Are we in trouble? More nuclear power plants? - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

#1 04-27-2005, 08:04 PM

Is this the right way to proceded?

Where are we goining here?

My opinion is that we are stepping backward........one step at a time please!

boneheaddoctor · #2 04-27-2005, 08:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BusyBenz

Is this the right way to proceded?

Where are we goining here?

My opinion is that we are stepping backward........one step at a time please!

OH the tree huggers are having a collective coronary now in their communes...................

neanderthal · #3 04-27-2005, 08:40 PM

the answer is not building more (potentially) dangerous and expensive plants. the answer is more efficient and intelligent use of energy.

MTI · #4 04-27-2005, 08:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by neanderthal

the answer is not building more (potentially) dangerous and expensive plants. the answer is more efficient and intelligent use of energy.

Compared to other technologies, "next generation" nuclear power is a ready and proven way to reduce carbon emissions and address current and future energy consumption. An hour of coal generated 100W bulb light creates 0.05 pounds of carbon emissions, a bucket of ice generates 0.3 pounds and one hour in most cars creates 5 pounds . . . nuclear is 0.

#5 04-27-2005, 09:03 PM

Boy, I didn't think this issue would ever come back to light! I thought we spent a decade and a half proving why this energy alternative was not in our favor. But with the W, it does not really surprise me!

I have come today to a conclusion about REPUBLICANS....they are greedy and care only about making lots of money, thus being superior, smarter, upper level human beings, elite class, and dumb liberals who have humanity understandings, those who are wanting to give help, REPUBLICANS do not like tax dollars going to the inferior, it is why they complain about spending an additional $36 to help people who are born in our society who cannot achieve because they are not born with the brain needs to support themselves. REPUBLICANS would likely vote to have them exterminated from society instead.

REPUBLICANS are selfish, and a greedy sort, and the power is in there realm, and is why I scared..................Stupid BB

djugurba · #6 04-27-2005, 09:09 PM

americans are pretty stupid when it comes to nuclear power. one more thing to be afraid of. the late unpleasantness in the ukraine would not have had the same consequences had the same occurred in the US due to much better designs and safety standards.

Nuclear power does not fuel automobiles, or produce petro-chemical products or plastics or any of the other things created from petroleum that we depend upon daily. http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/ enjoy.

but, nobody get too excited... W proposed building nukular power plants, and nobody knows what the hell that is anyway.

boneheaddoctor · #7 04-27-2005, 10:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BusyBenz

Boy, I didn't think this issue would ever come back to light! I thought we spent a decade and a half proving why this energy alternative was not in our favor. But with the W, it does not really surprise me!

I have come today to a conclusion about REPUBLICANS....they are greedy and care only about making lots of money, thus being superior, smarter, upper level human beings, elite class, and dumb liberals who have humanity understandings, those who are wanting to give help, REPUBLICANS do not like tax dollars going to the inferior, it is why they complain about spending an additional $36 to help people who are born in our society who cannot achieve because they are not born with the brain needs to support themselves. REPUBLICANS would likely vote to have them exterminated from society instead.

REPUBLICANS are selfish, and a greedy sort, and the power is in there realm, and is why I scared..................Stupid BB

Funny its Democrats that favor the SUV's

Chris Bell · #8 04-28-2005, 12:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BusyBenz

Boy, I didn't think this issue would ever come back to light! I thought we spent a decade and a half proving why this energy alternative was not in our favor. But with the W, it does not really surprise me!

I have come today to a conclusion about REPUBLICANS....they are greedy and care only about making lots of money, thus being superior, smarter, upper level human beings, elite class, and dumb liberals who have humanity understandings, those who are wanting to give help, REPUBLICANS do not like tax dollars going to the inferior, it is why they complain about spending an additional $36 to help people who are born in our society who cannot achieve because they are not born with the brain needs to support themselves. REPUBLICANS would likely vote to have them exterminated from society instead.

REPUBLICANS are selfish, and a greedy sort, and the power is in there realm, and is why I scared..................Stupid BB

KV lite

MTI · #9 04-27-2005, 08:43 PM

Contrary to BHD's "made up opinion", there is environmentalist support for nuclear power. Last year, Hugh Montefiore, a former Anglican bishop and trustee in the UK's Friends of the Earth, resigned his post in the organization when he came out in support for nuclear power by writing "I have now come to the conclusion that the solution to global warming is to make more use of nuclear energy." Greenpeace's co-founder, Patrick Moore, left the organization when he turned pro-nuke. Last December, the National Commission on Energy Policy (with board members from environmental policy groups) issued a report that called for more investment in the nuclear industry. The Union of Concerned Scientist also has a growing pro-nuke faction. While these positions cannot be called "mainstream" . . . there is no solidarity among "tree-huggers" as to the evils of nuclear power.

Botnst · #10 04-27-2005, 10:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MTI

Contrary to BHD's "made up opinion", there is environmentalist support for nuclear power. Last year, Hugh Montefiore, a former Anglican bishop and trustee in the UK's Friends of the Earth, resigned his post in the organization when he came out in support for nuclear power by writing "I have now come to the conclusion that the solution to global warming is to make more use of nuclear energy." Greenpeace's co-founder, Patrick Moore, left the organization when he turned pro-nuke. Last December, the National Commission on Energy Policy (with board members from environmental policy groups) issued a report that called for more investment in the nuclear industry. The Union of Concerned Scientist also has a growing pro-nuke faction. While these positions cannot be called "mainstream" . . . there is no solidarity among "tree-huggers" as to the evils of nuclear power.

I have corresponded with Patrick Moore on a listserver. He is a efefctive writer and talker. That's okay, but he doesn't recognize that talking and writing are not the same as thinking. Moore is a collector of small facts to make big generalizations. Thus, he has changed sides from Greenpeace to industry, but uses the same methods. Those methods are: Bad science and a loud voice. I don't care if you're working for industry or environmentalism--stick with the truth when you speak to the public, not just that portion of the truth that supports your side. And that is Patrick Moore, then and now.

I like nukular power just fine. It gives abundant, very clean energy and will provide power for a long time to come. There are useful waste disposal methods available.

What I would really lik eto see is reprocessing of nuclear weapons fuel into nuclear power fuel. We have something like 10K nuclear bombs under the control of the USA. Why? Wouldn't 5,000 be an embarrassment of riches? I think Eisenhower once said that 100 nukes would be plenty. Imagine 100 nukes. So okay, Eisenhower lo-balled it. Lets go for 1,000. That would allow us to destroy any country on Earth. That should be plenty. Then we could start burning the bombs as fuel.

Oh yeah, lets retire a bunch of aircraft carriers, submarines, and bombers. They were built to destroy the USSR. I kind of hate to break it you to suckers (I mean taxpayers), but the USSR doesn't exist, which means the reason for that vast array of weaponry doesn't exist. And don't even tell me we need 12 carrier battle groups to protect us from Bin Laden.

#11 04-27-2005, 11:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

So okay, Eisenhower lo-balled it. Lets go for 1,000. That would allow us to destroy any country on Earth. That should be plenty. Then we could start burning the bombs as fuel.

Well that makes sense! Bomb the world first, (beat'em up) then use the what's left over for fuel! Good Ole America can live without anybody else. Kill'em all, Hitler must have been on to something, Stalin too!

Anything can be made perfectly safe, just don't spill your milk!

Botnst · #12 04-27-2005, 11:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BusyBenz

Well that makes sense! Bomb the world first, (beat'em up) then use the what's left over for fuel! Good Ole America can live without anybody else. Kill'em all, Hitler must have been on to something, Stalin too!

Anything can be made perfectly safe, just don't spill your milk!

(I can't think of a succinct way of phrasing my inability to follow the above message....time passes....Oh, I've got it!)

Huh?

boneheaddoctor · #13 04-28-2005, 08:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

I have corresponded with Patrick Moore on a listserver. He is a efefctive writer and talker. That's okay, but he doesn't recognize that talking and writing are not the same as thinking. Moore is a collector of small facts to make big generalizations. Thus, he has changed sides from Greenpeace to industry, but uses the same methods. Those methods are: Bad science and a loud voice. I don't care if you're working for industry or environmentalism--stick with the truth when you speak to the public, not just that portion of the truth that supports your side. And that is Patrick Moore, then and now.

I like nukular power just fine. It gives abundant, very clean energy and will provide power for a long time to come. There are useful waste disposal methods available.

What I would really lik eto see is reprocessing of nuclear weapons fuel into nuclear power fuel. We have something like 10K nuclear bombs under the control of the USA. Why? Wouldn't 5,000 be an embarrassment of riches? I think Eisenhower once said that 100 nukes would be plenty. Imagine 100 nukes. So okay, Eisenhower lo-balled it. Lets go for 1,000. That would allow us to destroy any country on Earth. That should be plenty. Then we could start burning the bombs as fuel.

Oh yeah, lets retire a bunch of aircraft carriers, submarines, and bombers. They were built to destroy the USSR. I kind of hate to break it you to suckers (I mean taxpayers), but the USSR doesn't exist, which means the reason for that vast array of weaponry doesn't exist. And don't even tell me we need 12 carrier battle groups to protect us from Bin Laden.

OH.....so Russia and the Ukraine no longer have Nukes...........nor does China or anyone else.....in fact there are no threats in the world against us right now.

#14 04-27-2005, 08:44 PM

Well, all I can say to this subject is that it looks like we are going backward!

Does not the events that occurred at Chernobyl Russia mean anything, (Murphy's Law) so why do we want to relaunch a known carcinogen, or waiting time bomb!

Seems we have progressed beyond, and with an understanding why! Or is all of that being unbundled, and re-presented as a GOOD alternative by W as a short measure to stem the inevitable tide?

If so, and the new ignorant, who haven't lived long enough to know the threat, are thinking along with W, we are doomed! Time to stand up, if this is the case!

boneheaddoctor · #15 04-27-2005, 08:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BusyBenz

Well, all I can say to this subject is that it looks like we are going backward!

Does not the events that occurred at Chernobyl Russia mean anything, (Murphy's Law) so why do we want to relaunch a known carcinogen, or waiting time bomb!

Seems we have progressed beyond, and with an understanding why! Or is all of that being unbundled, and re-presented as a GOOD alternative by W as a short measure to stem the inevitable tide?

If so, and the new ignorant, who haven't lived long enough to know the threat, are thinking along with W, we are doomed! Time to stand up, if this is the case!

There is only three choices.......#1 Nuclear power.........#2 Coal........or #3 continue being raped by the &*^%$ arabs.

Going back to Coal fired plants is a step backwards........but either #1 or #2 is better than #3

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
w202 power window trouble	fast neutron	Tech Help	23	06-03-2018 06:51 PM
radio no power becker cassette 280se 4.5	mbeddie	Vintage Mercedes Forum	6	05-06-2005 05:41 PM
Fill up / Gas prices are going up by 24 cents a gallon	brabus	Diesel Discussion	114	03-11-2005 01:04 PM
Anyone seen the new JD power article?	turnne1	Tech Help	42	12-12-2002 10:28 PM
Aftermarket Power Steering Filters	JRBrown	Tech Help	4	01-06-2002 08:26 PM