Burning Water

[AchingBack]

My latest discovery: My 1 oz. nugget of kryptonite will power my tractor for exactly, 0 seconds.

 

[turnkey4099]

Oh ho so thats it.

Now the big question is what plane the spin must be in and how is the plane oriented in correlation to the solar system?

But on the other hand doesn't this spin thats added requie some kind of energy regime. You gotta remember my body is in very sad shape these days and does not contain much energy!

Stop! Now! You have already mentioned 'plane', next comes 'conveyor'...

Harry K

 

[MikeD74T]

But would you be for it if they wanted to build a reactor or a nuclear disposal site 1 mile from your home?

Many of us are all for nuclear reactors, as long as they are 500 miles away.

My home is 3 miles from a nuclear reactor and a spent fuel dry storage facility. Right now I'm in my office about 250' from the reactor. It pays my bills. My annual federal radiation exposure limit is 5000 millirem, my company limit is 1000millirem, last year my actual dose was 3 millirem. My highest annual dose was 15 millirem. If I wasn't working so many hours I could get more dose from the sun while riding my tractor. If you learned about nuclear you might feel differently. MikeD74T

 

[Eagleview]

I'm all for Nuclear energy . But the one thing that does bother me is the fact that a large number of Nuclear warheads around the globe are aimed at each one of them . The dose of Radiation you will recieve if someone was to push a red button would be above the recomended level . I think theres plenty of places in the worlds deserts for Nuclear power stations . Why use good lands and create strike zones in inhabited areas not to mention the irreversible damage and pollution to rivers and streams in such actions . At least if something were to happen in a remote area it could be contained . With the lack of rivers and streams and taking into consideration the prevailing winds there would be many good sites for these power stations . A rail network could easily be built to service them and a pipeline to supply cooling water laid beside it . Can it be that simple , or am i missing something ?

 

[tallyho8]

My home is 3 miles from a nuclear reactor and a spent fuel dry storage facility. Right now I'm in my office about 250' from the reactor. It pays my bills. My annual federal radiation exposure limit is 5000 millirem, my company limit is 1000millirem, last year my actual dose was 3 millirem. My highest annual dose was 15 millirem. If I wasn't working so many hours I could get more dose from the sun while riding my tractor. If you learned about nuclear you might feel differently. MikeD74T

I would like to see more nuclear reacors in America to decrease our dependence on foreign oil but I think the main objection to nuclear reactors is because no one can agree on a disposal site and much nuclear waste right now is stored on site while it is being determined what to do with it.

The best thing for the American economy would be power plants powered by "clean coal" tecnology as we have enough coal to supply us for hundreds of years.

 

[MikeD74T]

Iron Horse, If you're missing anything I think it's the magnitude of support needed by nuclear, or any other steam power plant. The vulnerability of large pipelines and transmission lines, cost to move that much cooling water, transmission line loss are all major factors in power plant sitings. Why transport coal when we could just build powerplants in the coal fields? Cause coal is easier to move than water. Power, like oil, has to be affordable enough for someone to buy it.
As far as nuclear weapons are concerned, oddly I slept on one for my first 3 months on a submarine, personally I think anyone capable of launching anything big enough to break through a containment structure & burst a reactor vessel cound just as easily detonate a "dirty" or neutron device and eliminate the same population. But then, I don't spend a lot of time worrying about being struck by meteorites either. Postulating something of such magnitude as that, maybe it would be better to be the first one to go rather than the last one alive. MikeD74T

 

[have_blue]

I think the main objection to nuclear reactors is because no one can agree on a disposal site and much nuclear waste right now is stored on site while it is being determined what to do with it.

The best thing for the American economy would be power plants powered by "clean coal" tecnology as we have enough coal to supply us for hundreds of years.

That's because people aren't being pinched hard enough enough yet.

When the electric and heating bill goes to $1000 per month, there will be an outcry so loud that we WILL start building more nukes, and using sensible disposal sites. When we get fed up with high prices, any tree huggers that get in the way of progress will end up in the same disposal sites.

I agree with the coal, plus we have billions of barrels of oil locked in oil shale. It's already feasible to recover. We just need the government to release it so we can use it. So release it already!

 

[Eagleview]

I think anyone capable of launching anything big enough to break through a containment structure & burst a reactor vessel cound just as easily detonate a "dirty" or neutron device and eliminate the same population.

I did'nt make myself clear , i meant that a Nuclear reactor becomes a target for a Nuclear strike . The first thing they will try to do is rob us of power and comunications . I meant that it would be safer to have the target away from a populated site that may not neccessarily be a target already . I would think that targeting civilians would be secondary to concentrating on utilities ie. oil , gas , electricity , rail , airports , telecoms etc .

 

[MikeD74T]

I did'nt make myself clear , i meant that a Nuclear reactor becomes a target for a Nuclear strike . The first thing they will try to do is rob us of power and comunications . I meant that it would be safer to have the target away from a populated site that may not neccessarily be a target already . I would think that targeting civilians would be secondary to concentrating on utilities ie. oil , gas , electricity , rail , airports , telecoms etc .

Iron Horse, I understand, I just don't agree with your assessment of whoever has the capability of nuking us these days. (The following is my opinion and may not reflect actuality) In the sixtys the "Reds" that could have nuked the US would have disrupted infrastructure only enough to enable their colonization of the US homeland. American would have become slave labor to put things back togeather. Today the "enemy" hates our idiology. They just want us dead and have no interest in colonization unless it meant colonizing our minds, i.e. converting everyone to their beliefs. Infrastructure, especially remote infrastructure is easier to damage and harder to protect. I don't mean protecting a component but protecting the system. A power plant is usless without it's support pipelines, powerlines, etc. Congregations of people are easy to defeat by infrastructure destruction regardless of where the infrastructure is, any disruption of power, food, water destroys cities. Why hit the most hardened targets, like nuclear power plants. Personally I think the most prevelant terrorist organization today is Homeland Security. They're going after our most vulnerable targets, our wallets and our freedom. MikeD74T

 

[Berniep]

They're going after our most vulnerable targets, our wallets and our freedom. MikeD74T

I gotta agree with you there.