Amendment 64 Initiative 502

[iacas]

I never said nuclear power was clean, It is alot cleaner the fossil fuels that is mostly used today. Solar Power is the Cleanest, Although if we could get cars running on nucelear power it would be awesome, except for the fact when there is an accident would cause an explosion that would be a half mile diamater and give out radiation that could get people to die from radiation poisoning. Nuclear power has its place but solar power is free, why pay scientiest millons of dollars to figure out something which we could get for FREE. WE should be paying scientiest to make solar panels that that will power the entire United States.

Actually you could build a completely safe car that would last for 10+ years with so little material that it'd shock and amaze. Why we aren't doing it is anyone's guess, but likely includes the usual excuses and adds "people would think what you just said is accurate." People are oddly freaked out by nuclear power.

[Itchy]

...What happens when one of those ships is destroyed?

First off, I think the missile that hit the ship is a bigger concern than the reactor but... according to NatGeo... nothing. Here's the nuclear subs and nuclear tipped weapons we know are in the drink. Heck, Russia consciously dumps submarine reactors in the Arctic Ocean and
"While this would seem dire, experts say the chances of harmful radiation leaks are slim. In addition to thick metal shielding around the U.S. reactors, the radioactive fuel rods are encased in an alloy that corrodes extremely slowly. Even if the reactor shielding were ruptured, the alloy should keep seawater out of the rods for centuries.

Within a thousand years, most of the radioactive material will likely decay before it is released. Soviet and Russian reactors have similar safety features, and nuclear-tipped torpedoes also have protective shielding. "
http://www.nationalgeographic.com/k19/radiation_main.html

Then it's also worth noting that nuclear power doesn't equal nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons are mostly fissile material so you get incredible heat then incredible winds and shock waves. Nuclear reactors don't have that kind of power because they have way less fissile material.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2011/04/what-is-the-difference-between-the-nuclear-material-in-a-bomb-versus-a-reactor.html

Solar power is still dangerous.
In the US there have been three deaths from nuclear power meltdowns.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SL-1
This article alone talks about 3 solar power installers just in California dieing from falling off roofs.
http://asiancorrespondent.com/54571/green-deaths-the-forgotten-dangers-of-solar-panels/

Not to mention the 4:1 ratio of silicon tetrachloride that is the byproduct of making solar panels. Are there regulations for disposing of that in other countries (like Russia dumping nuclear reactors in the Arctic)?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/08/AR2008030802595.html

So, any energy form that doesn't have safety regulations is going to be a problem. Nobody should act like their energy source is nature made and handed to us by god himself and that every other energy source is shit straight from satan's b-hole.

[Ryen91]

I never said nuclear power was clean, It is alot cleaner the fossil fuels that is mostly used today. Solar Power is the Cleanest, Although if we could get cars running on nucelear power it would be awesome, except for the fact when there is an accident would cause an explosion that would be a half mile diamater and give out radiation that could get people to die from radiation poisoning. Nuclear power has its place but solar power is free, why pay scientiest millons of dollars to figure out something which we could get for FREE. WE should be paying scientiest to make solar panels that that will power the entire United States.

Actually you could build a completely safe car that would last for 10+ years with so little material that it'd shock and amaze. Why we aren't doing it is anyone's guess, but likely includes the usual excuses and adds "people would think what you just said is accurate." People are oddly freaked out by nuclear power.

The real reason is the same reason we don't really pull the trigger on Solar or hydrogen based cars, It will put the oil companies out of business and the car companies would have to change the way they make vehicles which would cost a ton of money to convert there plants from Oil and gas based engines to hydrogen, solar, or even nuclear type engines.


Iacas, They can make a safe nuclear powered car that but safe in lets just say a 60 mph to 60 mph head on collision? I'm just thinking worst case scenario.

[iacas]

Iacas, They can make a safe nuclear powered car that but safe in lets just say a 60 mph to 60 mph head on collision? I'm just thinking worst case scenario.

Yes. Or 300 MPH head-on collisions. It's not as dangerous as you seem to think. It's not like you see in movies with old sticks of dynamite that would blow if jostled slightly.

[keltik]

I'm pro nuke for mains power generation. I just don't want a fission reactor under the hood of every automobile. let's be reasonable here. Nuclear fuel rods are made from natural substances. Uranium is mined from the earth. It just takes a bit of processing to obtain the required isotopes.

We keep talking about the Soviet technology from 40 years ago. Communist era scientist weren't exactly the best at their jobs. Nuke power is safe. Someone already said we've only had 3 deaths, they occurred at one incident in 1961. Three Mile Island was the most famous one but it produced zero deaths. It just takes careful design and constant vigilance.

One of the best DG courses in Wake County NC is within sight of a nuclear power plant. It plays around the coolant pond. Get the images of Homer Simpson sleeping at the control panel out of your mind.

Isn't this thread supposed to be about marijuana legalization?

[Frank Delicious]

I'll take nuke power over pretty much any other power solution out there right now. Solar and wind are coming along but it isn't large enough to be viable across the county. Nuke is better than coal by far.

[JR]

JR's special power is crazy posts that result in derails.

Frank is only special he doesn't read too well. It was Ryen that posted about solar power plant in Germany first. Not me. Hello?

[JR]

Keltik check your sources of French air cleanliness. Especially the (nearly or totally) annual summer smog in and around Paris. I put up up any Nordic country ahead of France in air cleanliness you're welcome to come here and smell the air.

[keltik]

that summer smog is tourists farting. Nobody wants to visit Nordica. lulz

[Itchy]

Ehh. There are almost 100 accidents at nuclear plants on the civilian side annually...

You have a source saying that? I did a super quick google/wiki and found these.
Civilian nuclear plant "accidents"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_civilian_nuclear_accidents
Civilian nuclear plant "incidents"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_civilian_nuclear_incidents
If you include accidents plus incidents they total 39 ranging from the '50s to present.

...and at least Russians have lost nuclear subs at sea. ... Militaries don't speak of this so maybe some sort of concrete dome has been dumped on the sub and maybe divers have removed the weapons but it is pretty poor leadership if you ask me to keep the people guessing am i gonna wake up to having died of a deadly dose of radiation on the level of three countries being hit large scale. ...

Russia aren't the only one to have lost nuclear subs at sea and experts aren't worried about them. They aren't hush hush about it either. Heck, Russia takes old nuclear subs up to the Arctic and scuttles them just to get ride of them. Everybody knows about it.
http://www.nationalgeographic.com/k19/radiation_main.html

... Then there's the small matter of broken nuclear power plants in Ukraine, the US and Japan radiating large areas. Harrisburg? ...

OK, let's talk about Harrisburg radiating large areas. The average dose of radiation to the 2 million people in the area was 1/6 of what you get from a chest x-ray (less than annual exposure due to natural sources). The maximum does of radiation to people working at the site was less than 100 millirem. So Harrisburg really didn't cost us anything in deaths or health risk and set up America for much tighter nuclear power regulations making it a safer power source in the future.
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/3mile-isle.html

...How about lost nuclear weapons? ...

Apples and oranges. This is about nuclear as a power source, not a weapon. The fissile content of the two are completely different ball games.

...There was an experimental aircraft powered by a nuclear reactor. Good idea experimental aircraft never fall. And a lot of service aircraft patrolling airborne as a nuclear war deterrent threatening a counter strike sounds like a perfect way to log air hours for nuclear reactors in planes. Since regular planes fell too somebody had the bright idea to pull the plug on that program at least.

Hey you guys want to talk pollution. You know how much JP5/JP7 a military jets burns in one minute? Or how much emissions it puts out in that minute? One F-15 burns 240 gallons (908 liters) of jet fuel in one minute. One F-16 on a standard training mission burns about 900 gallons (3,400 liters) of jet fuel, that's almost twice what an average car burns in a year.
As for your nuclear airplane, well... it never got off the ground (making it awfully hard to crash).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convair_X-6
But if it had worked and we could have converted aircraft to nuclear power then our air quality around the world would be much cleaner. But, they scrapped it because it wasn't safety feasible to use nuclear power for aircraft.


What's the point of all this? I think it's ridiculous for you to tell other people to check their facts.

[Ryen91]

I'll take nuke power over pretty much any other power solution out there right now. Solar and wind are coming along but it isn't large enough to be viable across the county. Nuke is better than coal by far.

IF Germany can make a solar power plant that does that much power, why can't we? or at least contract some German Scientist to do it for us. I don't Know, test it out in a couple states first and then go from there.

[iacas]

So Amendment 64 Initiative 502 is about stoners building nuclear power plants?

[Itchy]

IF Germany can make a solar power plant that does that much power, why can't we? or at least contract some German Scientist to do it for us. I don't Know, test it out in a couple states first and then go from there.

Because they can't. Don't look to facebook to get all your information.

First off, that picture is from Spain, not Germany. It's of the PS10 Solar Power Plant.
http://www.solarpaces.org/Tasks/Task1/ps10.htm

All of German's solar power accounted for 3.2% of the country's total power consumption in 2011.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_in_Germany#Statistics

Here's Germany's power production by source. Nuclear is yellow and all renewables are lumped together in green.


So, they claim all of German's solar power makes more power output than 20 nuclear power plants. But in 2011 Germany only had 17 nuclear power plants.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf43.html
...and those 17 nuclear reactors made more energy than all renewables put together.

[Leopard]

So Amendment 64 Initiative 502 is about stoners building nuclear power plants?

Fuck you, sincerely
for this and everything else you post

[iacas]

Fuck you, sincerely
for this and everything else you post

Aren't you a lovely fellow? Thanks for this post; it saves me the time of ever caring about anything you have to say. At least you've outed yourself as someone completely irrelevant, a small-minded douche, and someone with nothing to offer. Ignore lists exist for precisely this type of reason. Fuck off yourself.