Total Posts:10|Showing Posts:1-10
Jump to topic:

Reid versus Angle

Caramel
Posts: 855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2010 10:33:58 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
I was thinking... If Reid wins, we'll have yet another term from a career-politician who is going to give us the same ol' BS liberal agenda that pisses off all the conservatives, and if Angle wins, we'll get a morally abrasive Tea Partier who will just end up turning into another career-politician soon to replace Reid (and liberals will climb back into resentfulness of conservatives for all their BS.

Question: Of three hypothetical conclusions to this race, which one provides the most equitable outcome?
a) Harry Reid wins the congressional race
b) Sharron Angle wins the congressional race
c) both candidates die of natural causes before either can win the election, forcing a third-party candidate or lesser politicized/funded characted into the seat
no comment
Caramel
Posts: 855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2010 10:55:55 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
A tasty tidbit about Nevada:

The Yucca Mountain Nuclear Suppository is being planned in that state, which will be dangerous for about 10,000 years, at which point it will still be very dangerous but just not legally. NIMBY has been the only thing putting it on hold up until this point... It would be interesting if conservatives were put into power in NV just long enough to get the plans finalized (plans for Yucca Mt were thought dead last year but somehow have still survived).

Yucca Mountain is controversial. I'll have to spend extra effort to get this point across because of media conditioning. It is not controversial as you would expect me to mean, it is actually scientifically controversial. I don't mean controversial like FOX News versus the American Meteorological Society, I mean controversial like actual scientists are heavily split on the different techniques of how to store radioactive waste over a long period of time. In France, for example, they prefer underwater storage, while we are shooting for a dry-as-fvck (I believe is the technical name for it) approach in which efforts to keep the cannisters dry would be paramount in the success of the project.

Yucca Mountain is dry, but whether or not it will stay that way for long is unknown. There are several techtonic faults that run through the immediate viscinity which is problematic, and tests of how fast water penetrates the caverns were recently shown to be way off (H20 penetrates the ground above the cavern much faster than originally predicted). Yucca also just happens to be sitting right on top of some heavily fractured rocks which, if the cannisters started leaking, would spread the waste around in probably the worst ways imaginable. The "wet" version (i.e., France's) puts the cannisters underwater to start, however they select areas where groundwater is locked into a permanent location with no future plans of intermixing with normal supplies.
no comment
mongoose
Posts: 3,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2010 3:17:17 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
What do you think would happen if we dropped a whole lot of nuclear waste into a volcano?
It is odd when one's capacity for compassion is measured not in what he is willing to do by his own time, effort, and property, but what he will force others to do with their own property instead.
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2010 3:33:45 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Environmental concerns are notorious for flying in the face of good engineering logic.

Find some old salt water reservoir 10,000 ft deep. Inject nuclear waste down one well, and produce the salt water out the other. Actually you might not need to produce any salt water at all... if you figure out the capillary pressure curves you can simply displace the water down and out of the reservoir.

See practically all wastwater injections...
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Caramel
Posts: 855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2010 10:41:35 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Is there anyone seriously looking at nuclear waste from that perspective? I'm not familiar with it but what I quickly googled didn't seem promising.
no comment
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2010 10:34:39 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Nuclear waste storage is not intended for 10,000 years. It is intended only to last until a reprocessing plant is built to convert the long-lived isotopes into short-lived ones. The French and Japanese glassify nuclear waste to keep it chemically inert until a processing plant is built. The glass deteriorates, due to radiation, in about 150 years, so it will have to be reglassified at 150 year intervals.

The Department of Energy designed a suitable reprocessing plant in the 1990s and published an article on the design in American Scientist around 2000. It is a expensive and technologically difficult task to build the plant, and thus far the US government has declined to fund it. I heard two years ago there was a move in Japan to build a plant, but I have not heard more of that.

There would be a lot less waste to dispose of if fuel recycling in fast breeder reactors were legalized. It was banned by legislation passed in the Carter Administration, on the grounds that the US must set an example by not making nuclear material that could be used for bombs. That has worked only for nations not wanting atomic weapons, not for those wanting them.

Liberals have deep superstitious beliefs about nuclear stuff. Old religion is less harmful. I hope Angle prevails.
Caramel
Posts: 855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2010 12:01:56 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/18/2010 10:34:39 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
Nuclear waste storage is not intended for 10,000 years. It is intended only to last until a reprocessing plant is built to convert the long-lived isotopes into short-lived ones.

That sounds really pretty... I'd like to see some primary literature backing the statement "convert long-lived isotopes into short-lived ones." I am assuming you will not be able to produce it because if it was possible to shorten the half-lives we would already be doing it. If a reprocessing plant is all we need, what are we waiting for to build it?

We have large amounts of radioactive waste that are going to be around for essentially forever and there is huge disagreement over how, where, and when to store it. If it were half as simple as you make it sound the Yucca Mt controversy wouldn't exist.

The French and Japanese glassify nuclear waste to keep it chemically inert until a processing plant is built. The glass deteriorates, due to radiation, in about 150 years, so it will have to be reglassified at 150 year intervals.

Yes and someone needs to be handling this waste, guarding it from people who could use it for dirty bombs and nuclear devices, and storing it while the amounts continue to grow.

The Department of Energy designed a suitable reprocessing plant in the 1990s and published an article on the design in American Scientist around 2000. It is a expensive and technologically difficult task to build the plant, and thus far the US government has declined to fund it. I heard two years ago there was a move in Japan to build a plant, but I have not heard more of that.

Sounds like they couldn't sell the idea because the science is shotty. As bad as we could use one, you think it would be worth a shot even with a slim chance of success.

There would be a lot less waste to dispose of if fuel recycling in fast breeder reactors were legalized. It was banned by legislation passed in the Carter Administration, on the grounds that the US must set an example by not making nuclear material that could be used for bombs. That has worked only for nations not wanting atomic weapons, not for those wanting them.

I agree with this paragraph. I don't have a strong opinion either way on the issue, it's pretty much a catch-22: make waste or make more nukes. My initial instinct is to just make the damn nukes; the material we are throwing out is even more energy rich than the original stuff. It's like burning kerosene and then being left with gasoline as a by product, then packaging up the gasoline and burying it. It just doesn't seem right. But think through the results if we do - that means we have weapons grade nuclear material being created all the time, being stored and shipped all over the country, being handled by thousands of people... We might as well just sell it right away because there's no way we are going to keep that good of a hold on it all.

Liberals have deep superstitious beliefs about nuclear stuff. Old religion is less harmful. I hope Angle prevails.

Deeply superstitious? Tell that to the Japanese. Try telling the people in the Scandinavian countries who bore the brunt of the Chernobyl meltdown.

I am not pro or con nuclear, and I don't see it as a left-right thing. Many liberal professors at my university whole-heartedly support nuclear energy, and these guys have a much more advanced background in the sciences than do I. Nuclear is controversial because it wasn't as affordable as we first expected, although you could point to the administrative mechanisms (regulations, safety, insurance) for this and just say "privatize it!" 3 mile island was exaggerated and not likely to be repeated, of course, but it is clear that most people are going to subscribe to NIMBYism when it comes to building another nuclear plant. Weather patterns, as Eastern Europe found out the hard way, will carry the effects of the disasters far beyond where we could reasonably position it to buffer it effectively.

As far as Angle winning, I would hope she will work as hard as Reid did to keep Yucca Mt off balance until something better comes up. Being a Republican, I would doubt she cares much about the long term effects of dumping highly radioactive waste into a cavern that is dangerously close to fault lines and open-circuit groundwater supplies.
no comment
WrathofGod
Posts: 1
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2010 7:22:20 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I'm from Vegas, and I voted Reid.

Angle is a moron and even our state's GOP knows it.

They just don't want Reid anymore, and this is there chance.

In terms of what is best for NV, its Reid. We are a rural state of 2million people, and we have the Senate Majority Leader. Do you know how far away Ensign is from getting that job? Especially since he may lose his seat next go around anyway for adultery and bribery? Angle isn't even accepted by the GOP, how can she deliver for Nevada with only Jim Demint in her pocket?

It's a sad day if Angle wins.
Thugnificent
Posts: 1
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2010 10:28:37 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Also, from this interview: http://nevadanewsandviews.com...
If you look at Question 10, she wants to abolish the Department of Energy and the EPA and give those powers back to the states. She also wants to use Yucca Mountain as a waste reprocessing center and as an active nuclear plant. Now, whether or not you think nuclear is a good idea (and as a Nevadan I don't, mainly because it uses a terrible amount of water), I emphatically don't want a nuclear power plant regulated by the State of Nevada. Our tax structure is based heavily on property taxes, sales taxes, and a tax on casinos, all of which are highly sensitive to economic recession. In the upcoming session, the budget is facing a $3 billion deficit on something like $7 billion of spending - massive cuts have already been parcelled out to everything, and there are certainly going to be more.

I don't want the same State that tried to cut 22% from my university last spring to be in charge of the budget for nuclear reactor inspectors - it'd be the MMS times a million.