Member of the Month

PartyBullshiit
March, 2024

Online

Welcome to the Newschoolers forums! You may read the forums as a guest, however you must be a registered member to post. Register to become a member today!

Obama shuts down yucca mountain?

profile picture
SacAttack
Posts: 168 - Karma: 10
WTF is Obama's problem.   Nuclear power is the best thing ever and obama is fucking over all the nuclear plants because now they dont have a place to put their waste. Yucca mountain cost 13 billion. I feel like obama wants to fuck over this country.
Nov 6 2009 5:34PM
0 0
profile picture
Static
Posts: 8491 - Karma: 4,058
that's way worse than paying out the ass
Nov 7 2009 2:41AM
0 0
profile picture
acc
Posts: 4122 - Karma: 222
Phrosty, you've got NS sarcasm by now..
Nov 7 2009 2:44AM
0 0
profile picture
-dva-
Posts: 1530 - Karma: 23
oh, compared to the rest of the world, for sure.  sorry, i guess i misunderstood you.  but yeah, that's why all our jobs are going overseas is because companies can get away with way more and pay way less.  but hey, here's for hoping that the coming years brings exciting new changes to our energy market, regardless of what happens with yucca mountain
Nov 7 2009 3:04AM
0 0
profile picture
alev
Posts: 7819 - Karma: 410
france runs 88% of its power from nuclear. nuclear is good great, but the waste, if nt disposed correctly, can be dangerous
Nov 7 2009 3:21AM
0 0
profile picture
-dva-
Posts: 1530 - Karma: 23
france also reprocesses its fuel, which we don't. so they have less waste to start with
Nov 7 2009 3:34AM
0 0
profile picture
CMF
Posts: 1918 - Karma: 16
nuclear power = terrible idea

-national security risk

-waster lasts billions of years

-insanely difficult to store waste

-unsafe to transport the waste

-chernobyl

obama = kind of okay, not half bad (though i dislike that he is a capitalist and a christian, although his style of religious practice has a seemingly less pernicious effect on the united states social, political, economic, educational, environmental and foreign policy than that asshole before him)
Nov 7 2009 4:45AM
0 0
profile picture
acc
Posts: 4122 - Karma: 222
Wrong

-Stupid

-Billions?

-Not really

-Incorrect.  This isn't even the video I was looking for.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1mHtOW-OBO4

-Stupidity
Nov 7 2009 9:47AM
0 0
profile picture
frosted_flakes
Posts: 1200 - Karma: 1,256

you are so wrong on every one of those statements

-how is it a security risk?

-the waste actually lasts 492,000 years approxamately considering the half life of plutonium is 246,000 years, so you were SOOOO far off

-its not difficult to store when you already have a storage place like yucca mountain

-its not unsafe to transport

-and wtf does chernobyl have to do with any of this, chernobyl happened because a plant had an accident where they tried to pump out wayyy more energy from the plant than it was able to, so they shut off the security so it would allow them to fuck themselves over, then the plant exploded causing massive amounts of radioactivity throughout the whole city. In no way does storing waste have anything to do with that, the U.S  has extreme amounts of plant security and would not be dumb enough to try to risk a massive nuclear effect on the world for a little more bang for their buck as the USSR was

DUMBASS

Nov 7 2009 10:01AM
0 0
profile picture
looneygeorge
Posts: 633 - Karma: 14
That is correct.


they were talking about how yucca could become dangerously radiated because of the U235 stored there.

Obama just did what has been in talks and been planned for over a decade.
Nov 7 2009 10:04AM
0 0
profile picture
Craigskis
Posts: 6648 - Karma: 1,636
The problem with Canada is that we do not refine our own oil before selling it off to you Americans.
America accounts for roughly 60% of our oil sands export and for every barrel we sell you guys when it goes through manufactuting/refining process it seems to work out to about 10-1. Since Alberta is pretty much the 53rd state & the politics that be are in power there I don't see how anything will change soon.

Maximumsushi could lay down some education there^... I'd be interested to read his current views on things...

...But this was about Nuclear waste & decay and it's something I don't know anything much about... The problems with it will exist long long after were gone I just hope humanity monitors the storage and upkeep effectively. Because I'm picturing the city of Lud from Stephen Kings "The waste lands" if not...


Nov 7 2009 10:43AM
0 0
profile picture
looneygeorge
Posts: 633 - Karma: 14
dude..

its sooo fucking dumb to call people dumbasses when you are one yourself



half life of plutonium is 246,000 years. after 492,000 years there's still a quarter of the waste left.. and after that an eigth, a sixteenth, a 32th, 64th, 128th... untill the waste is so little that the amount of radiation is too little for us to take damage...... waste never truly goes away, just becomes insanely small.


you were way off with you 492,000 years estimate dude.

"-its not difficult to store when you already have a storage place like yucca mountain"
it is difficult to store, why do you think there is so much debate around this subject? there aren't alot of places in the world to store this, and the places where there is space are overcrowded with waste to make it a health hazard for the environment. like Yucca...
Nov 7 2009 11:04AM
0 0
profile picture
babaganoush
Posts: 157 - Karma: 10
It is possible to make coal power plants that are very clean via carbon injection, right now its not an economically viable option because when this system is implemented the productivity of the plant is reduced substantially.

Wind power from the ocean sounds great but it isn't a real long-term solution,

I'm of the opinion that a real long-term solution will be found in the nuclear sector, whether it be fusion, fission, or something that has yet to be developed.
Nov 7 2009 11:11AM
0 0
profile picture
J.D.
Posts: 21362 - Karma: 5,141
Hahahahaha, in this thread, a bunch of teenagers on newschoolers discuss the benefits and drawbacks of nuclear power!

Before running your mouths off about literally everything, do you guys ever stop and think "Hmmm, do I really know the first thing about this subject?"
Nov 7 2009 11:35AM
0 0
profile picture
-dva-
Posts: 1530 - Karma: 23
hahaha i like that you made fission and "something that has yet to be developed" two different categories.  nuclear is going to be a stepping stone towards renewables, and will eventually get phased out unless we somehow figure out a real way to deal with the fuel other than burying it.

and JD, i resent that.  just because it's the norm doesn't mean everyone here is retarded.
Nov 7 2009 3:45PM
0 0
profile picture
skiierman
Posts: 28699 - Karma: -5,563
no he's actually right. its crazy how you all are trying to seriously argue a subject in which none of you have any knowledge about.
Nov 7 2009 4:05PM
0 0
profile picture
Ski_Unit_19
Posts: 8188 - Karma: 38
i cant speak for anyone else in this thread but ive known dva for 12 years and he knows more then enough to be able to argue this subject plus a shit ton of others.
Nov 7 2009 5:49PM
0 0
profile picture
Dan-Man
Posts: 7480 - Karma: 3,605
Click for larger image
Nov 7 2009 6:24PM
0 0
profile picture
SacAttack
Posts: 168 - Karma: 10
hey buddy let me inform you of something

oil, coal, and natural gas are all going to run out in about 1000 years

do you know how long the uranium deposits will last if we reprocess the uranium like the french do?

1 billion years  buddy....

so whether you like it or not your great grandchildren are gonna be sucking nuclear powers cock for millions of years assuming your smart enough to reproduce yourself.
Nov 10 2009 2:25PM
0 0
profile picture
GreekAR6
Posts: 527 - Karma: 11
Not trying to be a dick, but you meant fusion right?
Nov 10 2009 3:36PM
0 0
profile picture
-dva-
Posts: 1530 - Karma: 23
haha yes, definitely.  whoops...
Nov 10 2009 4:44PM
0 0
profile picture
Campeador
Posts: 7516 - Karma: -1,227
The humor being that the Obama white house isn't too far off from that mark?

Before you but in with your arrogance, do you ever stop to think, Hmmm does it really matter if kids type their thoughts on a thread of no consequence? This isn't an academic debate, a person does not need to be an expert on anything in order to talk about it on a skiing website's internet forum. Plenty of people understand the basics of nuclear power. But, as always, I'm sure you know it better.

*Disclaimer for JD: I am not an expert on Yucca mountain or nuclear energy* I've done research papers on nuclear power. In our current day and age, nuclear power is the most efficient source of energy available. If Obama wants to close down Yucca mountain, fine, but where is the stuff going to go instead? Maybe he has a proposal that I haven't come across yet but on the surface this just looks like another Obama handling of Gitmo. Basically more proof that Obama really has no idea what he's doing, following the environmental policy of Reid and Pelosi, what a great use of billions of taxpayer dollars. Yet Obama still has the nerve to lie about his support of nuclear energy during the debates. As well as having the nerve to not only attempt to slowly kill of nuclear power, but also make energy use from other sources increasingly expensive so that we use less, through the brilliance of his proposed cap and trade policies. Liberal green ecowarriors at their finest. Even the French embrace the benefits of nuclear power.


Feel free to write me another essay length response, or preferably, a reputable source that outlines Obama's alternative.
Nov 10 2009 5:29PM
0 0
profile picture
Campeador
Posts: 7516 - Karma: -1,227
^The above response is for you, I don't know why it didn't quote.
Nov 10 2009 5:30PM
0 0
profile picture
ElbridgeGerry
Posts: 5902 - Karma: -27
We could also tape plastic bags over our butts to catch the methane, then at the end of the day go down to the local methane storage area and deposit it.



A wind farm in the ocean is retarded, wind farms in general are retarded.
Nov 10 2009 5:44PM
0 0
profile picture
KarmaInitiative
Posts: 2028 - Karma: 174
wouldnt say its the first thing thats pissed me off, but were def on the same page. i support the guy but between Afghanistan, healthcare, gays and now this?
Nov 10 2009 5:46PM
0 0
profile picture
Mr.Panda
Posts: 17711 - Karma: 564
I have a question. Outside of the spent fuel rods nuclear waste is quite possibly the most clean form of energy isn't it?

Well, I guess I have two questions. These spent fuel rods, they aren't usable for weapons either are they? Like outside of perhaps a dirty bomb.
Nov 10 2009 5:50PM
0 0
profile picture
Ben.
Posts: 21463 - Karma: 683
which is the worst possible kind of bomb. i think the french have a way to reuse them though
Nov 10 2009 5:51PM
0 0
profile picture
Mr.Panda
Posts: 17711 - Karma: 564
True, but still... the energy it self is incredibly clean, unlike coal or other fossil fuels right?
Nov 10 2009 5:55PM
0 0
profile picture
ElbridgeGerry
Posts: 5902 - Karma: -27
I may be totally wrong but in Southern Ontario, there's a community of indians on Walpole Island, and there is a nuclear plant upriver(dont quote me, I'm not sure) My sister did a consulting job there and apparently their ducks and fish and shit are all deformed.
Nov 10 2009 5:59PM
0 0
profile picture
Valind
Posts: 4358 - Karma: 17

Obama sure did promise change.  ....

Charge for the worst.   ithought I saw a poll once as few weeks that everypne that voted for him would not vote again for him.  I should try to find that poll...

Nov 10 2009 6:16PM
0 0
profile picture
Tasche
Posts: 5422 - Karma: 99
A lot of stupid people posting.  I hate to admit it but Scaledo (beside hating on liberals) is the most correct NSer.  Kid of like being the kid with the biggest dick in first grade....

I am just going from what I remember because I don't feel like looking shit up but wasn't Yucca Mountain only half built?  And finishing building it would cost billions more.  I am in no way saying this should be a deterrent.  By Obamas logic this should put tons of people to work, not to mention the building of additional nuclear plants.

Nuclear power, with today's technology, is the best alternative to fossil fuels.  Best alternative not best.  Fossil fuels are still cheaper, safer and easier to produce.  That being said a much higher percentage of our energy should come from nuclear sources.  This would be the case if there was competent operators at 3 mile island and the USSR didn't let their reactor melt down.  Now people are too scared of nuclear power, thanks Simpsons.  Research is being done to create "mini" nuclear plants, community to city size that would be much better suited and safer but the battle is not with the technology it is with public perception.

The environmental issue is a toss up.  It takes an incredible amount of digging to get nuclear fuel.  You can't just have balls of fuel it is spread all over the place.  Coal is the same way, just saying it isn't environmentally neutral. 

So is nuclear power the answer?  Maybe, but probably not.  We are living in exponential times.  Our scientific knowledge will double in the next ten years.  Carbon nano tubes will allow us to put a tethered satellite into orbit.  Many ways of power generation that we cant even comprehend are on the horizon that will far surpass the efficiency of nuclear power, which in most cases operates at a net loss and is sustained by subsidies.  If I were president I would commission the building of 50 new nuclear plants tomorrow but Obama is going a different way.  Bush did absolutely nothing.  So...
Nov 10 2009 6:20PM
0 0
profile picture
Ben.
Posts: 21463 - Karma: 683
hahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahaha


are you that fucking retarded?
Nov 10 2009 6:44PM
0 0
profile picture
Ben.
Posts: 21463 - Karma: 683
clean except for the leftovers ya. those big clouds coming out of nuke facilities are just steam i believe.
Nov 10 2009 6:56PM
0 0
profile picture
Click_Here
Posts: 1728 - Karma: 14
-k. bad grammar.
Nov 10 2009 8:45PM
0 0
profile picture
Mr.Panda
Posts: 17711 - Karma: 564
I would -K you for being a raging douchebag but I already did. Too bad.
Nov 10 2009 8:47PM
0 0
profile picture
-dva-
Posts: 1530 - Karma: 23
to respond to you and mr. panda, the US's nuclear waste is not weapons grade. in fact, the reason we don't reprocess the fuel like the french do is because that brings the waste products closer to a weaponizable (i might have made that word up) level. its part of our whole nuclear proliferation plan. if the reprocessed material ever got into the wrong hands it'd be a lot more dangerous. that being said, i still support the reprocessing of fuel because personally i'd rather have a tiny bit of dangerous material than a TON of kind of dangerous material. to each their own though.
Nov 10 2009 8:47PM
0 0
profile picture
Mr.Panda
Posts: 17711 - Karma: 564
But the stuff we have can be used to create a bomb that has radioactivity in it correct?
Nov 10 2009 8:48PM
0 0
profile picture
Ben.
Posts: 21463 - Karma: 683
so the stuff we have now is dangerous in terms of toxicity etc. but it couldnt be used in a bomb?
Nov 10 2009 8:49PM
0 0
profile picture
Mr.Panda
Posts: 17711 - Karma: 564
Well, you can use nails, moldy ketchup, and rotten milk in a bomb too to try and get people food poisoning. But my question was if the stuff that is a bi product of nuclear power able to make another atomic or hydrogen bomb.
Nov 10 2009 8:50PM
0 0
profile picture
ElbridgeGerry
Posts: 5902 - Karma: -27
It's magnificent what google can do Greg.




Back end

The back end of the nuclear fuel cycle, mostly spent fuel rods, contains fission products that emit beta and gamma radiation, and actinides that emit alpha particles, such as uranium-234, neptunium-237, plutonium-238 and americium-241, and even sometimes some neutron emitters such as californium (Cf). These isotopes are formed in nuclear reactors.

It is important to distinguish the processing of uranium to make fuel from the reprocessing of used fuel. Used fuel contains the highly radioactive products of fission (see high level waste below). Many of these are neutron absorbers, called neutron poisons in this context. These eventually build up to a level where they absorb so many neutrons that the chain reaction stops, even with the control rods completely removed. At that point the fuel has to be replaced in the reactor with fresh fuel, even though there is still a substantial quantity of uranium-235 and plutoniumpresent. In the United States, this used fuel is stored, while in countries such as the Russia,United Kingdom, France, Japan and India the fuel is reprocessed to remove the fission products, and the fuel can then be re-used. This reprocessing involves handling highly radioactive materials, and the fission products removed from the fuel are a concentrated form of high-level waste as are the chemicals used in the process. While these countries reprocess the fuel carrying out single plutonium cycles, India is known to be the only country in the world planning multiple plutonium recycling schemes.[15]. This has two distinct advantages, the reprocessed fuel is rendered unusable for weapons development, and high fuel efficiency can be achieved. For their plutonium generating reactors, India has realized a burn-up almost 4 times as high as the typical fuel efficiency of normal commercial nuclear reactors.[15]

Nov 10 2009 8:56PM
0 0
profile picture
Mr.Panda
Posts: 17711 - Karma: 564
Was that a shot Stuart? I have had a rough two weeks. Give me a break.
Nov 10 2009 8:58PM
0 0
profile picture
ElbridgeGerry
Posts: 5902 - Karma: -27
I'm kidding man, but it was a shot. Just a shot in jest.
Nov 10 2009 9:00PM
0 0
profile picture
Mr.Panda
Posts: 17711 - Karma: 564
Ok... glad to know some things never change.
Nov 10 2009 9:03PM
0 0
profile picture
-dva-
Posts: 1530 - Karma: 23
without further processing, the spent fuel couldn't be used for an actual nuclear bomb. i suppose you could make a "dirty" bomb but i'm really not sure to be honest. my understanding is that reprocessing it once gets it closer to that level, and then (i guess according to wikipedia ^ ) doing it again makes it unusable as a weapon.
Nov 10 2009 9:05PM
0 0
profile picture
LjayCinema
Posts: 368 - Karma: 1,645
yessir..
Nov 10 2009 9:16PM
0 0
All times are Eastern (-4)