Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

More Obama lies...ignored by the MSMFollow

#52 Jun 04 2009 at 6:16 AM Rating: Good
*****
12,049 posts
publiusvarus wrote:
Ash,

Quote:
Because it's cheaper once in place, more efficient, and more environmentally friendly?


LMAO you're such an apologist. Oh and if nuclear technology is more environmentally friendly why aren't we using it here, considering we were decades ahead of Iran 20yrs ago.

Believe it or not i'm trying to help you understand.


Huge public neurosis against it, for one. The US has in its mind that nuclear power is the downfall of the world and will lead to mushroom clouds all over the country. Sucks, but it's true. Truth is it is safer and cleaner than ever, but like prisons, most states refuse to put any inside them if they can avoid it because of the public outcry.

There is still the issue of what to do with the waste, however.
#53 Jun 04 2009 at 6:18 AM Rating: Good
Pensive the Ludicrous wrote:
Quote:
Oh and if nuclear technology is more environmentally friendly why aren't we using it here, considering we were decades ahead of Iran 20yrs ago.


Several reasons, some plausible, some that require a tinfoil hat. A very obvious one is that people are scared the @#%^ out of their minds of a meltdown.

One that might require a shiny hat is that the energy market, like any other market, is controlled by capitalists out to make as much money as they possibly can, and therefore vehemently oppose development of nuclear technology.


Another big reason the nuclear power hasn't become more widespread is because of the waste it produces. Too many states take a NIMBY aproach when it comes to deciding where to store the "spent" fuel rods.

I say "spent" because these rods still have a significant majority of their radioactive fuel left in them. Civilian reactors are horribly inefficient, and the fuel rods needs to be replaced fairly often. Military reactors, the kind that are found on submarines and aircraft carriers, are much more efficient and can run for decades before needing their fuel rods replaced.

The military won't allow its reactor technology to be used in the civilian sector for whatever reason. Until then, our current reactors will have to do, complete with their huge real estate footprint, cooling towers, and "spent" fuel rods.

EDIT: I am pro-nuclear power, btw. I think we should be replacing coal powered generating stations with nuclear ones.

Edited, Jun 4th 2009 9:21am by Tzemesce
#54 Jun 04 2009 at 6:18 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
There's always the issue of what to do with the waste. On the other hand is it any worse than the toxic sludge that is a byproduct of coal?

I say ******* the nuclear waste in the coal mines.

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#55 Jun 04 2009 at 6:40 AM Rating: Good
*****
10,601 posts
pebble bed reactors are supposed to be very very efficient compared to the old style reactors, and they're available for civilian use.
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#56 Jun 04 2009 at 6:49 AM Rating: Decent
***
3,229 posts
Lets be honest, the technology has moved on since the early 80's.

Chernobyl knocked the whole public opinion of it back 20 years. Energy is a problem and there are no viable 'green' solutions out there at the moment. Given the comparable output from nuclear reactors to waste ratio you could argue they're just as green.

Edit: Just saw my spelling of 'whole' Smiley: oyvey

Edited, Jun 4th 2009 3:00pm by Goggy
#57 Jun 04 2009 at 6:55 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Subsidies for coal & natural gas mean that nuclear power plants aren't economically attractive compared to traditional fossil fuel methods. Add to it the waste fuel question and the NIMBY factor and you have a non-starter until fossil fuel energy becomes prohibitively more expensive. Conversely, once you can say "Nuclear power will cost 60% of your current energy bill", all the sign-wavers and hand-wringers in America won't stop the construction of nuclear plants.

I'm all for nuclear power and research, by the way.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#58 Jun 04 2009 at 7:02 AM Rating: Default
Jophed,

Quote:
I'm all for nuclear power and research, by the way.


It's easy to say you're for something that you know doesn't have a chance in h*ll of becoming a reality thanks to its demonization by the liberal media.


I can't believe you people actually think Iran is developing its nuclear program to provide power. How much oil do they have? What fuels the economies of the world?

Come on people think.


#59 Jun 04 2009 at 7:13 AM Rating: Decent
***
3,229 posts
This is going round in circles.

So if they developed nuclear weapons, they'd bomb Israel?

Do you realise how stupid that is?
#60 Jun 04 2009 at 7:15 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
publiusvarus wrote:
It's easy to say you're for something that you know doesn't have a chance in h*ll of becoming a reality thanks to its demonization by the liberal media.
Meh, I've advocated for nuclear power many times before. Illinois has more nuclear reactors than any other state and they're mainly up north in my neck of the woods. It's unfortunate that nuclear power doesn't have more support from the Democrats but it's definately issue I break ranks on. However, since I disgree with the Republicans on about 30,000 other things, I'm stuck voting against it for the sake of the rest of my agenda.
Quote:
I can't believe you people actually think Iran is developing its nuclear program to provide power.
HELLO! HELLO?! Varrus?! Can you hear me from over there? We're over HERE, talking about domestic nuclear power!! Ok... come back when you want to rejoin the conversation!!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#61 Jun 04 2009 at 7:21 AM Rating: Default
Jopiel,

Quote:
HELLO! HELLO?! Varrus?! Can you hear me from over there? We're over HERE, talking about domestic nuclear power!! Ok... come back when you want to rejoin the conversation!!


You may be talking about domestic nuclear power but I guarantee that's not Irans intention. Exactly the same way NK used the technology Clinton gave them to develop nuclear weapons. You act as if we havn't been through this before.



Edited, Jun 4th 2009 11:22am by publiusvarus
#62 Jun 04 2009 at 7:24 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
publiusvarus wrote:
You may be talking about domestic nuclear power but I guarantee that's not Irans intention.
You may be talking about Iran but grizzy bears rarely fight alligators in the wild.

You know, as long as we're just jumping around from topic to topic at a whim.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#63 Jun 04 2009 at 7:37 AM Rating: Default
Jophiel,

Do you even remember when Clinton gave NK nuclear technology with their promise they wouldn't use that technology to develope weapons. Well here we are 12yrs later and they've used that technology to become a nuclear power. The exact same thing is going to happen in Iran if something isn't done. And Iran doesn't have a China next door to keep them in check.

#64 Jun 04 2009 at 7:45 AM Rating: Decent
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
I would like to see nuclear energy continued to be developed for special and specific energy needs, but not for large-scale every day domestic energy. It's not renewable, it requires mining and transport of uranium, it's innately more dangerous to carbon-based life forms than other types of energy, and of course there are the disposal issues.



____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#65 Jun 04 2009 at 8:03 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
publiusvarus wrote:
Do you even remember when Clinton gave NK nuclear technology with their promise they wouldn't use that technology to develope weapons.
*Yawn*

Talk to Reagan & Bush Sr as well who ignored every sign of N. Korea's nuclear program.
The Center for Defense Information wrote:
In the 1980s, North Korea accelerated its efforts to produce plutonium fuel for nuclear weapons from these facilities. International concern began to focus on North Korea's nuclear ambitions, and in 1985 North Korea, under pressure, signed the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). North Korea completed the second reactor around 1987. It has a capacity of about five electrical megawatts, allowing annual production of seven kilograms of plutonium — enough for one or two nuclear weapons. In the mid-1990s, North Korea began building two larger reactors with respective power of 50 and 200 electrical megawatts. When the Agreed Framework shut down these plants, they stood about two years from completion. Satellite photographs taken in 1990 indicate North Korea has constructed a structure at Yongbyon used to separate plutonium from nuclear fuel — a critical stage in weaponizing plutonium.

In 1989, North Korea shut down its working reactor for two months — probably to remove the nuclear fuel rods, from which plutonium is reprocessed. U.S. intelligence reports generally estimate that North Korea extracted 12-14 kilograms of plutonium from the rods, enough for one or two nuclear weapons. Japanese and South Korean intelligence estimates claim North Korea may have extracted more plutonium during reactor slowdowns in 1990 and 1991, giving the country up to 24 kilograms of plutonium. North Korea may have acquired additional plutonium by smuggling it out of Russia. A 1993 report in the German magazine Stern cited a Russian counterintelligence report claiming that North Korea had bought kilograms of Russian plutonium on the black market.
The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists wrote:
In the early 1990s, the CIA concluded that North Korea had effectively joined the nuclear club by building one or possibly two weapons from plutonium it produced before 1992.
[...]
CIA, untitled estimate provided to Congress, November 19, 2002. According to the estimate, "The U.S. has been concerned about North Korea's desire for nuclear weapons and has assessed since the early 1990s that the North has one or possibly two weapons using plutonium it produced prior to 1992."
Boooooooo Clinton! It was all his fault!!! Smiley: mad
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#66 Jun 04 2009 at 8:09 AM Rating: Default
Jophiel,

Reagan and W Sr may not have done enough to prevent it but at least they didn't just give them the technology.

Quote:
Clinton Administration officials said today that they are on the verge of a "significant breakthrough" with North Korea that would permanently freeze its threatening nuclear weapons project and provide for a resumption of international inspections.

In return, the officials said, Washington is offering a number of concessions, including an agreement to assure the Communist Government a steady supply of coal and fuel oil, and later to arrange for America's allies in Asia to construct nuclear power plants in the North worth billions of dollars.


http://www.nytimes.com/1994/10/15/world/clinton-administration-reports-a-breakthrough-in-north-korea-nuclear-arms-talks.html
#67 Jun 04 2009 at 8:21 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Yeah, that wa ssuch a terrible agreement that Bush Jr went and bribed N. Korea with $95,000,000 to stay in Clinton's framework and even made sure to water it down so the Koreans could just take the money, smile and return to what they were doing.
BBC, April 3rd 2002, wrote:
The US Government has announced that it will release $95m to North Korea as part of an agreement to replace the Stalinist country's own nuclear programme, which the US suspected was being misused.

Under the 1994 Agreed Framework an international consortium is building two proliferation-proof nuclear reactors and providing fuel oil for North Korea while the reactors are being built.

In releasing the funding, President George W Bush waived the Framework's requirement that North Korea allow inspectors to ensure it has not hidden away any weapons-grade plutonium from the original reactors.
Bolding mine.

Boooooooo Clinton! Smiley: laugh

I don't excuse Clinton for the mistakes he did make, but he probably did more to slow down the development than the three Republican presidents in that 56 year period combined. Regan & Bush Sr. ignored the issue while Bush Jr. paid N. Korea millions upon millions of dollars while insulting and threatening them. I mean, do one or the other, at least.

According to the CIA, N. Korea probably had developed nuclear weapons (albeit not publicly tested) before Clinton ever took office.

Edited, Jun 4th 2009 11:23am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#68 Jun 04 2009 at 8:26 AM Rating: Default
Jophiel,

Quote:
According to the CIA, N. Korea probably had developed nuclear weapons (albeit not publicly tested) before Clinton ever took office.


#69 Jun 04 2009 at 8:34 AM Rating: Good
Hey, the fact that Iraq probably had WMD was good enough for Bush Jr to invade them.

Double standards much?
#70 Jun 04 2009 at 8:37 AM Rating: Good
*****
12,049 posts
catwho the Pest wrote:
Hey, the fact that Iraq probably had WMD was good enough for Bush Jr to invade them.

Double standards much?


And to be fair, the CIA report about North Korea's nuke history probably didn't have Rumsfeld or Cheney deliberately skewing data and demanding results for their own conclusion.
#71 Jun 04 2009 at 8:41 AM Rating: Default
Locked,

Quote:
And to be fair, the CIA report about North Korea's nuke history probably didn't have Rumsfeld or Cheney deliberately skewing data and demanding results for their own conclusion.



Actually Saddam was unable/unwilling to prove he had disposed of his WMD's. That's a far cry from what you people are stating. Nevermind the fact that Saddam broke the ceasefire.

And had you people not made such a fuss about Iraq W would "probably" have taken care of NK as well.

#72 Jun 04 2009 at 8:43 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,007 posts
publiusvarus wrote:
Locked,

Quote:
And to be fair, the CIA report about North Korea's nuke history probably didn't have Rumsfeld or Cheney deliberately skewing data and demanding results for their own conclusion.



Actually Saddam was unable/unwilling to prove he had disposed of his WMD's. That's a far cry from what you people are stating. Nevermind the fact that Saddam broke the ceasefire.

And had you people not made such a fuss about Iraq W would "probably" have taken care of NK as well.

There's not a chance in hell that we would ever, ever have invaded Korea. It would be insane to even consider it. They'll die from within, just like every other Communist state.
#73 Jun 04 2009 at 8:51 AM Rating: Good
*****
12,049 posts
publiusvarus wrote:
Locked,

Quote:
And to be fair, the CIA report about North Korea's nuke history probably didn't have Rumsfeld or Cheney deliberately skewing data and demanding results for their own conclusion.



Actually Saddam was unable/unwilling to prove he had disposed of his WMD's. That's a far cry from what you people are stating. Nevermind the fact that Saddam broke the ceasefire.

And had you people not made such a fuss about Iraq W would "probably" have taken care of NK as well.



Yes, Saddam was unwilling to admit it... because it kept him in power. His people thought they could be massacred at any time; his enemies thought invasion would be too costly. It was despicable, and a SHAM. It is a fact that Cheney pushed his own fact-checkers to make statements about an Iraqi uranium connection. It is a fact that Rumsfeld leaned on Tenet to get the CIA to issue a report to justify going to war.

I would never say Saddam was a good person or a just ruler; he was a tyrant and a murderer. But he was effective at keeping control in a region known for instability.

As for the second point, if W's admin hadn't had such a hard-on for Iraq, we "probably" would have had more leverage against NK. We never would have invaded though.

Edited, Jun 4th 2009 12:53pm by LockeColeMA
#74 Jun 04 2009 at 9:00 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
publiusvarus wrote:
Jophiel,

Quote:
According to the CIA, N. Korea probably had developed nuclear weapons (albeit not publicly tested) before Clinton ever took office.
Actually, the hedging was mine. The CIA report stated that it "has assessed since the early 1990s that the North has one or possibly two weapons".

You can read an unclassified version of the CIA report here. In fact, it notes that if N. Korea started making weapons again (this was in 2002) that it would start with the reprocessed fuel in Yongbyon it obtained in the 1980's under the watchful eyes of Ronnie 'n George. Good thing Bush Jr told N. korea that it could get $95mil without showing that it wasn't hiding weapons grade fuel at Yongbyon, huh?

Boooooooo Clinton!

Edited, Jun 4th 2009 12:01pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#75 Jun 04 2009 at 9:12 AM Rating: Decent
Edited by bsphil
******
21,739 posts
publiusvarus wrote:
Xsarus,

Quote:
Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!


I'm sorry where in this statement does is say get on you knees and praise allah?
Doesn't mention Jesus or Moses either. What the f*ck.
____________________________
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
Take the hint guys, please take the hint.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
#76 Jun 04 2009 at 9:42 AM Rating: Good
catwho the Pest wrote:
Hey, the fact that Iraq probably had WMD was good enough for Bush Jr to invade them.

Double standards much?


Well, you don't want to invade a country that really has WMDs, because they might use them on you.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 232 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (232)