Republicans to block EPA on regulating Greenhouse Gases

Maybe we should make another thread for "Does Iran Deserve Nuclear Weapons?"

Blind Final Fantasy 6 Let's Play

Um... back on topic...

In theory it's because Republicans are pro-business, and environmental regulations are "anti-business." In truth, it has to do with a lot of factors, far from the least being the fact that fossil fuel industries give lots of money to Republicans (and some Democrats), and since much of environmental push involves transitioning from fossil fuels to cleaner energy sources like nuclear, solar, and wind (the latter two of which will require some serious technological innovation and infrastructure investment before anything can be done–and R's seem to dislike infrastructure too), R's don't have much of a reason to say to their donors "Yeah, we want to focus on stuff that's going to take away your business."

...I always knew this is what politics is all about...but reading about it is kinda depressing even though I saw it coming from a mile...

"fuck the country! Me! Me! Me! Making the opposition look bad! Me!"

"Every opinion that isn't mine is subjected to Your Mileage May Vary."

As I've been saying for the last 30 years (yes, Ronnie, I'm looking at you), today's American Conservatism can be summarized as "I've got mine, so SCREW YOU!"

—R.J.

Something interesting I read in todays newspaper, Bush and Mc Cains daughters both just spoke out and did a ton of ads and such in support of gay marriage. That's nice to know. I'm sure their fathers are a bit pissed.

I saw that too.

For some reason I'm having an easier time seeing McCain PO'd. Bush I just see burying his face in his hands and sighing deeply.

Speaking of Reagan, according to Time Obama has historical Man-crush on him and wants to have his career parrallel babies.

Charlie Tunoku is a lover and a fighter.

Back to nuclear power, even on Three Mile Island nobody got exposed to much more than getting an X-Ray, IIRC. But nuclear power is almost water under the bridge at this point, since one plant is a GW, and we need more like a TW, so unless we're going to build 1000 nuclear plants in the near future...(OTOH, every little bit helps and all that.)

Yeah, it certainly can't hurt to build more.

The only problem is waste storage.

I like the idea of onsight storage, so that even if terrorists attack a plant and make it go critical, it won't be any worse than if the waste hadn't been there, but they won't have the chance to steal it in transit.

Charlie Tunoku is a lover and a fighter.

Re: Three Mile Island, sitting at the fence of the reactor for the full duration of the accident while it spewed gobs of dust into the air would've gotten you a lower radioactive dose than taking a three-day ski trip in the mountains.

edited 3rd Feb '11 11:19:40 AM by Pykrete

Also note the Germans have evidently created a bacteria or some type of genetic-modified THING that eats radioactive waste lowering the time of decay from 2000 years to 20-100, which is a massive difference.

IIRC, they are looking to make sure this doesn't cause any unwanted side-effects.

Well he's talking about WWII when the Chinese bomb pearl harbor and they commuted suicide by running their planes into the ship.

As for waste storage, I made a post back in IJBM discussing the comparison of nuclear waste vs. coal plant waste. Coal produces something like 100,000 times as much waste by mass (not volume, although that would be even more stark). Even having to store 2,000 years of nuclear waste before you can recycle the space is like 50,000 times less than what coal would do in one year.

Radioactive bacteria? What Could Possibly Go Wrong??

^

Oooh, that's awesome. Like a sort of bacteria formed fallout scrubber?

The real problem environmentalists have with nuclear power is not the risk of a nuclear disaster, but that we still don't have any real way to get rid of the waste.

Yes, but we don't have any real way to get rid of coal sludge and other types of waste either, and there is way, way, way, way more of it.

Yeah but the "waste" isn't even useless. China, Germany and perhaps some other countries, already have breeder reactors (if I remember the term right) that can use up the waste. My issue isn't with whether we should use nuclear power or not, but whether we need the nuclear power to be saved for future use. I think concentration should be on reducing energy use, being more efficient, so that nuclear power is merely replacing our old power generation methods, rather than just tagging onto our existing coal plants.

You're right, but it'll never happen. Energy demand is the new Malthusian limiting factor, we just don't know it yet.

Charlie Tunoku is a lover and a fighter.

Except we do. Sticking it somewhere safe for a really long time until it decays into substances less hazardous than the original fuel. Sure fossil fuel waste can do something similar at a faster rate, but there's so much more of it that it's worse anyway.

Except there's the problem of the waste containers degrading and leaking the still-radioactive fuel. "Breeder" reactors are a step in the right direction, though.

Fix'd.

Fight smart, not fair.

But the forms of energy we use now, especially coal, have much larger quantities of waste that's probably also more harmful and, for the most part, doesn't decay at all.

Anyone who's worried about toxic waste products should be freaking out about those, not about nuclear.

Oy, Deboss, show a little class.

Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.

You mean the ones we can set on JATO-powered trains, slam into concrete walls, slam again crossways with other trains, and then douse in burning jet fuel for hours without a dent? We're not talking about the slapdash Chernobyl sarcophagus here.

edited 3rd Feb '11 3:24:54 PM by Pykrete

Yeah, we can build reactors so durable that if we're facing a force that could crack them open, nuclear radiation is going to be the least of our problems.

Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.

Waste is hardly an issue, i mean the word radioactive is whispered and everyone shivers in fear. Big deal. Radioactivity is inversely proportional to half life, so the longer something lasts, the less toxic it is. Coal plant waste is just spewed in every direction so that countries who are responsible and use renewable energy or otherwise have the opportunity to lower their electric grid's waste production still get the crap from the countries that don't (mostly USA and China).