Clean Cities

davekc

Senior Moderator
Staff member
Fleet Owner
If we could find a safe way to dispose of the nuclear waste or make it's decay quicker then nuclear wouldn't be bad. Problem is you have meltdowns...Japan's F....(I can't spell it!), Chernobyl, 3 mile island...even when not deadly, the clean up costs are massive. Then you have waste that you have to store securely and safely for thousands (not an exaggeration) of years. It's already dangerous but we also have the added scare of terrorists getting ahold of this material and making weapons. How can we possibly get it safely secured and accounted for, for thousands of years...the government? When's the last time they were efficient and trusted?

Sent from my VS910 4G using EO Forums mobile app

Very good point. A very fixed target for terrorists.
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
If we could find a safe way to dispose of the nuclear waste or make it's decay quicker then nuclear wouldn't be bad. Problem is you have meltdowns...Japan's F....(I can't spell it!), Chernobyl, 3 mile island...even when not deadly, the clean up costs are massive. Then you have waste that you have to store securely and safely for thousands (not an exaggeration) of years. It's already dangerous but we also have the added scare of terrorists getting ahold of this material and making weapons. How can we possibly get it safely secured and accounted for, for thousands of years...the government? When's the last time they were efficient and trusted?

Sent from my VS910 4G using EO Forums mobile app

Three Mile Island was FAR different than the two other accidents you have quoted. Most American reactors don't use direct water cooling. The cooling water is not in contact with the fuel rods in the same way it is with the other two cited cases.

In the US, nuke power has caused much less pollution than most other forms of electricity generation and BY FAR fewer deaths. The death count is not even close.

We have built a spent fuel storage area but the congress is blocking it's use.

Right now, we are running out of generation capacity at a time when demand is growing. Many plants, of all types, are reaching the end of their life cycle. Wind and solar is in no way capable, and likely will never be, to meet the demand.

We need to start building, VERY SOON, or we are going to see far more shortages and failure than we are now.

It is also unlikely that an explosive type nuke device could be made from American style spent fuel rods, not without a LOT of refining. They could be used to make a "dirty bomb" type weapon.
 

letzrockexpress

Veteran Expediter
Those that watch Motorweek on PBS will be familiar with the Clean Cities report. It highlights a different player each week. Basically, in 1993 the Clean Cities Initiative was passed. It's various government entities, utility companies and private companies that are using alternative fuel vehicles to save money and help the environment. Well, to save money and the environment is just a bonus that doesn't cost them anything. Most would probably do the same thing if it only saved the money and had zero impact on the environment.

Anyway, 20 years later, they've saved 34M tons of of greenhouse gases. That's 1.7M tons per year. Now, if we told the tree huggers to shut up and went to nuclear power for 100% of the U.S. electric usage rather than the current 20%, we would save that same 1.7M tons of greenhouse gases not in one year but in 15 hours. Every 15 hours another 1.7M tons, or another years worth of Clean Cities. It will take the Clean Cities almost 600 years to eliminate as much greenhouse gas as nuclear would eliminate in 1 year.


Very impressive. Most people don't realize Carbon Dioxide is maybe the biggest threat to our existence. This would be a step in the right direction. Without oxygen nothing else matters...
 

usafk9

Veteran Expediter
Wait.....PBS...... isn't that the home of that liberal commie.... Big Bird?

Sent from my DROID RAZR using EO Forums mobile app
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Very impressive. Most people don't realize Carbon Dioxide is maybe the biggest threat to our existence. This would be a step in the right direction. Without oxygen nothing else matters...

This is a very simplistic statement. C02 has been FAR higher in times past but solar activity was lower. So there was glaciation, even with extremely high C02 levels.

Solar activity, started dropping off around 1998-99, about the same time that the earth slowed it's warming. It is a little cooler now than then and getting cooler.

I believe, that solar activity, which waxes and wains over millions of years is far more likely the primary cause of the warming period we just saw.

There are MANY other factors, such as a lack of, or an abundance, of volcanic activity that influences temperature. As do changes in the flow of ocean currents, to include, volume, temperature and even failure of those currents. Changes in those currents in the past have led to a total icing of the planet. That will happen again They need to be looking back AT LEAST 120 million years, about how long the continents have been in their present locations and ocean currents running similar to what they are now.
 

pandora2112

Seasoned Expediter
Layout that's why I mentioned the clean up costs...three mile island was a very low level event compared to the other two. But that clean up still cost a lot of moola!
Plus dirty bomb or not I don't trust anyone's capability to babysit nuclear waste for thousands of years.
There's more than wind or solar, there's geothermal and hydroelectric too...I'm not doubting nuclear power is cleaner than coal, I'm doubting our ability not to have massive nuclear reactor meltdowns and safe, clean and secure storage abilities.

Sent from my VS910 4G using EO Forums mobile app
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Layout that's why I mentioned the clean up costs...three mile island was a very low level event compared to the other two. But that clean up still cost a lot of moola!
Plus dirty bomb or not I don't trust anyone's capability to babysit nuclear waste for thousands of years.
There's more than wind or solar, there's geothermal and hydroelectric too...I'm not doubting nuclear power is cleaner than coal, I'm doubting our ability not to have massive nuclear reactor meltdowns and safe, clean and secure storage abilities.

Sent from my VS910 4G using EO Forums mobile app

Hydro is causing FAR more damage than most understand. It is wiping out entire ecosystems. Destroying fish spawning areas. That has massive effects on fish stocks, overpopulation of bait fish, etc etc.

There is NO freebies. EVERYTHING causes problems. Wind and solar are causing serious problems on their own. Coal can be cleaned up, a lot. Natural gas is a renewable resource. Nuke is FAR safer, in this country, than it is given credit for. Keep in mind, that it would somewhere near 250,000 ACRES of wind farm to equal the output of just the one plant in Newport, MI. They are destroying acres upon acres of wildlife habitat, for both solar and wind, to "improve" the environment.

Not nearly the easy answers so many want to see.
 

pandora2112

Seasoned Expediter
Everything does come with price....I'll readily admit I'm no expert on power sources but nuclear power is about as safe as a caged tiger, it's all fun and games until you stick your hand in the cage (happened this weekend zookeeper almost lost her arm) or someone forgets to lock the door.

Sent from my VS910 4G using EO Forums mobile app
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Everything does come with price....I'll readily admit I'm no expert on power sources but nuclear power is about as safe as a caged tiger, it's all fun and games until you stick your hand in the cage (happened this weekend zookeeper almost lost her arm) or someone forgets to lock the door.

Sent from my VS910 4G using EO Forums mobile app

The entire subject is "shaky" to say the least. Examples of a FEW of the things that "scientists" are blaming "global warming" on:

Too many people
Too many earthworms
Too many trees
Too many cows
Not enough trees
Not enough "Old Growth Forests"
Too many "Old Growth Forests"

Things they DON'T tend to blame

Hot air produced by politicians
Hot air produced by "environmental scientists"
Casinos
Bars
Amusement Parks
Street lights
Rock Concerts
Auto racing
Horse racing

ETC
 

pandora2112

Seasoned Expediter
Now there's our answer...hot air and methane produced by politicians and the think tanks, scientists and college professors in their pockets! :D

Sent from my VS910 4G using EO Forums mobile app
 

pandora2112

Seasoned Expediter
And don't forget when need to lower the price of porterhouse and ribeye to help take care of this cow problem!

Sent from my VS910 4G using EO Forums mobile app
 

Ragman

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
And don't forget when need to lower the price of porterhouse and ribeye to help take care of this cow problem!

Sent from my VS910 4G using EO Forums mobile app

en_0424_andrews_480x360.jpg
 

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
It's another week and another chance for TEPCO to embarrass itself at the Fukushima power plant. Sometime on Monday morning, the cooling pump for the reactors shut down suddenly. Suddenly. Without warning. Mechanical failure or some freak accident, right? Nope. Some worker just pushed the off button by mistake, according to the Nuclear Regulation Authority.

In the end, everything turned out okay. The backup cooling system kicked in, and the workers running the plant figure out how to "un-push" the button or do whatever they had to do to get those pumps working again. However, the incident is especially embarrassing for TEPCO, which just can't stop screwing up. Just last week, some workers spilled 114 gallons of radioactive water because they tried to pour it in a tank that was already full. Yeah, already full. Good grief.


On the other hand, this does look pretty awesome....

6c2e4a7d-0cfb-48c5-926c-e56861998ba_zps6522918f.jpg
 

LDB

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
The question is do you want all the power you want at reasonable rates with the minimal risks involved or do you want insufficient power at high prices with comparatively equal but different risks.
 

letzrockexpress

Veteran Expediter
it's another week and another chance for tepco to embarrass itself at the fukushima power plant. Sometime on monday morning, the cooling pump for the reactors shut down suddenly. Suddenly. Without warning. Mechanical failure or some freak accident, right? Nope. Some worker just pushed the off button by mistake, according to the nuclear regulation authority.

In the end, everything turned out okay. The backup cooling system kicked in, and the workers running the plant figure out how to "un-push" the button or do whatever they had to do to get those pumps working again. However, the incident is especially embarrassing for tepco, which just can't stop screwing up. Just last week, some workers spilled 114 gallons of radioactive water because they tried to pour it in a tank that was already full. Yeah, already full. Good grief.


On the other hand, this does look pretty awesome....

6c2e4a7d-0cfb-48c5-926c-e56861998ba_zps6522918f.jpg

Who dey!!!!! Just got back from golfing... Didn't expect this. Might end up with some icky woods.....
 
Last edited:
Top