Radiation

[Hairy Chest]

Well then, Nuke,,,you best get all the nations in the world to sign non-proliferation treaties and get inspected and start de-commissioning 1000's and 1000's of weapons instead of worrying about one or two; and the rest of us will work on limiting the N-power hazard.  While your doing that figure out what you're going to do about Fukushima; containment and how you're going to clean up your isotopes.
.
..TM7

And of course you'll do your part by complete disconnecting yourself from the grid in order to reduce the demand on the existing power sources. That means COMPLETELY, so I guess this will be goodbye. 

Not really.  It's another radiation hazard, but I disconnected from the smart meter grid successfully and everything is up and running.  I try to get others to get rid of theirs, but they still think their smart meters are "smart", so I guess it will be just a "Goodbye to them."   

[Hairy Chest]

Well then, Nuke,,,you best get all the nations in the world to sign non-proliferation treaties and get inspected and start de-commissioning 1000's and 1000's of weapons instead of worrying about one or two; and the rest of us will work on limiting the N-power hazard.  While your doing that figure out what you're going to do about Fukushima; containment and how you're going to clean up your isotopes.
.
..TM7

And of course you'll do your part by complete disconnecting yourself from the grid in order to reduce the demand on the existing power sources. That means COMPLETELY, so I guess this will be goodbye. 

Not really.  It's another radiation hazard, but I disconnected from the smart meter grid successfully and everything is up and running.  I try to get others to get rid of theirs, but they still think their smart meters are "smart", so I guess it will be just a "Goodbye to them."   

Well then, Nuke,,,you best get all the nations in the world to sign non-proliferation treaties and get inspected and start de-commissioning 1000's and 1000's of weapons instead of worrying about one or two; and the rest of us will work on limiting the N-power hazard.  While your doing that figure out what you're going to do about Fukushima; containment and how you're going to clean up your isotopes.
.
..TM7

And of course you'll do your part by complete disconnecting yourself from the grid in order to reduce the demand on the existing power sources. That means COMPLETELY, so I guess this will be goodbye. 

.
At my second home power is from Canadian hydro and fossil fuel..mostly hydro.  In my Metro home I don't know the sources of power, but I am not allowed to live off the grid.  We happily practice conservation.
.
To do my part I will advocate that all nuclear waste be shipped and stored right under the Capital and Rayburn buildings in Washington DC.  What is left over should be bottled up and stored in basement vaults of nuclear advocates and engineers where an all-knowing eye can watch over it....
.
..TM7

Right.  They should be the closest to it.  No exceptions. 

[Dixie Dude]

I've got to chime in here.  Studies are being done to build THORIUM nuclear reactors.  Thorium only has a half life of weeks instead of centuries.  Thorium is more plentiful than Uranium.  Thorium isn't as hot as Uranium or Plutonium, but as long as it makes steam for power it works.   Germany has done the most experimentation on Thorium reactors.  Thorium is also being considered for space power to Mars and beyond.  Why, because the greatest danger is from launching, not actual deep space transportation.  I predict future reactors will be thorium powered due to the short radiation half life of expended fuel.  Wind and solar power alone CANNOT produce enough power for the entire US especially the areas outside the thinly populated plains states.  We also have an 800 year supply of coal, a 200 year supply of natural gas, and a 200 year supply of oil (ON GOVERNMENT OWNED LAND) or offshore.  Coal can be synthesised for diesel, natural gas, or methonol.  Natural gas can be ran in vehicles.  (I have driven one at my work), no difference in acceleration or power, just cleaner.  Back to thorium.  Japan is also studying the use of thorium to replace their nukes.  Nukes produce 25% of the power in the US, natural gas now produces over 30%, coal 30 something %.  Wind and solar only about 5%.  Wind and solar could concievably produce 20-25%, but not much more in conpetition with fossil or nukes.  Trouble with solar is cloudy days that can go for a long time in the east where most people live.  Also in the east is not much consistant wind over 25mph to make wind competitive. 
 
We could all live in underground or semi underground homes, but this will take several generations to build.  Insulation works but only so far.  Trouble is most liberals in their utopian la la land don't realise that with 175 million plus vehicles using gasoline or diesel, having a power, natural gas, and liquid fuel infrastructure that took over 100 years to build.  We ain't going to do away with fossil fuels for the next 50-100 years.  Nasa is working on a way to make natural gas (for rocket fuel on Mars) out of carbon dioxide and water.  It can be done, but it takes a lot of electric power (solar or nuclear). 
 
There are a lot of ways America can achieve energy independence.
 
1) drilling everywhere possible for oil and natural gas.
2) using coal and working on synthetic liquid fuel from coal.
3) using wind on the plains states and solar in the southwest where PRACTICAL.
4) digging into the old patents that were bought up by oil companies to improve gas mileage, and due to national energy emergency, release the patents.
5) moving to thorium reactors to eventually replace the uranium and plutonium reactors.  (oh and by the way, Thorium cannot be made into bombs). 
 
 
We can be energy independent within 10 years by getting started now. 
 
Another thing, there is a 30,000 year supply of natural gas in hydrates deep in the ocean.  Japan is now working to mine these off their coast.  If it works, the US has an abundant supply in the Bermuda triangle. 
 
I have a book at home, will have to look it up, but the US can supply a population the size of China with our same standard of living with the resources we already have. 

[gypsyman]

After reading the posts, I've come to the conclusion, we can die from radiation poisoning , either from bombs or meltdowns, or, from the riots that could take place when we don't have enough electricity to keep our food from spoiling, or bring drinking water into our homes. Sure like happy endings, looks pretty grim here. gypsyman

[Bear Rider]

Well, you pair certainly TALK  good game.

However, lip service appears to be all that you're giving your cause.

[Hairy Chest]

I've got to chime in here.  Studies are being done to build THORIUM nuclear reactors.  Thorium only has a half life of weeks instead of centuries.  Thorium is more plentiful than Uranium.  Thorium isn't as hot as Uranium or Plutonium, but as long as it makes steam for power it works.   Germany has done the most experimentation on Thorium reactors.  Thorium is also being considered for space power to Mars and beyond.  Why, because the greatest danger is from launching, not actual deep space transportation.  I predict future reactors will be thorium powered due to the short radiation half life of expended fuel.  Wind and solar power alone CANNOT produce enough power for the entire US especially the areas outside the thinly populated plains states.  We also have an 800 year supply of coal, a 200 year supply of natural gas, and a 200 year supply of oil (ON GOVERNMENT OWNED LAND) or offshore.  Coal can be synthesised for diesel, natural gas, or methonol.  Natural gas can be ran in vehicles.  (I have driven one at my work), no difference in acceleration or power, just cleaner.  Back to thorium.  Japan is also studying the use of thorium to replace their nukes.  Nukes produce 25% of the power in the US, natural gas now produces over 30%, coal 30 something %.  Wind and solar only about 5%.  Wind and solar could concievably produce 20-25%, but not much more in conpetition with fossil or nukes.  Trouble with solar is cloudy days that can go for a long time in the east where most people live.  Also in the east is not much consistant wind over 25mph to make wind competitive. 
 
We could all live in underground or semi underground homes, but this will take several generations to build.  Insulation works but only so far.  Trouble is most liberals in their utopian la la land don't realise that with 175 million plus vehicles using gasoline or diesel, having a power, natural gas, and liquid fuel infrastructure that took over 100 years to build.  We ain't going to do away with fossil fuels for the next 50-100 years.  Nasa is working on a way to make natural gas (for rocket fuel on Mars) out of carbon dioxide and water.  It can be done, but it takes a lot of electric power (solar or nuclear). 
 
There are a lot of ways America can achieve energy independence.
 
1) drilling everywhere possible for oil and natural gas.
2) using coal and working on synthetic liquid fuel from coal.
3) using wind on the plains states and solar in the southwest where PRACTICAL.
4) digging into the old patents that were bought up by oil companies to improve gas mileage, and due to national energy emergency, release the patents.
5) moving to thorium reactors to eventually replace the uranium and plutonium reactors.  (oh and by the way, Thorium cannot be made into bombs). 
 
 
We can be energy independent within 10 years by getting started now. 
 
Another thing, there is a 30,000 year supply of natural gas in hydrates deep in the ocean.  Japan is now working to mine these off their coast.  If it works, the US has an abundant supply in the Bermuda triangle. 
 
I have a book at home, will have to look it up, but the US can supply a population the size of China with our same standard of living with the resources we already have.

I read they tried Thorium.  For some reason, evidently, it wasn't used.  America achieving energy independence isn't what this thread is about.  It's about the Level 8 nuclear disaster and multiple meltdowns that changed our world on 3/11/11 whether we care to know about it or not.  When the BP disaster happened and now Fukashima, priorities changed or should change.  If we have to drill miles deep where we can't repair a major accident, then that is not the time to suggest more drilling.  Industry has overreached themselves and now we need to go to clean, renewable energy sources.  Nuclear is not an option anymore.  It is a failed endeavor.  Man tried it but over time it also proved, like deep water drilling for oil, to be beyond his capabilities. 

[Hairy Chest]

Hairy...the N Power industry is mated to the N weapons industry...at this point N energy operates like another tax...to get fissionables and DU for the weapons industry and hgemony projects.. BTW, DU is a banned weapon material as far as I know and is genocidal being a genechromic agent..  No doubt Iran would like some DU of their own to crack Dimona wide open if it comes to that....
.
.
..TM7

Weapons need to evolve too.  What good is it to get rid of an enemy for it to be replaced by another in the form of toxic waste that we all have to live with?  It is like a comparison of business people.  You have one who is only motivated by profit, the Bain Capital types, who keep trying to squeeze more, then the other type who cares about the end result.  We keep hearing about 'profit' and 'incentives', but there is more to it than just a few getting rich.  There needs to be a greater good.  Higher than the profit motive for a few is what is good for the nation and it's people.   

[Bear Rider]

Hairy...the N Power industry is mated to the N weapons industry...at this point N energy operates like another tax...to get fissionables and DU for the weapons industry and hgemony projects.. BTW, DU is a banned weapon material as far as I know and is genocidal being a genechromic agent..  No doubt Iran would like some DU of their own to crack Dimona wide open if it comes to that....
.
.
..TM7

The power industry uses URANIUM. Nuclear weapons require PLUTONIUM.  The only connection between the two materials is that specialized "breeder" reactors are used to produce plutonium.  These reactors are unsuitable for use in power production.

As for  DU being banned, the only "ban" is one passed by Belgium's legislature, and even it is nothing but lip service, as their military is free to participate in operation with countries which use DU weapons.

You should acquire some better sources of information.

[Hairy Chest]

Hairy...the N Power industry is mated to the N weapons industry...at this point N energy operates like another tax...to get fissionables and DU for the weapons industry and hgemony projects.. BTW, DU is a banned weapon material as far as I know and is genocidal being a genechromic agent..  No doubt Iran would like some DU of their own to crack Dimona wide open if it comes to that....
.
.
..TM7

The power industry uses URANIUM. Nuclear weapons require PLUTONIUM.  The only connection between the two materials is that specialized "breeder" reactors are used to produce plutonium.  These reactors are unsuitable for use in power production.

As for  DU being banned, the only "ban" is one passed by Belgium's legislature, and even it is nothing but lip service, as their military is free to participate in operation with countries which use DU weapons.

You should acquire some better sources of information.

U235 is used for nuclear weapons.  That's why there's so much concern about enrichment.  Also, all nuclear power plants generate Plutonium that is weapons usable.  There is no disadvantage to using reactor grade Plutonium over weapons grade, except it takes a slightly larger size.  There are advantages to using enriched Uranium over Plutonium.  Plutonium requires too fast assembly for some applications.  The way they get Plutonium out of a power plant fuel rod is through processing.

Source:
http://www.ccnr.org/plute.html

[Dixie Dude]

Thorium was tried back in the 50's and 60's using older technology.  Germany has developed Thorium balls that can be used somehow in fission to make electricity using heated gas instead of heated water.  I read about it last year.  I work in the energy industry.  We have enough oil on GOVERNMENT land onshore and in Alaska without offshore drilling IF the government would allow oil drilling companies to tap the NAVAL reserve that was set up by Eisenhower.  He wanted to use up the Arabs oil first then we would still have some.  There is also enough natural gas in hydrates in the Burmuda triangle to last for 30,000 years.  Also natural gas can also be made from cow manure (1/3 of US consumption can come from cow manure).  It can also be made from seaweed.  However it is still less than half the cost to frack and drill for natural gas.  It produces less than half the CO2 than coal.  We also have 175 million vehicles that are NOT GOING to dissappear and go electric.  They must have fuel, liquid fuel to continue to operate for the next 20 years.  Alternatives are not cost effective yet.  If nukes are built to NAVY standards, like AC carriers and Nuke ships with so much built in safety redundancy, they can be safe.  There are about 102 nuke plants in America.  So you want to shut them down immediately and have brownouts and blackouts?  Renewable energy is not yet viable on a BIG scale. 
 
If everyone built a semi underground or underground home, If everyone used some solar power, firewood, wind power.  Maybe we could cut some, but there are millions of homes in the US.  They aren't going away.  They are geared for traditional power use.  This infrastructure cannot be changed overnight.  It will only change when the cost of alternatives and renewables become cost effective.  So, looking at the big picture, the 100's of coal plants, 102 nuke plants, 100's of natural gas plants are not going away anytime soon. Can't.  Liberals live in la la land if they think they will. 
 
I work for a natural gas company.  We have experimented with alternative natural gas production.  It is just not cost effective yet.  Making gas from coal, seaweed, sawdust, cow manure, all cost twice as much or more than drilling.  Even if we didn't drill another well, we could probably go for 100 years.  However, we must continue to drill to keep production ahead of consumption.  Consumption of natural gas is increasing every day.  More new power plants are using natural gas than all other forms combined.  We recently passed coal as the chief producer of natural gas.  Even windmills are only competitive with natural gas because of government subsities.  If the government would get OUT OF THE WAY, the energy and environmental issues will clean themselves up.   And by the way.  I don't even believe natural gas should be used for power production.  I think the more efficient use would be in vehicles and use nukes for power production like thorium reactors. 

[Hairy Chest]

Dixie Dude:
Tell us when the last nuclear plant was approved for building.  Do you drive a car built in 1973?  I used to.  I had a muscle car and the girls just loved it, and me because of it.  But that car got 10 miles to the gallon, there was always some problem with it and frankly, I'm glad those cars are piled up in a junkyard now.  Cars are so much better today.  Advanced technology.   Ancient ideas, old technology versus new ideas and state of the art technology. Now you can have 400 horsepower and get 20 mpg.  Why settle for less when it comes to energy?   

[Dixie Dude]

I like the old cars better.  You could buy a set of points, condenser and retune your engine yourself.  You could buy a carb kit and rebuild your carb.  I saw my father completely rebuild the engine on a 1960 Pontiac in the yard.  Today, the average person cannot work on their cars.  The last nuke plant was recently applied for and approved to be installed in Georgia south of Atlanta.  My cousins wife took nuclear science at Auburn University.  She said if all the power in the US was nuke power, it would take 200 years to only create nuke waste to fill 4 centimeters of a football field.  We can build breeder reactors to burn up the spent nuke fuel.  Why haven't we?  It is because of lawyer congressmen who know nothing of nuclear phisics.  Just like the one who thought Guam would tip over and sink if we put too many marines on the island.  3 mile island was contained.  Chernobal didn't have a containment dome.  In Japan the facility was too close to the ocean and built in the 1960's with less protection.  A cup of gasoline is equivelant to about 4 sticks of dynamite yet we drive around with tanks full of the stuff.  Propane bottles are like bombs, yet we use them all the time in grills, camping stoves etc.  The danger is relative to the safety equipment or design put in place.  That is why I recommended building nuke plants to navy standards for warships.  They have multiple redundency built in, in case of attack.  You have never heard of a nuke sub or air craft carrier with a nuke meltdown, and there are 100's of them, all subs built since the 1950's, all air craft carriers since the 1960's, and many cruisers.  Nukes aren't going away anytime soon, neither is the internal combustion engine.  Incrementally we can become safer and more efficient.  It is going to take a MAJOR price breakthrough to make alternative fuel cost effective. Even hydrogen is produced from natural gas, not water.  Natural gas is CH4, thus 4 atoms of hydrogen, water is H20, with only 2 atoms of hydrogen, so it is cheaper and more cost effective to make hydrogen gas from natural.  So, why not just eliminate the hydrogen production and go straight to natural gas vehicles.  We have plenty and it creates about 3/5ths less CO2 than coal or gasoline, thus cutting CO2 emmissions dramatically.  The infrastructure for transportation is already in place.  Gas mains were installed in big cities way back in the mid 1800's and continued to today.  Over 150 years of installation.  The only viable alternative for liquid fuels is probably algae.  Exxon is building a $500 million algae production facility in Texas I think.  It will be close to refineries so the fuel can be refined.  Believe me I have studied all these energy alternatives in my 37 years of being an engineer.  Like I said, I like simple.  Things were once made for the average person to work on, like vehicles, furnaces, stoves, etc.  A good EMP blast will make all the new vehicles stop in their tracks as well as a lot of electronics and the power grid.  Natural gas will not be affected.  Electronics are only used to monitor the flow of gas.  Of course there are compression stations to keep the pressure up, but most are grounded so EMPs won't bother them. 

[Bear Rider]

Hairy...the N Power industry is mated to the N weapons industry...at this point N energy operates like another tax...to get fissionables and DU for the weapons industry and hgemony projects.. BTW, DU is a banned weapon material as far as I know and is genocidal being a genechromic agent..  No doubt Iran would like some DU of their own to crack Dimona wide open if it comes to that....
.
.
..TM7

The power industry uses URANIUM. Nuclear weapons require PLUTONIUM.  The only connection between the two materials is that specialized "breeder" reactors are used to produce plutonium.  These reactors are unsuitable for use in power production.

As for  DU being banned, the only "ban" is one passed by Belgium's legislature, and even it is nothing but lip service, as their military is free to participate in operation with countries which use DU weapons.

You should acquire some better sources of information.

U235 is used for nuclear weapons.  That's why there's so much concern about enrichment.  Also, all nuclear power plants generate Plutonium that is weapons usable.  There is no disadvantage to using reactor grade Plutonium over weapons grade, except it takes a slightly larger size.  There are advantages to using enriched Uranium over Plutonium.  Plutonium requires too fast assembly for some applications.  The way they get Plutonium out of a power plant fuel rod is through processing.

Source:
http://www.ccnr.org/plute.html

Nice try, but no cigar. If you actually read that report you would notice the following statements:

"At the other end of the spectrum, advanced nuclear weapon states such as the United States and Russia, using modern designs, could produce weapons from reactor-grade plutonium"

"Every state which has built nuclear weapons from plutonium to date has chosen to produce weapons-grade plutonium for that purpose."

As I said, the power reactors in this country do not have ANY connection to nuclear weapons, as we use ONLY weapons grade plutonium produced in breeder reactors.