|
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend Bookmark this thread |
This topic is archived. |
Home » Discuss » General Discussion |
Donnachaidh (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Feb-16-11 10:53 AM Original message |
Obama's $36 Billion Nuke-Powered Giveaway |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
MadHound (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Feb-16-11 11:00 AM Response to Original message |
1. It staggers me that we're pursuing nuclear power, |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Statistical (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Feb-16-11 11:03 AM Response to Reply #1 |
2. I am glad we are pursing nuclear power. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Avant Guardian (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Feb-16-11 11:07 AM Response to Reply #2 |
5. Just let those future people deal with the toxic wasteland we leave |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Statistical (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Feb-16-11 11:12 AM Response to Reply #5 |
7. Toxic wasteland? Your lifetime total power consumption (not just electricity but all energy) |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Tikki (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Feb-16-11 11:36 AM Response to Reply #7 |
8. And yet the Community where the Mr. and I grew up is swimming in NUKE Waste and... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Statistical (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Feb-16-11 11:47 AM Response to Reply #8 |
9. Nuclear weapons or nuclear power? Of course there is a distinction. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Tikki (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Feb-16-11 01:19 PM Response to Reply #9 |
15. NUKE power only!!!...then why do we care that 'some' Countries are... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Wilms (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Feb-16-11 11:50 AM Response to Reply #7 |
11. Can you back those decay #'s? This graph seems at odds with your post. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Statistical (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Feb-16-11 12:19 PM Response to Reply #11 |
12. Actuallly that chart pefectly backs me up. The chart is logarithmic. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Wilms (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Feb-16-11 01:19 PM Response to Reply #12 |
16. How long before you can sit next to a spent fuel rod? n/t |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Statistical (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Feb-16-11 01:23 PM Response to Reply #16 |
19. How long before you can sit next to raw uranium or radon gas? n/t |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Wilms (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Feb-16-11 01:47 PM Response to Reply #19 |
22. Well gee, now that you mention... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Statistical (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Feb-16-11 03:06 PM Response to Reply #22 |
36. Sure. There are risks to a lot of things. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Wilms (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Feb-16-11 04:12 PM Response to Reply #36 |
46. At what point need you not worry about it? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
bananas (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Feb-16-11 05:34 PM Response to Reply #46 |
52. The National Academy of Sciences and the EPA says it has to be contained for a million years |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
apocalypsehow (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Feb-16-11 01:19 PM Response to Reply #12 |
17. Excellent reply, explained so even a layman like me can understand it. Thanks for the post. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
MadHound (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Feb-16-11 02:33 PM Response to Reply #17 |
31. Don't be fooled by the flashy graphics. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
bananas (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Feb-16-11 05:46 PM Response to Reply #17 |
56. Except the National Academy of Sciences and the EPA say it has to be contained for a million years |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
apocalypsehow (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Feb-16-11 06:24 PM Response to Reply #56 |
59. The chart is factually straight-forward: it stands un-refuted. Period. n/t. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
MadHound (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Feb-16-11 06:30 PM Response to Reply #59 |
60. Here, let me refute it for you, |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
GSLevel9 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Feb-16-11 02:25 PM Response to Reply #12 |
28. a rare intelligent, informed post on the subject. nt |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
apocalypsehow (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Feb-16-11 03:24 PM Response to Reply #28 |
40. Yes, it is, and note also that the only negative "replies" to it consist of personal attacks on the |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
MadHound (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Feb-16-11 04:04 PM Response to Reply #40 |
44. I guess you missed all those links to governmental and educational publications I have up. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Avant Guardian (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Feb-16-11 06:41 PM Response to Reply #7 |
61. A soda can of nuclear waste? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Statistical (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Feb-17-11 08:37 AM Response to Reply #61 |
62. Wow. This post wins most anti-science post of the day. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
hunter (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Feb-16-11 11:49 AM Response to Reply #5 |
10. Our fossil fuel plants have already created a "toxic wasteland." |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
MadHound (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Feb-16-11 01:23 PM Response to Reply #2 |
18. Spoken like an industry spokesperson, |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Statistical (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Feb-16-11 01:35 PM Response to Reply #18 |
20. Wow. The amazing thing is that absolutely nothing you said in that entire post is true. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
MadHound (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Feb-16-11 02:06 PM Response to Reply #20 |
24. Trying to be the master of misdirection, aren't you. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Statistical (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Feb-16-11 03:14 PM Response to Reply #24 |
38. 23 years without reprocessing. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
MadHound (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Feb-16-11 03:19 PM Response to Reply #38 |
39. And again, it more expensive than wind, solar or water, |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Statistical (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Feb-16-11 03:24 PM Response to Reply #39 |
41. Hydro is limited in capacity. We have already dammed virtually every possible river. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
MadHound (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Feb-16-11 03:44 PM Response to Reply #41 |
43. I see that you haven't done any reading at the the Stanford link. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Statistical (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Feb-16-11 04:06 PM Response to Reply #43 |
45. The duke study on solar power was end user cost not total cost. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
MadHound (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Feb-16-11 04:51 PM Response to Reply #45 |
47. Oh, you want to talk subsidies? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
NickB79 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Feb-16-11 04:56 PM Response to Reply #47 |
48. "Meanwhile, solar subsidies amount to what. . . One billion dollars." |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Statistical (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Feb-16-11 05:07 PM Response to Reply #48 |
50. Here from the DOE. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Statistical (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Feb-16-11 05:03 PM Response to Reply #47 |
49. Nope. You are comparing apples and oranges. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
MadHound (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Feb-16-11 05:37 PM Response to Reply #49 |
53. Umm, are you even reading your own sources? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Name removed (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Feb-16-11 02:56 PM Response to Reply #20 |
34. Deleted message |
Statistical (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Feb-16-11 11:05 AM Response to Original message |
3. $36 billion or $0 billion? So far the $18.5 billion allocated by Bush has cost taxpayers $0.00 |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
jillan (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Feb-16-11 11:05 AM Response to Original message |
4. You're full of great information this morning Donna! |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
upi402 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Feb-16-11 11:09 AM Response to Original message |
6. Build one in Chicago |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Peregrine Took (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Feb-16-11 12:46 PM Response to Reply #6 |
13. You mean right next to the Tony Rezco side lot??? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Atman (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Feb-16-11 12:51 PM Response to Original message |
14. Cheney set the stage for this, and it's worse than you can imagine |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Codeine (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Feb-16-11 01:38 PM Response to Original message |
21. Nuclear energy IS the green-powered future. nt |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Rebubula (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Feb-16-11 02:06 PM Response to Reply #21 |
23. AMEN! |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
MadHound (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Feb-16-11 02:09 PM Response to Reply #21 |
25. Really? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
bananas (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Feb-16-11 05:40 PM Response to Reply #25 |
54. It's not Green, it's not needed, it's one of the worst options available. nt |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
apocalypsehow (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Feb-16-11 02:15 PM Response to Reply #21 |
26. Spot-on observation. The bottom line is that anti-nuclear = anti-environment/Green. Period. n/t. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
MadHound (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Feb-16-11 02:32 PM Response to Reply #26 |
30. Except for this, |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
apocalypsehow (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Feb-16-11 02:37 PM Response to Reply #30 |
32. I know I'm hitting it pretty close to the mark when the personal attacks start flying. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
MadHound (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Feb-16-11 02:55 PM Response to Reply #32 |
33. "Personal attacks start flying?" And where did I personally attack you? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
bananas (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Feb-16-11 05:43 PM Response to Reply #26 |
55. Nope - nuclear is not Green, it's green-washed - the Greens are against it |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
apocalypsehow (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Feb-16-11 05:50 PM Response to Reply #55 |
57. Yep - Nuclear power is the cleanest, Greenest kind of energy available for human use, period. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
MadHound (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Feb-16-11 06:13 PM Response to Reply #57 |
58. OK then, would you care to discuss these following issues, |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
SidDithers (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Feb-16-11 02:30 PM Response to Reply #21 |
29. +1...nt |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Statistical (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Feb-16-11 03:03 PM Response to Reply #21 |
35. +1. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Rex (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Feb-16-11 03:44 PM Response to Reply #21 |
42. The only thing green about current nuclear energy is the radioactive |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
snooper2 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Feb-16-11 02:16 PM Response to Original message |
27. Good, although I wish 25% of that money went to fusion research |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Name removed (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Feb-16-11 03:08 PM Response to Original message |
37. Deleted message |
Scruffy1 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Feb-16-11 05:24 PM Response to Original message |
51. Low cost uranium will be used up by 2055 |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) | Fri Oct 18th 2024, 01:19 AM Response to Original message |
Advertisements [?] |
Top |
Home » Discuss » General Discussion |
Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators
Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.
Home | Discussion Forums | Journals | Store | Donate
About DU | Contact Us | Privacy Policy
Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.
© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC