isn't water vapor a greenhouse gas?

2/5/2008 12:06:57 AM

I don't much about power and whatnot.

I do know that mathman is a hyperreligious dipshit (social conservative) who should get a new username before trying to make a point worth taking.

Seriously, you either gotta wait a really long time or renounce all the fucking nonsense you once claimed to believe.

I'll be waiting.

2/5/2008 1:29:24 AM

Quote :

"I don't much about power and whatnot."

Jesus.

2/5/2008 2:44:49 AM

Quote :

"^ i'm assuming you are talking of the manufacturing process to create solar panels."

yes, just as people refer to construction of nuclear plants in regards to nuclear's "carbon footprint". There is also some currency in the term "carbon neutral", which does apply to solar, wind, and nuclear. The only reason these sources indirectly produce carbon emissions is because the rest of our economy rests on carbon emitting fuels. But yet, ironically, what you're doing is creating energy which ideally eventually replaces those carbon fuels that played a roll in procuring that energy. In any of these cases it's not even worth our time to think about when at the same time we're running these belching coal plants...

But some people create their own fantasy world and call it "independent studies"

http://www.celsias.com/2007/12/10/interview-with-jan-storm-nuclear-power-the-energy-balance/

That might as well have fucking unicorns in them.

[Edited on February 5, 2008 at 2:47 AM. Reason : ]

2/5/2008 2:46:09 AM

I cry myself to sleep some nights thinking about how even France is smarter than we are about nuclear power.

If something absolutely had to be built in my backyard, I'd want it to be a nuclear power plant

2/5/2008 3:49:15 AM

if something absolutely HAD to be built in my backyard, i'd be cool with a wind or solar farm before a nuke plant.

2/5/2008 7:37:47 AM

I support their activism regarding coal power plants

particularly ones that would be built so close to me (Woodfin, NC)

however, I strongly disagree with their position on nuclear power
and I've gotten into big time fights with people over this

2/5/2008 8:50:37 AM

I am more than willing to have a nuclear plant in my backyard.

2/5/2008 9:03:43 AM

I am too. They look cool and drive down property values so I can buy a bigger house.

2/5/2008 10:19:23 AM

you do NOT want a wind farm in your back yard. Solar is non-obtrusive, but don't kid yourself about wind. It makes annoying ass low freq. noise that you don't notice quickly, but it's there are messes with shit. They're great to visit, but you don't want to live in the middle of one.

Nuclear itself can have noisy active cooling systems, but it depends on the plant. If it's just a cooling tower system like Sharron Harris, then it's pleasant as hell to live next to. And if it's got a cooling pond like North Anna, then you get the added benefit of a 70 degree lake in the winter

Knowing the facts is good.

2/5/2008 10:25:16 AM

Quote :

"BridgetSPK I don't much about power and whatnot. I do know that mathman is a hyperreligious dipshit (social conservative) who should get a new username before trying to make a point worth taking. Seriously, you either gotta wait a really long time or renounce all the fucking nonsense you once claimed to believe. I'll be waiting."

What can I say, .

Sorry BridgetSPK but you'll have to wait forever.

2/5/2008 10:47:30 AM

I noticed that nobody has mentioned that Harris lake is not a sufficient water source to cool additional reactors, even if it were at normal levels. Even though we don't use the lake for potable water, there is the question of where additional water would come from, and the impact on the local aquifers to be considered.

2/5/2008 3:58:35 PM

^

Quote :

"Harris Lake was designed to accommodate four nuclear reactors, but the size of the reservoir was scaled back in the early-1980s when the company decided to build only one reactor. Expanding the 4,000-acre lake would inundate a road, a hunting area and Wake County's biggest public park, which has hiking trails and boat ramps. Harris Lake County Park is on Progress Energy property that the county is leasing."

http://www.newsobserver.com/business/nc/nuclearpower/story/709925.html

2/5/2008 4:48:41 PM

Quote :

"Harris Lake was designed to accommodate four nuclear reactors, but the size of the reservoir was scaled back in the early-1980s when the company decided to build only one reactor."

So if it had been built as originally intended, we wouldn't be impacting the local hydrology. The fact remains, that surface runoff that is not currently being evaporated by the plant, will be evaporated by the plant once the proposed expansion takes place. With about 80% of freshwater usage in NC being used up by cooling towers, it's not a decision to make lightly; especially when you look at the population trends for our area.

Even though it's their land that will be flooded, the environmental impact goes well beyond the area to be immediately inundated.

2/5/2008 5:19:52 PM

Quote :

"With about 80% of freshwater usage in NC being used up by cooling towers"

Just stop right there.

2/5/2008 7:27:13 PM

^ I apologize for not having a quick link to the reference. The figure was brought up by Grady McCallie at a rainwater harvesting presentation a couple weeks ago in Raleigh. (He's from the North Carolina Conservation Network. http://www.ncconservationnetwork.org/)

I'll see if I can get ahold of him tomorrow and find the point of reference for ya. (Since you clearly believe I pulled it out of my ass)

2/5/2008 9:19:48 PM

Quote :

"And if it's got a cooling pond like North Anna, then you get the added benefit of a 70 degree lake in the winter "

That is friggin' awesome!!! I wish I lived near that lake. Is there parking nearby? Put on your swim-trunks kids, we're going to North Anna!

2/5/2008 11:22:40 PM

Quote :

"^ I apologize for not having a quick link to the reference. The figure was brought up by Grady McCallie at a rainwater harvesting presentation a couple weeks ago in Raleigh. (He's from the North Carolina Conservation Network. http://www.ncconservationnetwork.org/) I'll see if I can get ahold of him tomorrow and find the point of reference for ya. (Since you clearly believe I pulled it out of my ass)"

Nationally, these are the stats on water usage from the Electric Power Research Institute:

Residential use = 7.1 %
Commercial use and mining = 1.2 %
Irrigation = 80.6 %
Electricity generation = 3.3 %

http://mydocs.epri.com/docs/CorporateDocuments/EPRI_Journal/2007-Summer/1015362_Water.pdf

You can scroll down for a pie chart, electricity water usage is under "thermoelectric".

Look, frogs live in water. We know our shit.

[Edited on February 6, 2008 at 12:59 AM. Reason : source]

2/6/2008 12:57:13 AM

what happened to solar power?

2/6/2008 1:19:53 AM