In a Switch, Some Republicans Start Citing Climate Change as Driving Their Policies

dehammer wrote:
So where is the article that they say that?

dehammer wrote:
Not surprising that a politician from a state that has lots of uranium wants to push nuclear to stop global warming.

dehammer wrote:
Not surprising that a politician from a state that has lots of uranium wants to push nuclear to stop global warming.

Tai Hai Chen wrote:

dehammer wrote:
Not surprising that a politician from a state that has lots of uranium wants to push nuclear to stop global warming.

Nuclear would have been a good option had it not been deadly radioactive for thousands of years.

HarveyH55 wrote:
Yeah, nuclear is fine, if nothing goes wrong... A reactor takes time to build, lots of money involved, lot of different contractors involved. People make mistakes, people steal, take short cuts. Early reactors had to be perfect in every way, several layers of protection, to make sure there wasn't any mistakes. Any major issues, would be headline news, an kill future reactor projects. Since it's proven to be relatively safe, it's going to be getting them built quicker, and cheaper.

The more reactors you bring online, the more fuel being transported, likely an attractive terrorist target. Not sure how many coal/gas plants a nuclear plant could replace, but it would still mean constructing a lot of them.

Into the Night wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:
Yeah, nuclear is fine, if nothing goes wrong... A reactor takes time to build, lots of money involved, lot of different contractors involved. People make mistakes, people steal, take short cuts. Early reactors had to be perfect in every way, several layers of protection, to make sure there wasn't any mistakes. Any major issues, would be headline news, an kill future reactor projects. Since it's proven to be relatively safe, it's going to be getting them built quicker, and cheaper.

The more reactors you bring online, the more fuel being transported, likely an attractive terrorist target. Not sure how many coal/gas plants a nuclear plant could replace, but it would still mean constructing a lot of them.

Building a nuclear reactor is like building an aircraft that way. If something goes wrong with the design, it's usually caught by a regulatory agency. No nuclear accident has claimed more lives than any other industrial accident, not even Chernobyl (which was a stupid design and badly operated...socialism for ya), or Fukushima (a good design that nevertheless was wiped out by a massive tidal wave).

Nuclear fuel is not useful to terrorists. It's not anywhere near weapons grade stuff. If you put enough together to go supercritical, it simply vaporizes away. No bang. It's also very difficult to get hold of and handle safely. If a terrorist DID get hold of this stuff, they will likely poison themselves before anyone else. Good riddance.

It's far easier to simply build an ANFO bomb and load it in a truck, and/or simply drive the truck into a crowd.

But there's a psychological fear of the things. It's because nuclear radiation is an unknown technology. It's fear is largely the same kind of fear that chemtrail folks suffer from, and for much the same reason. They simply don't know enough about the technology, and they don't trust it.

Heck, the same thing happens with the Alexa service. It's the same kind of fears of the unknown technology that makes it work.

dehammer wrote:
The problem is that they decay and they are so dangerous to fix. Everything breaks down over time. Windmills are running into the problem that the older ones are being abandoned as they are too costly to repair and no one wants to "waste" the money tearing them down. Older solar cell plants are running the same situation. Too expensive to fix and too expensive to tear down.

Into the Night wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:
Yeah, nuclear is fine, if nothing goes wrong... A reactor takes time to build, lots of money involved, lot of different contractors involved. People make mistakes, people steal, take short cuts. Early reactors had to be perfect in every way, several layers of protection, to make sure there wasn't any mistakes. Any major issues, would be headline news, an kill future reactor projects. Since it's proven to be relatively safe, it's going to be getting them built quicker, and cheaper.

The more reactors you bring online, the more fuel being transported, likely an attractive terrorist target. Not sure how many coal/gas plants a nuclear plant could replace, but it would still mean constructing a lot of them.

Building a nuclear reactor is like building an aircraft that way. If something goes wrong with the design, it's usually caught by a regulatory agency. No nuclear accident has claimed more lives than any other industrial accident, not even Chernobyl (which was a stupid design and badly operated...socialism for ya), or Fukushima (a good design that nevertheless was wiped out by a massive tidal wave).

Nuclear fuel is not useful to terrorists. It's not anywhere near weapons grade stuff. If you put enough together to go supercritical, it simply vaporizes away. No bang. It's also very difficult to get hold of and handle safely. If a terrorist DID get hold of this stuff, they will likely poison themselves before anyone else. Good riddance.

It's far easier to simply build an ANFO bomb and load it in a truck, and/or simply drive the truck into a crowd.

But there's a psychological fear of the things. It's because nuclear radiation is an unknown technology. It's fear is largely the same kind of fear that chemtrail folks suffer from, and for much the same reason. They simply don't know enough about the technology, and they don't trust it.

Heck, the same thing happens with the Alexa service. It's the same kind of fears of the unknown technology that makes it work.

Tai Hai Chen wrote:

dehammer wrote:
Not surprising that a politician from a state that has lots of uranium wants to push nuclear to stop global warming.

Nuclear would have been a good option had it not been deadly radioactive for thousands of years.

GasGuzzler wrote:
So a question for anyone who knows...

I just heard a few days ago the nuclear power plant in my area (Palo Iowa) will spent the next few months bringing the plant down and closing it for good.

I know zilch about nuclear except that it is amazingly clean and efficient. So the question is...why is their a "lifespan" with a nuclear power plant? If the materials are spent, why can't it be be rebuilt? New parts? Overhauled?

Sad to see it end. From what I understand the gov has made it nearly impossible to build new nuclear plants. Lot of good jobs going bye bye also.

James___ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:
Yeah, nuclear is fine, if nothing goes wrong... A reactor takes time to build, lots of money involved, lot of different contractors involved. People make mistakes, people steal, take short cuts. Early reactors had to be perfect in every way, several layers of protection, to make sure there wasn't any mistakes. Any major issues, would be headline news, an kill future reactor projects. Since it's proven to be relatively safe, it's going to be getting them built quicker, and cheaper.

The more reactors you bring online, the more fuel being transported, likely an attractive terrorist target. Not sure how many coal/gas plants a nuclear plant could replace, but it would still mean constructing a lot of them.

Building a nuclear reactor is like building an aircraft that way. If something goes wrong with the design, it's usually caught by a regulatory agency. No nuclear accident has claimed more lives than any other industrial accident, not even Chernobyl (which was a stupid design and badly operated...socialism for ya), or Fukushima (a good design that nevertheless was wiped out by a massive tidal wave).

Nuclear fuel is not useful to terrorists. It's not anywhere near weapons grade stuff. If you put enough together to go supercritical, it simply vaporizes away. No bang. It's also very difficult to get hold of and handle safely. If a terrorist DID get hold of this stuff, they will likely poison themselves before anyone else. Good riddance.

It's far easier to simply build an ANFO bomb and load it in a truck, and/or simply drive the truck into a crowd.

But there's a psychological fear of the things. It's because nuclear radiation is an unknown technology. It's fear is largely the same kind of fear that chemtrail folks suffer from, and for much the same reason. They simply don't know enough about the technology, and they don't trust it.

Heck, the same thing happens with the Alexa service. It's the same kind of fears of the unknown technology that makes it work.

Чернобыля был коммунизм товарищ. Ты знаешь кто ты есть.
Chernobyl was communism Russian comrade. You know who you are.

GasGuzzler wrote:
So a question for anyone who knows...

I just heard a few days ago the nuclear power plant in my area (Palo Iowa) will spent the next few months bringing the plant down and closing it for good.

GasGuzzler wrote:
I know zilch about nuclear except that it is amazingly clean and efficient. So the question is...why is their a "lifespan" with a nuclear power plant? If the materials are spent, why can't it be be rebuilt? New parts? Overhauled?

GasGuzzler wrote:
Sad to see it end. From what I understand the gov has made it nearly impossible to build new nuclear plants. Lot of good jobs going bye bye also.

dehammer wrote:
The problem is that they decay and they are so dangerous to fix. Everything breaks down over time. Windmills are running into the problem that the older ones are being abandoned as they are too costly to repair and no one wants to "waste" the money tearing them down. Older solar cell plants are running the same situation. Too expensive to fix and too expensive to tear down.

GasGuzzler wrote:

dehammer wrote:
The problem is that they decay and they are so dangerous to fix. Everything breaks down over time. Windmills are running into the problem that the older ones are being abandoned as they are too costly to repair and no one wants to "waste" the money tearing them down. Older solar cell plants are running the same situation. Too expensive to fix and too expensive to tear down.

That's the real bullshit of this story. They intend to replace it with wind power. They better stay the hell out of my back yard!!!

HarveyH55 wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:
Yeah, nuclear is fine, if nothing goes wrong... A reactor takes time to build, lots of money involved, lot of different contractors involved. People make mistakes, people steal, take short cuts. Early reactors had to be perfect in every way, several layers of protection, to make sure there wasn't any mistakes. Any major issues, would be headline news, an kill future reactor projects. Since it's proven to be relatively safe, it's going to be getting them built quicker, and cheaper.

The more reactors you bring online, the more fuel being transported, likely an attractive terrorist target. Not sure how many coal/gas plants a nuclear plant could replace, but it would still mean constructing a lot of them.

Building a nuclear reactor is like building an aircraft that way. If something goes wrong with the design, it's usually caught by a regulatory agency. No nuclear accident has claimed more lives than any other industrial accident, not even Chernobyl (which was a stupid design and badly operated...socialism for ya), or Fukushima (a good design that nevertheless was wiped out by a massive tidal wave).

Nuclear fuel is not useful to terrorists. It's not anywhere near weapons grade stuff. If you put enough together to go supercritical, it simply vaporizes away. No bang. It's also very difficult to get hold of and handle safely. If a terrorist DID get hold of this stuff, they will likely poison themselves before anyone else. Good riddance.

It's far easier to simply build an ANFO bomb and load it in a truck, and/or simply drive the truck into a crowd.

But there's a psychological fear of the things. It's because nuclear radiation is an unknown technology. It's fear is largely the same kind of fear that chemtrail folks suffer from, and for much the same reason. They simply don't know enough about the technology, and they don't trust it.

Heck, the same thing happens with the Alexa service. It's the same kind of fears of the unknown technology that makes it work.

Fear is the key to their attacks. No need to make a nuclear explosion, just spreading it around in a dirt-bomb is good enough. Terrorist blow themselves up pretty much daily, down radiation death would be a problem for them.

Wake wrote:

Tai Hai Chen wrote:

dehammer wrote:
Not surprising that a politician from a state that has lots of uranium wants to push nuclear to stop global warming.

Nuclear would have been a good option had it not been deadly radioactive for thousands of years.

Where is this murderous radioactivity at Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Over a million people are presently living in Hiroshima and another million in the suburbs. Nagasaki and suburbs has about a million people.

The overall age-adjusted (World Population Standard) cancer incidence has increased from 217 to 301 per 100,000 among males, and from 176 to 197 per 100,000 among females during the first 30 years of cancer registration.

While cancer rates in the US are falling they exceed those in Japan.

Wake wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:
So a question for anyone who knows...

I just heard a few days ago the nuclear power plant in my area (Palo Iowa) will spent the next few months bringing the plant down and closing it for good.

I know zilch about nuclear except that it is amazingly clean and efficient. So the question is...why is their a "lifespan" with a nuclear power plant? If the materials are spent, why can't it be be rebuilt? New parts? Overhauled?

Sad to see it end. From what I understand the gov has made it nearly impossible to build new nuclear plants. Lot of good jobs going bye bye also.

The San Francisco bay area freeways and bridges are falling apart. Just yesterday a truck driving under an overpass was narrowly missed by a piece of concrete the size of a basketball.

Wake wrote:
NOTHING lasts forever

Wake wrote:
though perhaps they can design modern molten salt thorium reactors to be totally maintainable for reasonable costs. But that must be part of the design to start with. Uranium reactors operate at such high temperatures and pressures that they cannot last a very long time.

Into the Night wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:
So a question for anyone who knows...

I just heard a few days ago the nuclear power plant in my area (Palo Iowa) will spent the next few months bringing the plant down and closing it for good.

From what I've been able to determine, it's because coal and oil are cheaper forms of energy, and the plant can't compete in the energy markets.

GasGuzzler wrote:
I know zilch about nuclear except that it is amazingly clean and efficient. So the question is...why is their a "lifespan" with a nuclear power plant? If the materials are spent, why can't it be be rebuilt? New parts? Overhauled?

The plant is being decommissioned before it's lifetime expectancy. It's simply the markets forcing the decision. Most of the plant machinery can be sold and used elsewhere. The reactor vessel and related components are radioactive waste and will be dealt with accordingly. It is not reusable due to ongoing neutron damage (There is really no market for used reactors).

GasGuzzler wrote:
Sad to see it end. From what I understand the gov has made it nearly impossible to build new nuclear plants. Lot of good jobs going bye bye also.

The jobs at the plant are going bye-bye, but the company is offering generous pension compensation and is planning to relocate many of the employees to other plants they operate.

Oil and coal are just cheaper. What you are seeing is the energy market in action.

GasGuzzler wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:
So a question for anyone who knows...

I just heard a few days ago the nuclear power plant in my area (Palo Iowa) will spent the next few months bringing the plant down and closing it for good.

From what I've been able to determine, it's because coal and oil are cheaper forms of energy, and the plant can't compete in the energy markets.

GasGuzzler wrote:
I know zilch about nuclear except that it is amazingly clean and efficient. So the question is...why is their a "lifespan" with a nuclear power plant? If the materials are spent, why can't it be be rebuilt? New parts? Overhauled?

The plant is being decommissioned before it's lifetime expectancy. It's simply the markets forcing the decision. Most of the plant machinery can be sold and used elsewhere. The reactor vessel and related components are radioactive waste and will be dealt with accordingly. It is not reusable due to ongoing neutron damage (There is really no market for used reactors).

GasGuzzler wrote:
Sad to see it end. From what I understand the gov has made it nearly impossible to build new nuclear plants. Lot of good jobs going bye bye also.

The jobs at the plant are going bye-bye, but the company is offering generous pension compensation and is planning to relocate many of the employees to other plants they operate.

Oil and coal are just cheaper. What you are seeing is the energy market in action.

Looks like I also need to do my homework.

Did a bit more digging...didn't realize that nuclear was more expensive than natural gas. Story is making more sense now.

However, I was partially right about the wind power...
NextEra said it plans to invest about $650 million in existing and new renewable energy generation in Iowa by the end of 2020. That includes a $250 million investment to repower four wind facilities, providing about 340 megawatts of electricity for Alliant's Iowa customers.
It does sound like NextEra is a great company and will help their workers in the transition to something new.

I do know it's the free markets working as they should, still sad to see it go. Cedar Rapids where I grew up, you could almost always see the billowing cloud to the Northwest in Palo. On a calm day you could always see what the winds were doing at altitudes. I even mistook the damn thing for a tornado one day when I was chasing near there.

GasGuzzler wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:
So a question for anyone who knows...

I just heard a few days ago the nuclear power plant in my area (Palo Iowa) will spent the next few months bringing the plant down and closing it for good.

From what I've been able to determine, it's because coal and oil are cheaper forms of energy, and the plant can't compete in the energy markets.

GasGuzzler wrote:
I know zilch about nuclear except that it is amazingly clean and efficient. So the question is...why is their a "lifespan" with a nuclear power plant? If the materials are spent, why can't it be be rebuilt? New parts? Overhauled?

The plant is being decommissioned before it's lifetime expectancy. It's simply the markets forcing the decision. Most of the plant machinery can be sold and used elsewhere. The reactor vessel and related components are radioactive waste and will be dealt with accordingly. It is not reusable due to ongoing neutron damage (There is really no market for used reactors).

GasGuzzler wrote:
Sad to see it end. From what I understand the gov has made it nearly impossible to build new nuclear plants. Lot of good jobs going bye bye also.

The jobs at the plant are going bye-bye, but the company is offering generous pension compensation and is planning to relocate many of the employees to other plants they operate.

Oil and coal are just cheaper. What you are seeing is the energy market in action.

Looks like I also need to do my homework.

Did a bit more digging...didn't realize that nuclear was more expensive than natural gas. Story is making more sense now.

However, I was partially right about the wind power...
NextEra said it plans to invest about $650 million in existing and new renewable energy generation in Iowa by the end of 2020. That includes a $250 million investment to repower four wind facilities, providing about 340 megawatts of electricity for Alliant's Iowa customers.
It does sound like NextEra is a great company and will help their workers in the transition to something new.

I do know it's the free markets working as they should, still sad to see it go. Cedar Rapids where I grew up, you could almost always see the billowing cloud to the Northwest in Palo. On a calm day you could always see what the winds were doing at altitudes. I even mistook the damn thing for a tornado one day when I was chasing near there.

Wake wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:
So a question for anyone who knows...

I just heard a few days ago the nuclear power plant in my area (Palo Iowa) will spent the next few months bringing the plant down and closing it for good.

From what I've been able to determine, it's because coal and oil are cheaper forms of energy, and the plant can't compete in the energy markets.

GasGuzzler wrote:
I know zilch about nuclear except that it is amazingly clean and efficient. So the question is...why is their a "lifespan" with a nuclear power plant? If the materials are spent, why can't it be be rebuilt? New parts? Overhauled?

The plant is being decommissioned before it's lifetime expectancy. It's simply the markets forcing the decision. Most of the plant machinery can be sold and used elsewhere. The reactor vessel and related components are radioactive waste and will be dealt with accordingly. It is not reusable due to ongoing neutron damage (There is really no market for used reactors).

GasGuzzler wrote:
Sad to see it end. From what I understand the gov has made it nearly impossible to build new nuclear plants. Lot of good jobs going bye bye also.

The jobs at the plant are going bye-bye, but the company is offering generous pension compensation and is planning to relocate many of the employees to other plants they operate.

Oil and coal are just cheaper. What you are seeing is the energy market in action.

Looks like I also need to do my homework.

Did a bit more digging...didn't realize that nuclear was more expensive than natural gas. Story is making more sense now.

However, I was partially right about the wind power...
NextEra said it plans to invest about $650 million in existing and new renewable energy generation in Iowa by the end of 2020. That includes a $250 million investment to repower four wind facilities, providing about 340 megawatts of electricity for Alliant's Iowa customers.
It does sound like NextEra is a great company and will help their workers in the transition to something new.

I do know it's the free markets working as they should, still sad to see it go. Cedar Rapids where I grew up, you could almost always see the billowing cloud to the Northwest in Palo. On a calm day you could always see what the winds were doing at altitudes. I even mistook the damn thing for a tornado one day when I was chasing near there.

Presently natural gas is really cheap because of Fracking.

Wake wrote:
But this is pretty short term.

Wake wrote:
But the nuclear power plant under discussion would reach its life expectancy before the increasing natural gas prices would make the nuclear power cheaper.

Wake wrote:
Yet another reason that molten salt Thorium breeder reactors would be the way to go - these make cheap U235 which would be a lot cheaper than the natural U235 they are separating from U238