Slashdot Mirror
US Congress Passes Bill To Help Advanced Nuclear Power (arstechnica.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: Last week, the House passed a bipartisan bill that originated in the Senate called the Nuclear Energy Innovation Capabilities Act (S. 97), which will allow the private sector to partner with U.S. National Laboratories to vet advanced nuclear technologies. The bill also directs the Department of Energy (DOE) to lay the ground work for establishing "a versatile, reactor-based fast neutron source." The Senate also introduced a second bill called the Nuclear Energy Leadership Act (S. 3422) last Thursday, which would direct the DOE to actually establish that fast neutron reactor. That bill also directs the DOE to "make available high-assay, low-enriched uranium" for research purposes. The Nuclear Energy Leadership Act has not yet made it past a Senate vote. The report also mentions a recent U.S. Court of Appeals ruling to keep older reactors online. "The court said that subsidies for nuclear energy proposed by Illinois don't cause any interference with federal control over interstate power markets, which is prohibited," reports Ars.
"In 2017 the state of Illinois agreed to offer a Zero Emissions Credit that included nuclear energy (PDF). The credit was opposed by fossil fuel generators and by the Electric Power Supply Association, who sued the director of the Illinois Power Agency. But the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and the Department of Justice filed a joint brief in the case several months ago, saying those federal agencies had no problem with Illinois' credit system, according to Utility Dive."
"In 2017 the state of Illinois agreed to offer a Zero Emissions Credit that included nuclear energy (PDF). The credit was opposed by fossil fuel generators and by the Electric Power Supply Association, who sued the director of the Illinois Power Agency. But the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and the Department of Justice filed a joint brief in the case several months ago, saying those federal agencies had no problem with Illinois' credit system, according to Utility Dive."
It's ironic that Trump is derided for leaving the Paris accord, when he's the only one taking actions to significantly improve the climate.
The end game for truly low emissions is solar + nuclear. No way you can get there with solar alone - and Trump's government is helping to push nuclear in ways that Obama (being of that old green school) simply would not allow, no matter how much of the planet dies as a result.
Eventually the world will come back around to nuclear once they see more modern nuclear designs in action and stop having freak-outs just because something has "nuclear" in the name. A lot of the older "environmentalists" will be passing away and the more pragmatic real environmentalists will finally allow nuclear power to hold the proper respect it deserves for helping the Earth.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
It's been something like 40 years since Jimmy Carter stopped this dead. Long over due that we pursue power technologies that are here and actually work.
Oh and prediction, there will be lots of cheesed off solar zealots that aren't engineers couldn't tell you a thing about electricity or even properly identify the metals used in transmission lines coming on thread bitching and moaning, because they thought solar was magic that would let them stick it to the man.
There is nothing in this story that mentions or involves Donald Trump in any way. And none of the "incentives" to nuclear power discussed in this bill are new.
You are welcome on my lawn.
I was watching some show about waste disposal, and I think they said something like "All the waste put together would fill a FOOTBALL FIELD!!!!1!!11!!!1one"
Is this some new form of deception that I don't understand? The kind where a normal person would think the claim was of great concern? You know what, I'm probably misremembering. Maybe that much was what got produced per year or something. It does give me an idea for a new sporting event though.
Virtually all of Europe as well as Australia have been moving to renewables as fast as they can. Hell, bloody South America is moving fast in that direction. It's mostly the US and China that are feet dragging. Of the two the US has the least excuses. China's still got huge swaths of abject poor. Outside of the Rust Belt and the South the US is pretty well off (relatively speaking).
Our biggest problem is major projects like changing the primary source of energy used by a civilization aren't the kind of thing you can leave to private businesses. The profits are way, way too long term and you're going to wreak a ton of equity. Right now there's trillions of dollars of oil that becomes more or less worthless the day we stop using it for energy. And that's before we talk about what'll happen to the middle east when they can't keep their armies fed...
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
until you can convince me that it's cheaper to run a safe nuke plant than an unsafe one I'm not sold on nuclear. Fukushima was a completely pointless and preventable disaster that happened because the guys running TEP wanted to save a buck. Here in America we just poisoned Flint, Mi because nobody wanted to pay to treat their water properly for the type of pipes they had. You'll see the same damn thing with nuclear. Want me to drop the NIMBYism? Show me that a safe plant is cheaper to run. And I don't mean "Cheaper when you account for lawsuits" either. They'll just fold the corporation and/or tie it up in court until everybody's dead from cancer. Worked for the cigarette companies...
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
It's ironic that Trump is derided for leaving the Paris accord, when he's the only one taking actions to significantly improve the climate.
You mean like rolling back pollution rules to help coal plants? https://abcnews.go.com/Health/...
I'm all for advancing nuclear power technology, but I wouldn't give Trump any credit for it. The bill was passed by Congress. The Trump administration was only mentioned once in the article and even that was about nuclear being bundled with his attempts to save the coal plants.
Is looking more like the cultures in Biblical times that were very wealthy, powerful, influential, and very deadly to outsiders.. and then suddenly they fell due to mass deaths caused by disease, droughts, mass crop infestations, etc.
In this case, it will be caused by monocultures, mass sterilization of plants and animals, nuclear disasters, and the spread of technology. The spread of television (and possibly cellphones and internet) lowers birth rates more successfully than promotion of condoms, eugenicists should know that by now.
Nuclear power has great upfront benefits but has one major issue that has not been addressed, what to do with the waste? Nobody wants it. We need solutions, not blind deregulation.
"It's ironic that Trump is derided for leaving the Paris accord, when he's the only one taking actions to significantly improve the climate." - said the moron opposed to renewables.
Solar and batteries are cheaper, more reliable, sustainable and much less dangerous than nuclear power. These guys still haven't figured out what to do with the waste that will be dangerous for hundreds of thousands up to billions of years in some cases. And if there is an accident, they won't even be on the hook since they under fund the insurance fund. One accident will leave the public in the lurch. But that's how lobbyists for scared monopolists roll
I'm curious why don't think solar is a renewable energy source? Or perhaps you just cannot read.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Hitler is dead. You have no reason to suck off his successor you Nazi loving jackass.
The White House wants to push advanced nuclear, and supports nuclear power legislation - unlike the previous Administration. That's all that's really needed here - Congress will actually pass nuclear power bills now there is a President who understands the benefits of nuclear power.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
I bet the fact the previous President was dead-set against nuclear meant that Congress wouldn't even address the bill or issue unless they had a 100% solid veto-proof supermajority. Sometimes just a change in Administration is all that's needed to give Congress the push to start addressing some issues.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
There is nothing in this story that mentions or involves Donald Trump
Trump is the president, and the article is partly about this:
But the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and the Department of Justice filed a joint brief in the case several months ago, saying those federal agencies had no problem with Illinois' credit system
Both agencies having people in charge appointed by Trump... I mean I don't think you have to be Sherlock Holmes to figure out this "mystery".
On a side note the bill is called "bipartisan" but is sponsored solely by a Republican. Funny how that got kind of lost in translation somewhere. There is handily no record of votes (voice vote) so no way to tell how bipartisan it really was... I suspect less rather than more.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Yeah. France's nuclear power doesn't count, cause it's French. I feel you, man.
It's ironic that Trump is derided for leaving the Paris accord, when he's the only one taking actions to significantly improve the climate.
The end game for truly low emissions is solar + nuclear. No way you can get there with solar alone - and Trump's government is helping to push nuclear in ways that Obama (being of that old green school) simply would not allow, no matter how much of the planet dies as a result.
What makes you think environmentalism has anything to do with saving the environment?
Its all anti-corporatism pretending to care about a just cause.
An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
So what you are looking for is a Small Modular Reactor. These are relatively small reactors that can be produced on an assembly line and shipped to the installation site, so they are cheaper than conventional nuclear designs. Most don't require active cooling, which means you don't get meltdowns. Also, you can bury them in a vault for protection from attack or sabotage. They require no maintenance. You run them until their fuel is spent, then you pull one out of service and recycle it. You end up with a few pounds of waste material per unit over the course of it's lifespan, which is a couple of decades.
Russia has been actively developing these things for decades, and are piloting several models.
NuScale has an interesting design ready for licensing, and TerraPower has a design that uses liquid sodium cooling and depleted uranium fuel, which makes it essentially impossible to melt down.
Think of it this way. The expensive part of old water-cooled nuclear reactors is maintaining the elaborate water cooling system. It's also the primary point of failure. Getting rid of active cooling makes reactors cheaper to build and maintain, AND makes them safer.
My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
It's no coincidence that Greenpeace has that name, Green Peace. The early environmental movement was very much intertwined with the anti-war, anti-military movement, at a time with nuclear weapons were one of the major issues of the day. The Peace side of Greenpeace was churning out information / propagada against nuclear research and facilities because of nuclear weapons. You couldn't have Greenpeace both promoting nuclear energy and using scare tactics about nuclear research such as creating confusion between the slow, long-lived elements vs the fast ones that release enough energy to be dangerous. That legacy lasted a long time.
A lot of leading environmentalists are coming around, though, such as one of the founders of Greenpeace:
http://ecosense.me/2017/01/17/...
http://ecosense.me/2017/01/18/...
As the parent mentioned, solar and wind compliment nuclear very nicely. Both solar and wind are great - when the weather is right at the moment. When the weather isn't right, at night for example, nuclear is the very best, cleanest way to have your base.
For 70 years now we've been trying to find ways solar electric work on a nationwide scale, particularly working on the storage problem. All the while we've been running
oal burning plants while hoping for a revolutionary discovery in energy storage. It can work fine for a hunting cabin (just a little expensive), but after seventy years of burning coal while waiting for solar, we're still nowhere near the kind of revolutionary discoveries needed for something on the scale of powering the United States or Japan. The amount of energy is just so vast. As an example, pumped hydro storage sufficient to get the US through a large winter storm system would require flooding from the Rocky Mountains to the Appalachians, nearly half the country.
If we want to not only replace the existing uses of electricity, but also power all of our cars and trucks from electricity, and industry such as steel and aluminum, we're going to need a lot more electricity. Dependable power for transportation can come from either fossil fuels or nuclear, because you can't have the entire state shut down due it's cloudy this week. You can use solar electric during sunny weeks, but food needs to be delivered to stores during storm season too, and Seattle's cloudy season.
People are starting to come around. I don't think we'll have to keep using mostly fossil fuels for another seventy years while hoping fot a miracle. We can wait for the miracle while drastically cutting CO2 emissions with nuclear.
PS -
Before you reply, be warned I know the gimmicks of dividing *electricity* usage (not vehicles or any other use of energy) by energy usage. Apple divided by orange is a useless number. I'll call you out on it, so don't bother trying to post a BS stat that conflates energy and electricity.
I'll also call you out on it if you try the propaganda of conflating long half-life elements which release energy slowly, over a long time, like a candle, vs short half-life elements that release it quickly like a firecracker. Energy released quickly is dangerous - for a short time, then it's done.
I was going to list two more propaganda techniques I'll call you out on, but let's just summarize with this:
I've studied for 30 years. I've written a comprehensive energy plan for the United States. I know the tricks, and I'll call you put if you try to use them.
Trump is pushing coal, not nuclear. Energy policy is a contentious subject, but the one policy that all activists agree on is that coal sucks the most.
When it comes to advanced nuclear, our nose is flattened on China's store window. Nothing will happen here until factory-built nukes start rolling off Chinese assembly lines. Then we will accuse them of stealing.
left we forget the nMRI machine
If Trump were serious about promoting nuclear, he would open Yucca Mountain. Explain that a fuel recycling facility fed from this storage buffer would provide high-quality jobs for Nevadans.
Nuclear is soo expensive due to the greenies throwing up ridiculous rules and regulations that paradoxically make nuclear energy less safe. Reactors use 1950s technology because the compasionate greens make it so hard to innovate. You can design reactors to be much much safer than they are now, but we dont ironically due to all the safety rules. If Solar and wind had to deal with the same requirments as nuclear it would cost 100 usd per KW h. Society is supposed to advance, but we are regressing. Rather than using more energy dense sources of power we are going back to using windmills like they did in the 1600s.
If Trump were serious about promoting nuclear, he would open Yucca Mountain.
He is president, not dictator. YM is blocked by congress. Harry Reid is gone, so there is hope, but Donald can't do anything until congress acts.
Explain that a fuel recycling facility fed from this storage buffer would provide high-quality jobs for Nevadans.
That is logical, but nuclear policy isn't about logic.
Anyway, continuing to store waste on-site is good enough for several more decades. YM is not a critical path problem.
Yes, but Nevada is a red state and much of the waste is currently being stored in WA which is a blue state. Plus, the trains between here and there mostly go through red states.
This is just more of the fucking over of blue states that Trump has made a top priority. Just behind undoing anything and everything that Obama did.
As it stands we've got nuclear materials leaking into the ground on the Handford Nuclear Reservation, tunnels collapsing and the Feds are nowhere near the point that they promised to be with cleaning up their mess. Most of which is left over from the early days of the nuclear weapons research.
How is defunding Government oversight of a high risk industry and replacing it with for-profit rubber stamping by private companies "taking actions to significantly improve the climate"?
I thought he was going to drain the swamp, instead all I am seeing is increased opportunities for politically connected individuals to profit off the system.
The only bright spot on the coal industry in the US is that natural gas and other competing technologies are so cheap that coal just cannot compete. The only way that Trump can MCGA is by literally paying plants to burn it.
And it's going to get worse for the coal industry as time goes by due to solar and wind power getting cheap enough that they don't require subsidies to compete.
> I'm all for advancing nuclear power technology, but I wouldn't give Trump any credit for it. The bill was passed by Congress.
Who controls Congress again?
The previous administration struggled to push legislation, because the GOP openly had a policy of "We wont allow any bill that comes from the democrats" regardless of its merits. Even if it was completely apolitical (in the left/right sense) or whatever, it was blocked because a democrat raised it, or Obama proposed it (ESPECIALLY if Obama proposed it).
Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
He's put funding back in his budget proposal. He's doing what he can, from the White House.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Nice rant based in fantasy. President Trump is trying to fund Yucca Mountain, which President Obama and Senate Majority Leader (at the time) Harry Reid killed. They wanted to keep that nuclear waste in Hanford, rather than in Yucca Mountain. Oh, and you can move down from Washington, to Oregon, to California - then over to NV. No need to go through a "red state" on the way (other than the destination, Nevada).
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
How much are you being paid by the nuclear energy industry? Neither solar nor wind power can render an entire state too dangerous to live for the next 10 thousand years.
What State, or even large-scale area, has been rendered as you claim? Fear-mongering is so much easier than reasoned debate, isn't it?
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Struggled, even when they had not just a majority for 4 of the 8 years, but a super-majority (filibuster-proof) for a good chunk of that, too. Easier to blame failures on the "other side" than the reality that even the President's own party thought much of what he offered was poor...
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Here’s the comprehensive fact, nobody wants a nuke plant next door, as the climate denialists have convinced us that scientists fake their result is to get money, and nuke scientists have the same motivation.
Poor old Ray is having delusions of adequacy again. Sad.
So far as I'm aware, the nuclear industry does not have any shills; whenever you see people promoting or defending it, they are invariably just informed people, including climate scientists, or occasionally plant employees. Most just want a better and cleaner future for their families and to minimize human impact on the earth.
The nuclear industry makes no attempt to defend itself against the aggressive misinformation campaigns waged against it. When was the last time you saw an advertisement for nuclear? The ads and propaganda for natural gas, wind, and solar are everywhere, and so are the shills, and the fossil-funded mainstream "environmental groups" which rabidly assault our largest source of clean energy.
CONGRESS KILLED YUCCA MOUNTAIN. You have yet to be honest about who even did it let alone why, so why would you be a suitable proponent of nuclear power which demands the utmost in accountability, moron?
all anti-corporatism pretending to care about a just cause.
You're a fucking parasite, Dan.
Fear-mongering is so much easier than reasoned debate, isn't it?
What would you know of reasoned debate? You are just a denier peddling bullshit at every turn.
Why would anyone be reasonable with you?
What the fuck are you smoking?
China installs as much solar as the rest of the world put together, ditto for wind.
Where do you think all those other countries solar and wind is made?
What a joker you must be. Per capita America is twice the levels of Europe and China.
Is that really the best you could do?
Health care took up much of the time they had the votes and contrary to talking points, it was not rushed...
Struggled, even when they had not just a majority for 4 of the 8 years, but a super-majority (filibuster-proof) for a good chunk of that, too. Easier to blame failures on the "other side" than the reality that even the President's own party thought much of what he offered was poor...
That's just not true. Obama had a simply majority Dem congress for only his first 2 years. It was majority Rep for the rest of his terms. Obama never had a super majority Dem congress at any point.
"Those that start by burning books, will end by burning men."
You can get there with Solar, wind and significant storage.
Admitted you do have to make a real effort with the storage but the economics may well be better than nuclear.
"As an example, pumped hydro storage sufficient to get the US through a large winter storm system would require flooding from the Rocky Mountains to the Appalachians, nearly half the country."
Or you use a strategic fossil fuel reserve with fossil fuel plants, obviously the maintenance costs will have to be counted towards the cost of the renewable electricity ... which is why renewables have to become cheaper than fuelling a coal plant to be economical, which I think is possible.
PS. not that much snow in the southern US deserts though and the world is small for HVDC.
Yes, but Nevada is a red state
Nevada is a purple state. In 2016, NV voted for Hillary, and elected a Democrat to replace Harry Reid.
"All the waste put together would fill a FOOTBALL FIELD!!!"
Is this some new form of deception that I don't understand?
Yes, you are being deceived.
A "football field" is an AREA, while the waste fills a VOLUME. So they aren't even comparable.
Maybe the Yucca-killers don't like the idea of "waste" which must be isolated for many thousands of years. I don't like it either. Now, there's a lot of hand-waving missivls thrown about - like "don't worry about it" and "you're misinformed" - but at least some people have been talking about using Yucca for reprocessing this so-called waste, instead the throw-away cultural perspective.
https://lasvegassun.com/news/2...
https://www.reviewjournal.com/...
If Obama never had a filibuster proof majority in Congress during his term, then how did Obamacare pass with zero Republican votes?
The fact is he had a filibuster proof 60 votes in the Senate until Massachusetts decided their proposals sucked so much they voted in a Republican to replace Kennedy, Scott Brown was sworn in on 2/4/10. Prior to that they had Democrat Paul Kirk replacing Kennedy.
The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
A bunch of anti-nuke fanatics making up or repeating the usual lies, anti-Trumpers blaming every dark cloud on him, real or not. The pro-solar crowd saying '..but solar..' to everything, relevant or not. Pretty much no discussion of the actual topic. I'm going out for a walk. Tune it tomorrow for the same old tripe.
(*hangs up phone*) "Nah, we're not going to do any of that."
J
Nuke power has lots of schills. Mostly funded by from coal and oil interests, who find fringe nutters and fund them as a distraction.
How many thousands of tons of coal ash waste has leaked/been pumped out of Duke energy ponds today?
Who will pay for cleaning up that lead, cadmium, mercury and arsenic?
How many more will die from non specific cancers of unprovable origin from that waste?
Plus you know, the hundreds of thousands of tons of pig shit also floating around there now.
But her emails!
Keep calling everyone Nazis, and you'll soon wish that 1940s era Nazis were actually a problem.
Humans have devised a plethora of new ways to brutally torture and kill people.
Keep pushing and see how well your juvenile name-calling plays out........
For 70 years now we've been trying to find ways solar electric work on a nationwide scale, particularly working on the storage problem.
No, we have been waiting for the cost to fall to where widespread solar and storage solutions make economic sense. We are at that point now.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
I thought you said it was cheap? Only cheap if nearly half the price is paid behind taxes...
And Obamacare was the rightwing ideal, it started off the same as Romneycare, and STILL the republicans demanded more pro-corp BS.
Good manners is a wonderful thing; so is the ability to see good in others.
Maybe you should complement each other.
Actually Australian and Canadian right wing parties are doing the Koch/ Murdoch fandango too.
He is president, not dictator
He is fully compromised Russian asset, not dictator. FTFY
How is defunding Government oversight of a high risk industry and replacing it with for-profit rubber stamping by private companies "taking actions to significantly improve the climate"?
I thought he was going to drain the swamp, instead all I am seeing is increased opportunities for politically connected individuals to profit off the system.
He did drain the swamp, all of it, straight into his administration. You may also want to feast your eyes on this: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dj...
Certainly not Trump!
Um.. Not true... Where he has the concurrence of Congress, he's gone that route. We got the tax cuts and the removal of Obamacare's mandate out of Congress you recall. Congress has a low low approval rating for a reason and their inability to actually do anything, right or wrong, is chief among them. This is not something the president has any power over.
So 45 was left with E/O's and executive branch activities to push his agenda, and that's what he's doing. Further, one has to wonder where you where with "I have a phone and an pen" used by the last oval office occupant? Do understand that a LOT of the E/O's from 45 have been undoing 44's E/O's, which 46 will have the option of reversing again. Don't bash 45 for acting the dictator when he's only undoing and doing stuff like 44 did..
If you want to bash somebody, bash Congress for doing nothing..
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Reprocessing is where this will eventually go. It simply has to. Dumping "waste" that is 80-90% usable fuel is about as stupid as it gets. Reprocessing will create new, usable fuel, reduce the volume of the high level nuclear waste and make the problem much more manageable. Burying spent fuel assemblies in some mountain is absolutely stupid.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
As the parent mentioned, solar and wind compliment nuclear very nicely. Both solar and wind are great - when the weather is right at the moment. When the weather isn't right, at night for example, nuclear is the very best, cleanest way to have your base.
Nuclear, solar, and wind are all zero-marginal-cost technologies. If you decide not to use the power they make, you save approximately nothing -- a little wear and tear on the wind turbines, a bit of essentially free nuclear fuel for nuclear. Therefore they complement each other atrociously. If you have enough nuclear power to handle peak demand, any build-out of solar and wind is throwing money away for no gain, and if you don't have enough nuclear, you are scuppered on a cloudy quiet day.
If you have energy storage, you can obviously use that to solve the problem. But if you have energy storage, you build renewables instead of nuclear because they are half the cost.
Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
Is that really worth it. That, and if the wind weren't going out to sea, thousands, now would be dead.
https://www.youtube.com/c/BrendaEM
How much are you being paid by the nuclear energy industry? Neither solar nor wind power can render an entire state too dangerous to live for the next 10 thousand years.
What are you talking about? The absolute worst accident we've had, where a stupidly designed reactor was literally blown apart and burned for days didn't produce such a unlivable place for 10 thousand years, and certainly not a state sized portion of real estate. Even in Japan, where we blew apart multiple reactors, the situation isn't going to leave the ground uninhabitable that long nor is it the size you want to think.
I'm not going to tell you there are not risks, but I am going to insist on being reasonable about assessing those risks.
There are new reactor designs which are NOT going to catch fire and burn, won't suffer meltdowns and containment breaches even in the worst case dooms day scenarios you can imagine. But because you want to believe the fiction "China Syndrome" Hollywood depictions of what happened at TMI, we are stuck running rickety old 50 year old facilities (Even then with a safety record that is pretty darned good, with only ONE serious accident in the USA's commercial operating history, and that one being of nearly zero effect on the public, with the only negative effect being the hysteria.)
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
And Obamacare was the rightwing ideal, it started off the same as Romneycare, and STILL the republicans demanded more pro-corp BS.
And STILL we get to hear this lie repeated. This was NOT a rightwing idea. As Romney plainly said, multiple times during his failed presidential campaign, if a STATE wants universal healthcare, they are free to try it. The problem is the federal government is NOT the proper place for such social experiments. But your side passed it anyway.
Democrats simply want to share the blame for this disaster of a law. Well, it was good enough for your side to pass it over the objections of the Republicans, it's your law to defend and your mess to own, not ours. It's not our fault that you guys passed the lemon of a law, that you didn't even read it or accept ANY input from the other side of the isle.
I know who lied about this, it wasn't the Republicans. Remember "If you like your plan, you can keep your plan!" and "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor!" and my personal favorite "It will save a family of 4 $2,500!" Well, My plan changed, my doctor changed and my costs went UP.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
God I wish they would both hang when Trump goes for TREASON, they both deserve it in every way.
The ladies say Trump is already hung.
Dumping "waste" that is 80-90% usable fuel is about as stupid as it gets.
Depending on reactor technology (and that focuses on the reactors currently used in the US), waste has less than 1% useable fuel. That is actually why it is called "waste".
Sure, you could get the uranium out of it and "burn" it in a CANDU reactor, but such the US don't have. So: it is waste ...
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Story form NYT detailing how Clinton was bribed MASSIVELY by Russians to set State Department policy while she was SOS.
No, its the Clintons that are Russian puppets. Unlike you, or Muller, I can show proof of my claims.
The bill was passed by {the Republican controlled} Congress.
FTFY.
Does any sane person doubt that when you read the fine print, this bill will prove to be yet another way for corporations to loot taxpayer-funded research for their own profit?
It's called selling us stuff we've already paid for.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
So what you are looking for is a Small Modular Reactor. These are relatively small reactors that can be produced on an assembly line and shipped to the installation site, so they are cheaper than conventional nuclear designs.
Being cheaper than current reactor designs is kind of damning with faint praise. And these are proposed reactor designs, not actual products that can be bought today. The DOE is claiming that we might see them in 10-15 years which is how researches talk when they mean probably never.
Most don't require active cooling, which means you don't get meltdowns.
Meltdowns are just one of many failure modes for fission reactors to worry about and not anywhere near the most likely. And your use of the word "most" is not comforting since it means the number is not zero.
Also, you can bury them in a vault for protection from attack or sabotage.
The very fact that this would be a serious concern is rather worrisome don't you think? Nobody is going to be attacking wind turbines or solar panels or fossil fuel plants and even if they did and succeeded it wouldn't be a major catastrophe.
They require no maintenance. You run them until their fuel is spent, then you pull one out of service and recycle it.
There is no such thing as a man made device that never needs maintenance or that never fails. Reliable and easy to replace I could believe. As soon as someone says "no maintenance" what it actually means is easily replaced, disposable, or they are lying. The DOE does not claim they do not require maintenance. Any engineer that makes such a claim is either clueless or lying.
You end up with a few pounds of waste material per unit over the course of it's lifespan, which is a couple of decades.
That's the theory which has yet to be demonstrated in practice. If they can do it in practice then I'm all about it but right now you are talking about proposed designs and prototypes as if they are working products which they are not. And I think you are grossly overstating the likely actual outcome.
As the earlier post pointed out that one of the biggest problems with nuclear fission plants is that every design proposed is cheaper to operate if corners are cut which would reduce safety. When profit motive is at odds with safety you should always assume that profit motive will eventually win in some cases. This would be acceptable except that the failure modes for fission reactors are FAR more immediately and acutely catastrophic than any other power source we have access to. Fossil fuels may kill the whole planet eventually but a fission plant failure can render a large area uninhabitable by people for centuries in an instant.
you go losing your shit like they've just passed a law to euthanize your mother. So why are you saying "Hussah!" here? Especially in light of your shit losing history. Don't tell me your histerics is entirely partisan bollocks..!
According the Government Accountability Office, you the taxpayer spend about $40 billion / year on 345 different federal initiatives supporting solar energy research and deployment. Total spent over the years is more than a TRILLION dollars. You're saying this trillion dollars actually has NOT been spent on trying to get it to work, everyone has just been sitting on their hands waiting for a miracle? Maybe the trillion dollars went from the taxpayer to the corporations and then back to the politicians who approved it, in the form of campaign donations?
You're about half right. Solar happens to be the label one political party put on their slush funds; I particular millions of dollars ended up literally in Al Gore's pocket.
Either way, whatever we've been doing, we've been doing it for 70 years and it hasn't solved the problem. Electricity still comes from fossil fuels, including coal. So it's time to do something different, something based on what we can actually do rather than just hoping. We can continue to hope, but while we hope we need to implement the best solutions we have today.
By the way, after spending a trillion dollars in federal tax money (and more in state taxes), the US gets less than 3% of our energy from solar. So it has not worked.
Actually it was Nixon who came up with it.
And I'm sorry to hear everything changed for you. You are in the very small minority, but you certainly have a right to complain.
What did you change your plan to?
Hmm, as of 2008, rooftop solar has caused 0.44 deaths per TWh produced. Nuclear is at 0.04 deaths per TWh.
Solar power has caused ZERO deaths per Wh. Industrial accidents relating to solar installations have happened but the actual act of making solar power has literally zero deaths unless you can find some random guy that somehow got electrocuted. Nuclear energy undeniably has a body count attached to it. A low body count to be sure but the number is not zero. Construction accidents have happened with every form of power generation. Furthermore solar has not rendered any location permanently uninhabitable by humans unlike nuclear. This argument that there are more deaths from solar is some of the most contrived and cynical fanboy-ism I've every heard.
Well, we all know that nuclear is by far the most deadly form of power ever invented, so obviously, these numbers are fabrications....
Yes it is. Ask Japan especially in the neighborhoods of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Nuclear power and nuclear weapons are not separable issues.
it should be noted that the short half-life stuff that makes nuclear waste, well, seriously radioactive is pretty much gone a week after shutdown of the plant.
Again this is complete bullshit according to no less an authority than the Department of Energy.
And the long half-life stuff? Not nearly so dangerous as airplane flight.
Completely wrong. See the link above.
Shit dude, you are dumb. Obamacare was based on the Heritage Foundation's plan. A right wing think tank. Maybe you should stop lying.
What State, or even large-scale area, has been rendered as you claim?
Forgetting about Chernobyl? The Chernobyl exclusion zone is roughly 1000mi^2. For comparison the state of Rhode Island in the US is about 1200mi^2. So there you go - an area the size of an entire state rendered uninhabitable by nuclear power. But I guess since it happened somewhere else you think it could not ever happen here?
Fear-mongering is so much easier than reasoned debate, isn't it?
It's not FUD when it actually has happened. The failure modes of nuclear fission are not hypothetical and it is dangerous to not honestly acknowledge them.
Do you have a citation for your numbers? The only GAO info I could find with numbers was this: https://www.gao.gov/products/G...
And that doesn't say $40bn or >$1T.
But in any case, on-shore wind is already profitable without subsidy. Solar is cheaper than nuclear with both subsidised in the UK.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
I was watching some show about waste disposal, and I think they said something like "All the waste put together would fill a FOOTBALL FIELD!!!!1!!11!!!1one"
A freight train 1 and 1/2 times the circumference of the Earths equator.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
The absolute worst accident we've had, where a stupidly designed reactor was literally blown apart and burned for days didn't produce such a unlivable place for 10 thousand years, and certainly not a state sized portion of real estate.
The Chernobyl exclusion zone is roughly the size of the State of Rhode Island (both are just over 1000 square miles). Nobody is going to be living in that "state sized portion of real estate" for a very long time to come.
I'm not going to tell you there are not risks, but I am going to insist on being reasonable about assessing those risks.
Agreed but please start by not spouting false data about actual catastrophes. I think there is a level of risk for nuclear fission that is acceptable but we have a lot of hard work ahead of us to get to that level of safety and we certainly aren't there today.
Dumping "waste" that is 80-90% usable fuel is about as stupid as it gets. Depending on reactor technology (and that focuses on the reactors currently used in the US), waste has less than 1% useable fuel. That is actually why it is called "waste".
Sure, you could get the uranium out of it and "burn" it in a CANDU reactor, but such the US don't have. So: it is waste ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spent_nuclear_fuel
You are being misleading. Of the original U238 which constituted a small fraction of the total unspent fuel, over half still exists when the fuel is no longer usable. Also, additional fuel was created in the form of Pu 239 and Pu 240 which is not useable in Uranium reactors, but can be used in reactors designed to use it. So the U238 part of the fuel is about 1%, but it was only about 5% to start with and other parts of the spent fuel make up a considerable resource of nuclear fuel which can be reprocessed, reused and recycled many times to produce usable energy.
Reprocessing is the only solution that really makes sense. It allows the separation of the really nasty and long term radio active stuff from the majority of the mass, so we have less volume of stuff to get rid of making it easier to isolate and contain long term, produces useable fuel for more energy production and reduces the danger of having spent fuel distributed all over the country in long term storage pools.
I would tell you that your two best arguments here are about two things. 1. The risks of transportation of spent fuel to the reprocessing site and 2. The non-proliferation concerns of nuclear material from the Pu produced from reprocessing, as Pu is the bomb making material of choice. I would argue that the transportation risks are "one time" while the long term storage risks are on going for the first part. Second, I would argue that the Pu produced from power reactors is poor bomb making material, being the wrong mix of Pu isotopes, but it's great fuel for power production.
So please be reasonable and not misleading with your information if you wish for me to take you seriously.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Ok. What proof do you have? And not the BS that faux news and kock bros push.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
The worst thing we can do is bury the supposed current waste. There is loads of energy in it and would be criminal to bury it.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
IRRC, it passed with 2 Republican votes, actually.
So what is going to happen to all the nuclear waste sitting in pools at plants? All that spent fuel has to go somewhere and if they ramp up things we're going to get more and more of this stuff sitting there waiting for an accident to happen.
I'm glad you are volunteering to store the waste in your backyard, Homer.
Actually, I'm good with the regs on nukes. So are the nuke companies. That is not the issue. It is lawsuit after lawsuit that causes the issues.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
The problem is the federal government is NOT the proper place for such social experiments.
Yeah because screw treating Americans equally.
Fix the headline.
Waste must be "isolated for thousands of years" if we don't recycle it. That's why anti-science liberals don't want breeder reactors to be built.
If US nuclear waste really had only " less than 1% useable fuel" then it wouldn't stay radioactive for thousands of years, as you people are pulling for. C'mon already, at least decide which of the two contradictory lies you are going to broadcast to your audience of hippie moms.
To be honest, it was your insurance company that eliminated your plan, not Obamacare.
How much are you being paid by the nuclear energy industry? Neither solar nor wind power can render an entire state too dangerous to live for the next 10 thousand years.
>
And neither can wind or solar provide baseload power for industries and large cities. The only renewable that can do that is hydro, which in the developed world is fully built out.
The problem is the federal government is NOT the proper place for such social experiments.
Yeah because screw treating Americans equally.
No.. Because the US Constitution CLEARLY states that the principle that the Federal government is a limited one, leaving the majority of power to the people and to the States. So the States can do a LOT more than the federal government can.... At least in principle.
Not that we are apparently all that concerned about our founding principles.... How Obamacare ever was considered an acceptable idea by our founding principles is beyond me. But we do have folks uttering the "Healthcare is a right" nonsense too, as if that right was enumerated in the constitution as the 11th amendment in the Bill of Rights.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
When Obama was POTUS they licensed the construction of four new nuclear reactors in the USA. Two were cancelled for economic reasons outside the government's control (going over budget and Toshiba nuclear going bankrupt). I wouldn't say he was against nuclear power. The US government even gave incentives to build the reactors.
They went up LESS than they had before Obamacare. And why did you think the Republicans eventually went for the amendments they insisted on? Because it would let the costs go up.
So your whinge is blaming the wrong person, retard. You should be blaming republican amendments but mostly your insurance.
Hell, in the UK, it's less than 200 a month, 1000 for a family of 5. Yet you say it could be reduced by twice that!
Oh, and did you change your doctor? No. So why the fuck are you whining about you being told correctly that you can keep your doctor.
LOL... Why did they do that?
Well, they where forced to, by Obamacare's rules... Oh, not explicitly, but implicitly. Obamacare says you couldn't sign up any new members to a non-compliant healthcare plan (because that's the rule), the writing was on the wall for my plan, put there by Obamacare. So, they could have kept the plan, but the declining enrolment in the plan and the fact that they couldn't enroll new members made it inevitable the plan would be cancelled.
Nice try..
The net effect was that I lost my plan and Obamcare was responsible for that.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
nobody in America counts the health care costs from all the pollution. Clean coal is a myth and even gas fired turbines aren't completely zero emission.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
You guys haven't started construction of new nuclear power plants since the 1980s, so saying this is somehow a partisan issue that's entirely to be blamed on one side or the other is completely nonsensical.
Fact is, even though Chernobyl was the result of both defective reactor design as well as incredibly bad oversight (the plant was undergoing testing prior to the operation and some safety-measures were disabled etc, overall mismanagement), the accident (together with three mile island which was small in scale) ruined nuclear power's reputation in many western countries, even though to date (even including Fukushima victims) nuclear power is the safest energy source per amount of electricity produced and also far superior for the climate. But because of the association with Chernobyl, Three Mile Island and nuclear explosions, people are scared because they don't understand it.
This is why neither side has really wanted to push nuclear power in the States. Because the majority of the voterbase is misinformed about nuclear safety it's been easier to just avoid the topic. Add to this the fact that Democrats are heavily for reneweables, while the republicans tend to come from oil/coal producing areas, and it's not hard to see why nuclear power has not been an attractive topic for either side from an optics perspective.
But sure, it's always the other guys right?
From an outsiders perspective rhe red team vs. blue team BS is getting rather comedic these days on Slashdot.
"It is the business of the future to be dangerous" -Alfred North Whitehead
This kind of hand-waving "we can just recycle it (with currently non-existent techniques that we hope to develop later, maybe)" is why investors aren't interested.
We can recycle spent nuclear fuel *today* The only reason we don't is that it generates plutonium as a by-product, and we don't want to encourage other countries to produce plutonium. That's, literally, the only reason we don't recycle nuclear fuel right now. It's not a technical problem, it's a political problem.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PUREX
The Chernobyl exclusion zone will not remain dangerous for 10 thousand years, only a few hundred.
It's expected to remain unlivable for longer than the USA has been in existence. When we are talking about time scales longer than anyone reading this will be alive it's a distinction without much of a difference.
But do get my point about that accident. It was the WORST conceivable scenario.
No it was not the worst conceivable scenario. Very bad yes but it's trivial to conceive of a worse one. Imagine an accident similar to Chernobyl had happened at Indian Point just 25 miles from New York City. If the wind happened to be blowing the right way it could render the city uninhabitable under the right conditions. Unlikely I'll grant but the probability is not zero.
In fact, BOTH cities where atomic bombs where used are inhabited and it's been less than 100 years since the end of WW2.
Chernobyl put 400X more radioactive material into the atmosphere than Hiroshima. Furthermore the types of radiation released from Chernobyl were much longer lasting than those from the two bombs dropped on Japan. You are comparing apples to oranges.
So, you are scare mongering with the "Laying waste to a state for 10,000 years" thing.
Read what I wrote. Did you see me write anything about 10,000 years? No you did not. You are responding to your own strawman. I said it "Nobody is going to be living in that 'state sized portion of real estate' for a very long time to come." which is 100% true. Stop trying to put words in my mouth that I did not say.
Yes there are risks, but nothing as dire as you claim.
The risks are absolutely that serious and we ignore them at our peril. The probability of catastrophic failure of a fission plant regardless of design is low but is not zero. Denial of that fact is dangerous. I think nuclear power is important and should be used but I'm not about to pretend it doesn't carry some serious dangers.
You should be the absolute last person to ask anyone for proof Windy.
You never show any proof when called out on all your lies.
At the request of President Obama who zero-lined the budget for Yucca Mountain. Congress followed his wishes.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
we might not hit 100%, but we can get pretty darn close if we try.
That said, rebuilding our entire grid to run off solar and wind is a moon-landing level enterprise. A country that keeps slashing taxes on the well to do and cutting infrastructure spending while engaging in war (8 and counting and not a single country has attacked us) can't afford these kinds of things.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
...then this is great, right?
One would hope that this would actually be something the Left and Right could unify on, as nuclear power is the only extant technology that is truly green.
- We have the tech to completely avoid meltdowns (well, as long as there's gravity).
- There are many, many tech advancement opportunities as much of civilian nuclear tech development in the US has basically stopped since the 1970s. Fortunately the world has continued.
- nuclear continues to need FAR too many subsidies to develop/operate.
Unfortunately, a segment of our political leadership likes to INSIST that wind/solar are 'competitive' with previous techs including nuclear which is basically a baldfaced lie - it's competitive BECAUSE IT'S BEING MASSIVELY SUBSIDIZED.
https://spectrum.ieee.org/ener...
Comparing subsidies per MWh produced is not a flawless comparison - it ignores, for example, massive sunk costs in coal, oil (mainly in gov't land subsidies) and nuclear (long since invested large capital projects).
But coming out of the lines right now, nuclear is the sole "greenest" tech. If Global Climate Change is CO2 driven and is the critical, urgent issue it's presented to be, nuclear is the only solution.
-Styopa
there is a President who understands the benefits of nuclear power.
There may be presidents that understand nuclear power, but this one isn't among them.
The PPACA passed with 60 votes. "On December 23, the Senate voted 60–39 to end debate on the bill: a cloture vote to end the filibuster.[186] The bill then passed, also 60–39, on December 24, 2009, with all Democrats and two independents voting for it, and all Republicans against (except Jim Bunning, who did not vote)" EVERY Republican voted against it, and there were 40 Republicans at the time. That leaves - 60! Two "independents" who voted lock-step with the Democrats every single time.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
US carbon emissions have gone down as a result of natural gas displacing coal. That's because natural gas is more economical than coal, but the natural gas industry benefited by (unpopular) pro-fracking policies... ten years ago.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
False. Not a single Republican voted for Obamacare. It was about as partisan a bill as you can ever find, was rammed through (remember Nancy Pelosi's famous line "we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it").
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Giving it to ISIS so they can make a dirty bomb would be worse.
So in SEC.951 (a) establishes the mission then defines the characteristics:
SEC.951(a)(2)(A) Providing research infrastructure to....materials science engineering. It's almost as if congress has been reading my posts as this is exactly what I've proposed is an issue with developing advanced reactors programs.
SEC.951(a)(2)(C) Providing the technical means to reduce the likelihood of nuclear proliferation. Finally encoded into law the requirement to reduce weapons grade materials by using them as fuel. Let's hope that DU is included in this.
SEC.951(a)(2)(D) Increasing confidence margins for public safety of nuclear energy systems. Let's hope this forces the nuclear industry to design better safety systems.
SEC.951(a)(2)(E) Reducing the environmental impact of activities relating to nuclear energy. I never though I would live to see the day where this *requirement* was designed into law. This means Nuclear waste mitigation strategies can also be funded under this bill - Let's hope that becomes more real and produces more expertise in this area.
SEC.951(b)(1) Defines what an Advanced Nuclear reactor IS. So the term "ADVANCED NUCLEAR REACTOR" now has a legal meaning which has a highly specific goals:
SEC.951(b)(1)(A)(ii) lower waste yields
SEC.951(b)(1)(A)(iii) greater fuel utilization
SEC.951(b)(1)(A)(v) resistance to proliferation
SEC.951(b)(1)(A)(vi) increased thermal efficiency
This is describing burner reactor technology, with very little doubt. Breeder reactors are in conflict with clauses i, iii, v. Boiling Water Reactors are in conflict with ii, iii, vi.
SEC.951(b)(1)(A)(vii) the ability to integrate into electric and nonelectric applications. Wow! So much meaning for one sentence. Electric means Coal and nonelectric means Oil, i.e. Hydrogen production - which is one of the goals in the original act. The purpose of this is to keep the existing US vehicle fleet intact.
SEC.951(b)(1)(B) is a Fusion Reactor
SEC.957. allocates funding for High performance computation and provides a new funding resource for nuclear power initiatives in SEC.988.. It would be good to see similar funding allocations for Solar, Wind and Geothermal.
Bottom line here is this bill is about burner reactors so either molten salt or metal, like lead, as a coolant in the primary loop. It also implies reprocessing so the smart way would be in integrate the reprocessing facility with a reactor set to eliminate transport of highly radioactive fuel to and from the reactors as there is no way you ever want that stuff to leave the facility.
This is a little more than just more money for nuclear and very little in the way of requirements to get it. If these initiatives are executed, a very careful scaling of these technologies to reach Gw capacity would be the best way for ADVANCED NUCLEAR REACTORs to not repeat the foolish mistakes the original nuclear industry did.
Certainly most of the things I've suggested here are in this bill, which I'm happy to say is the direction I hoped the nuclear industry would go. How this plays out in terms of cut corners remains to be seen.
For once it looks like good news for folks on both sides of this debate.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
What are you talking about? The absolute worst accident we've had, where a stupidly designed reactor was literally blown apart and burned for days didn't produce such a unlivable place for 10 thousand years, and certainly not a state sized portion of real estate.
3600 SqKms around Chernobyl.
Even in Japan, where we blew apart multiple reactors, the situation isn't going to leave the ground uninhabitable that long nor is it the size you want to think.
May I borrow your crystal ball and see for myself?
I'm not going to tell you there are not risks, but I am going to insist on being reasonable about assessing those risks.
Specifically which risks do you think are the most important that should be addressed? Specifically which have the greatest impact.
There are new reactor designs which are NOT going to catch fire and burn, won't suffer meltdowns and containment breaches even in the worst case dooms day scenarios you can imagine
You have no idea which basis design issues will arise from deploying a new reactor technology. That's why scaling slowly and gaining reactor experience is essential to operating larger versions safely.
But because you want to believe the fiction "China Syndrome" Hollywood depictions of what happened at TMI, we are stuck running rickety old 50 year old facilities (Even then with a safety record that is pretty darned good, with only ONE serious accident in the USA's commercial operating history, and that one being of nearly zero effect on the public, with the only negative effect being the hysteria.)
Well those rickety old reactors have a Service life of 40-50 years so what would you expect? TMI happened a little after three months of operations. And No, the Nuclear Industry so far has been a disaster spread out over decades of grandiose promises - that people are apparently still falling for.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
This country could have been pretty much OUT of the coal/gas/oil power plant business decades ago, if for not that stupid "The China Syndrome" fake movie. Between that movie and the Three mile island crap a few years before, the uneducated thought having a nuke plant would cause a meltdown or blow up. With all the safeguards in place, nuclear is VERY clean, compared to coal/oil/gas. They can tout the so called benefits of wind/solar, but the amount of STORAGE capacity required to store the harnessed energy. (batteries, capacitors?). What about when those die and need to be replaced? The problem with wind/solar, is if you have a peak load event (super cold, super hot) you can't "gen up" solar/wind, like you can a traditional generator power plant. If you have a power generation plant, you can "kick it into high gear", but if it happens at night, or when the wind isn't blowing, if you don't have the power stored, you can't produce it quickly.
> But you shouldn't use fallacious arguments against solar out of your support for nuclear. It's possible (and logical) to support both.
I said we should use both. When the weather cooperates, make use of it.
> It looks like we spend about $250B / yr on energy infrastructure.
Yes, total global investment by all of the world's oil companies, governments, etc is about $250 billion. Which you then divided into *federal tax dollars* spent on solar in the US alone. Apples divided by oranges equals fruit salad. Speaking of specious arguments.
Btw 3% is probably significantly overstating it.
Here the Energy Information Administration reports 0.4%.
https://www.eia.gov/totalenerg...
Estimates vary to as high as 3% of energy production, so I was being generous to solar.
Am I the only one who reads that as "screwing Americans equally"?
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
Reprocessing is where this will eventually go. It simply has to. Dumping "waste" that is 80-90% usable fuel is about as stupid as it gets.
As stupid as it gets is actually producing waste that you don't have a viable management scheme for. And we don't, because not only is nuclear not cost effective, but reprocessing fuel is even less cost effective. It's dangerous and expensive and requires military oversight because of the potential for misuse of the materials. It's just idiotic all over when it's cheaper to get the same kind of capacity out of battery+solar/wind, which it is.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
The article you linked to was honest buy mentioning that the paper was written by someone well known for advocacy of solar. Kudos to the journalist on that.
The author of the headline, who typically isn't the person who wrote the article, didn't do so well at all. The headline does not match what the article says, or what the study says. What study says that's related to the headline is this:
If we had enough wind and power plants to cover 150% our energy needs (based on nameplate rating) ...
And we got rid of the safety of separate power grids..
And we had magical storage...
Then we could get 80%-90% of our energy from wind and solar.
So in other words, "if we had 50% more solar and wind than we need, we'd have almost as much as we need".
The point of thr study was to determine what ratio of wind vs solar would be needed to balance night vs day. No attempt was made to consider when either was possible, much less feasible.
Rewriting the headline to match the article:
If solar and wind could power the US, it could almost power the US
(remember Nancy Pelosi's famous line "we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it").
Nope. I remember her actual statement:
We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy.
This reflected the sentiment that after copious discussion, including dozens of Republican amendments and proposals, there was a lack of honesty about the PPACA. Which continues to this day, meaning Pelosi was mistakenly naive, but hey, we knew that you would never stop lying.
This is in contrast to the so-called Republican healthcare plan that wasn't discussed with the public at all, and in fact, all available evidence indicates does not exist. But you keep on lying about it.
And STILL we get to hear this lie repeated. This was NOT a rightwing idea.
Yes, the Affordable Care Act was and is, a Rightwing idea. They really did want state-based markets for insurance companies rather than universal healthcare.
As Romney plainly said, multiple times during his failed presidential campaign, if a STATE wants universal healthcare, they are free to try it.
Who is this Romney and why do we care what lies he tells?
The problem is the federal government is NOT the proper place for such social experiments. But your side passed it anyway.
Nobody has passed universal healthcare in the US. You are woefully misinformed and mistaken about reality. If you actually have healthcare, please see a psychiatrist about your delusions.
You guys haven't started construction of new nuclear power plants since the 1980s, so saying this is somehow a partisan issue that's entirely to be blamed on one side or the other is completely nonsensical.
Construction started on Vogtle and Summer in the 2010s. They received billions, some part of the Nuclear Power 2010 Program.
They are now stopped. The only finished nuclear reactor was Watts Bar 2. From the 1980s.
You could live right next to Chernobyl reactor without much issue if you wanted to, thing is, nobody wants to. Social stigma of living in a nuclear disaster zone far exceeds the actual dangers, so yes, it's quite possible the area will remain inhabited for thousands of years, not because you can't live there, but because people wont. So the entire area is shaping up to be a very nice nature reserve, wildlife has no social pressures to worry about.
The White House wants to push advanced nuclear, and supports nuclear power legislation - unlike the previous Administration.
You mean the previous administration that recognized that the Nuclear Power 2010 Program was a wasteful boondoggle of the prior Bush administration and challenged Congress to do something that wasn't wasteful of taxpayer dollars instead?
Remmeber, we handed tens of billions to the nuclear industry already and the only completed reactor was the TVA's Watts Bar 2 from the 1980s. And that includes selling off the site in Alabama they never finished.
Face it, the GOP's actions are just more crony capitalism. Follow the money down the drain.
It just goes to show, 'tis an ill Republican that blows no good.
But yeah, it could be it's a bunch of nonsense that doesn't do what it says. And worst case, it cements a "Nuclear Power=Republican" equation into people's heads.
(Like, could someone mention to Jerry Brown that if you're serious about Global Warming, closing a large source of California's clean energy is not actually a good idea?)
If you have a nuclear plant, it's best to utilize it to it's fullest, to run it at full power all the time, limited only by demand. And you need to have enough baseload capacity to cover all of demand, regardless of wind or solar availability. That doesn't leave much room for wind or solar. Cost of power from coal or gas comes down to fuel cost, renewables are a great replacement there. For nuclear cost comes down to operating the plant, regardless of running it at 20% or 100% capacity. If you have enough nuclear plants to cover all of demand, what the hell do you need solar panels for?
You mean screwing Americans equally. FTFY.
Reprocessing is where this will eventually go. It simply has to. Dumping "waste" that is 80-90% usable fuel is about as stupid as it gets.
As stupid as it gets is actually producing waste that you don't have a viable management scheme for. And we don't, because not only is nuclear not cost effective, but reprocessing fuel is even less cost effective. It's dangerous and expensive and requires military oversight because of the potential for misuse of the materials. It's just idiotic all over when it's cheaper to get the same kind of capacity out of battery+solar/wind, which it is.
Photovoltaic solar is absolutely the worst priced solution for electrical power generation. It's well above all other commercial methods in costs and is likely to remain so. Wind is marginally priced, but still above nuclear in costs. The absolute cheapest is Natural Gas.
So Nuclear is cheaper than both solar (by a mile) and wind by a fraction. https://www.google.com/imgres?...
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
There is no safe way to dispose of the waste. The current model will only store it for 200 years ,if it works at all. That model will eventually fail causing more problems.
This is false. Solar is the cheapest generation source in the world.
c6gunner SHOOTS HIMSELF down as your FAKEname's on a post impersonating me https://linux.slashdot.org/com... & worse is you altering /. user's words there.
All because I challenged you to show you do better work and you can't TALKER after you tried to mock me https://linux.slashdot.org/com... .
SEEING YOU DEMAND PROOF OF OTHERS "I've yet to see you provide any evidence of that." by c6gunner on Monday March 15, 2010 @10:02PM (#31490942) I DEMANDED IT OF YOU & YOU FAILED BIGMOUTH, lol!
* You're online FAKENAME trash c6gunner & a childish dishonest punk + a DO-NOTHING "ne'er-do-well" CHATTERING dolt w/ ZERO to show for yourself other than your BLOWHARD bullshit, lol - you LOSE!
APK
P.S.=> Impossible to deny FACT of your FAKEname (for your FAKE wasted lie of a so-called life) on that 1st post link above WHERE YOU IMPERSONATED ME like a PETULANT CHILD, you unbelievable loser... apk
c6gunner SHOOTS HIMSELF down as your FAKEname's on a post impersonating me https://linux.slashdot.org/com... & worse is you altering /. user's words there.
All because I challenged you to show you do better work and you can't TALKER after you tried to mock me https://linux.slashdot.org/com... .
SEEING YOU DEMAND PROOF OF OTHERS "I've yet to see you provide any evidence of that." by c6gunner on Monday March 15, 2010 @10:02PM (#31490942) I DEMANDED IT OF YOU & YOU FAILED BIGMOUTH, lol!
* You're online FAKENAME trash c6gunner & a childish dishonest punk + a DO-NOTHING "ne'er-do-well" CHATTERING dolt w/ ZERO to show for yourself other than your BLOWHARD bullshit, lol - you LOSE!
APK
P.S.=> Impossible to deny FACT of your FAKEname (for your FAKE wasted lie of a so-called life) on that 1st post link above WHERE YOU IMPERSONATED ME like a PETULANT CHILD, you unbelievable loser... apk
and if we had more research into Molten salt reactors our current waste problem would turn into a Fuel supply...
Thank you for the link, I'd have been happy to read it, but I was unable to get the article to load in two different browsers. Most numbers I googled hovered around 60-70,000 metric tons. I feel like a world spanning freight train would hold more than that...
I see where you're finding .367, you were looking over a five month period, I was looking at slightly longer period. So we'll go with the most recent number, the 1% you found. Obviously the 1% you found is a lot LESS than the 3% I generously gave solar.
There are a lot of numbers in that other report. Where are you finding the $250 billion you are looking at? I'm noticing $250 total worldwide spending by governments and businesses combined on oil and gas infrastructure.
I'm not sure why you are acting like I'm attacking solar, and even accusing me of lying, while you also point out that solar's contribution is only around 1%, not the 3% I gave solar credit for. You can see, based on comparing the numbers I mentioned to what you're finding, that I'm being VERY generous to solar.
Football field may be an ambiguous term (not even specifying sport), but quibbling over it as if you were genuinely outraged doesn't help your case.
I pretty much agree with almost everything you said.
You may have noticed I said nuclear for *base load*.
Here's a typical hourly demand curve:
https://www.eia.gov/todayinene...
Not surprisingly, demand rises about 7AM and begins to fall around 8PM.
Coincidentally, the sun rises around 7AM and sets around 8PM.
So on clear sunny days, solar power becomes available right about when load increases and you need more power.
(Of course full output only occurs for a few hours per day, there isn't much solar available for a couple hours after sunrise and a couple hours before sunset).
The minimum, night time load in this example is about 10GW and the peak is about 15GW. So you run your nuclear at 10GW and during the day for the extra 5GW you use solar or wind if it's available at the moment, natural gas to the extent you need it.
Here's a typical hourly demand curve:
https://www.eia.gov/todayinene...
Not surprisingly, demand rises about 7AM and begins to fall around 8PM.
Coincidentally, the sun rises around 7AM and sets around 8PM.
So on clear sunny days, solar power becomes available right about when load increases and you need more power.
(Of course full output only occurs for a few hours per day, there isn't much solar available for a couple hours after sunrise and a couple hours before sunset).
The minimum, night time load in this example is about 10GW and the peak is about 15GW. So you run your nuclear at 10GW and during the day for the extra 5GW you use solar or wind if it's available at the moment, natural gas to the extent you need it.
Nuclear provides your steady 10GW you need all the time, solar can provide some of the additional 5 GW you need during the day - which conveniently is when the sun is up and solar may be available.
Not a single Republican amendment or proposal was included. You're lying.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
PS, my.plan calls for extensive use of solar and especially wind (plus hydro and geothermal in those places it's available).
As I mentioned here:
https://slashdot.org/comments....
Daytime demand is about 50% higher than night time demand. Not surprisingly, demand rises about 7AM and begins to fall around 8PM.
Coincidentally, the sun rises around 7AM and sets around 8PM.
So on clear sunny days, solar power becomes available right about when load increases and you need more power.
(Of course full output only occurs for a few hours per day, there isn't much solar available for a couple hours after sunrise and a couple hours before sunset).
The minimum, night time load in this example is about 10GW and the peak is about 15GW. So you run your nuclear at 10GW and during the day for the extra 5GW you use solar or wind if it's available at the moment, natural gas to the extent you need it.
That means much of the day time load could be solar. Costs are of course a big factor (actual total costs, everybody can't make their neighbor pay for it via subsidies). So *when the right technology* is available, we could very well get 25% from solar. Until then, we are cost-constrained - it mostly only works if somebody else pays 70% of the cost, and if everyone were using a lot of solar we'd run out of somebody elses to pay for it.
You're saying this trillion dollars actually has NOT been spent on trying to get it to work, everyone has just been sitting on their hands waiting for a miracle?
Given that Grid-connected Solar Power generation in the US is over 100 times what it was in the early 200s, that would actually be incorrect.
Of course, your number is false too, since you're confusing money spent with tax dollars not collected.
They aren't the same thing. The actually invested dollars in solar are completely different.
Unlike nuclear though, they have delivered results.
PS, solar thermal exists too.
Scott Brown? The do-nothing door-stop who contributed nothing during his brief term in office before being rejected then fleeing to New Hampshire which also rejected him?
Good choice of banner-bearer to show the complete incompetence of the GOP who spent 6 years scheduling repeal votes but doing nothing for the country.
The governor should have listened to the advice of officials who told him to schedule the election on a normal voting day.
Then the caprice that you rely upon would have been overcome.
You have a fundamental misunderstanding of how nuclear works. The vast majority of "waste" is simply non fissile uranium which decays very slowly and pulled out of the ground radioactive already. With slow nuclear reactors you do get some longer lived actinides, but the really long lived stuff is what you started with. What this article is about is allowing more research into fast neutron reactors. Fast reactors breed up fertile uranium to fissile plutonium or fertile thorium to fissile uranium. This makes almost all your waste fuel. What is left is still highly radioactive, but the reactor burns away long lived actinides and is radio-neutral in 300ish years (e.g. background radiation is higher). This is what the Dems that killed the Fast Breeder Reactor in the 1990s didn't understand. Gen IV is also required to be passively safe.
It is cheaper to mine more fuel, than to reprocess waste, hence no nation does it on any large scale.
Solar power is worse than nuclear power. 100% of the energy comes in the form of radiation. Skin cancer, the leading type of cancer is caused by solar power, killing thousands of people every year. Don't even get me started on the externalized costs of solar power. It is literally the largest contributor to global warming. Nuclear radioactive decay is just a rounding error in comparison. And don't say solar is renewable. When the sun runs out of fuel in a billion years, you can't just top it off at the gas station (pun intended).
Actually, Trumptard has a big problem when he blames Obama for making him do things that were his own individual policies.
Maybe we can believe the drape contract was already fixed, but the child separation policy was entirely his own initiative. He wanted it, he chose it, and he even benefited from the sites being chosen.
My goal, regardless of how the amendment was worded ⦠was that we need to go into the exchange so that we would have to go through the same red tape as every other citizen.
Chuck Grassley's own words describing the amendment he proposed that was adopted into the PPACA.
Thanks, all I needed was one to show you a liar, who lies, because lying is obligatory for a lying liar like yourself.
An incompetent one, a very incompetent one.
Re: "He is president, not dictator. YM is blocked by congress. Harry Reid is gone, so there is hope, but Donald can't do anything until congress acts."
Counter-arguments:
1). He wants to be a dictator. He wants to so haaaarrrdd!
2). Congress? You do know that a major job of the President is convincing Congress to do stuff, or unblock stuff, right?
3). The GOP has a majority in Congress. Also the Senate. Also the Presidency. Also ~44 of 50 Governors. Really, what is the problem here? If Trump decided to repaint the White House flamingo pink, and rename it the Pink House, he has everything needed to do that. The rest is just excuse making;
4). Harry Reid is gone, you said it. Again, what is the problem here?
5). "...Donald can't do anything..." Maybe it is because The Donald doesn't want to do this? Maybe it's because The Donald can't focus longer than it takes to eat a cheeseburger? Maybe it is because The Donald is away golfing, for the umpteenth time?
Really, you need to get a new set of excuses. The old ones aren't working.
No.. Because the US Constitution CLEARLY states
Is not a good excuse for not treating Americans equally, especially given the time it was written where each state may as well have been its own country and the thought of living in one state while working in other or traveling through multiple states in an hour was a fantasy. As was keeping up with realtime information of what was happening in other states.
Time to get with the times.
Thanks, I see where you got the $257 billion.
I didn't say solar electric is a complete waste. I said seventy years of that hasn't worked to get us off fossil fuels. We agree that solar electric covers somewhere between 0.5%-3% our energy needs, right? Fewer than 1% of cars and trucks are even electric, much less powered by solar electric, and that's with the taxpayer paying half the cost. Waiting for solar has not worked to stop CO2 emissions. We could have cut CO2 emissions by 85% 40 years ago, but we didn't because Green and Peace were linked as Greenpeace (and those Peace people didn't believe that nukes just might discourage people from attacking, encouraging more peace).
Might solar electric be a big thing down the road? Sure! Wind perhaps more so. As I said, my plan calls for the (realistic, doable) goal to be about 65% nuclear and about 25% solar and wind.
Are you old enough to remember when rooftop solar was a big fad in the 1980s? I am, I remember lots of houses with rooftop solar. Affordable solar electric is just around the corner - and always has been. Until that happens, how about we quit burning coal, using stuff we already have, today, to cut CO2 emissions by half?
I remember when rooftop solar was a big thing in the 1980s. ... ...
Given the price projections then, in 10 years solar + batteries would be cheaper
I've read the projections from thr 1960s and 1970s. Given the price projections then, in 10 years solar + batteries would be cheaper
We could have cut CO2 emissions in half during the 1970s, forty years ago, by switching from fossil fuels to nuclear. We didn't do that 40 years ago because "give price projections for solar ...". If solar on a LARGE (nationwide) scale starts making sense in 10 years, or 20 years, or 40 years, great! In the meantime, we can cut CO2 I half using technology that we already have, plant designs we've already built and already work at scale.
The "Romney did it!" lie is even worse than that - Romney VETOED the Mass. bill. The Democrats in the state legislature overrode his veto.
It's really hard to call it "Romneycare" when he used every legal capability he had to prevent it from happening.
No.. Because the US Constitution CLEARLY states
Is not a good excuse for not treating Americans equally, especially given the time it was written where each state may as well have been its own country and the thought of living in one state while working in other or traveling through multiple states in an hour was a fantasy. As was keeping up with realtime information of what was happening in other states.
Time to get with the times.
I prefer a nation of laws over your "get with the times". One cannot just choose to ignore the law because it seems like the thing to do. The constitution is the founding document of our government and explains what it can and cannot do, in short it is the legal basis for the government's actions. We MUST interpret it as written, just like all our other laws or we have no laws because they are open to being changed by "getting with the times". If this original meaning is not the fundamental legal principle, we have no laws, why pretend then that we do?
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
The entire concept came out of the Heritage Foundation think tank -- so the ACA is hardly a liberal concept. It's an insurance policy to insure insurance companies so that they might insure the people they can't make a profit on.
>The problem is the federal government is NOT the proper place for such social experiments.
Yeah, because they do this for 1/2 to 1/4th the price we do and take care of everyone in most every civilized country on the planet.
"Experimental phase" for the free market, rape and pillage the sick system we have is over and it's a failed product.
>>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
The entire concept came out of the Heritage Foundation think tank -- so the ACA is hardly a liberal concept. It's an insurance policy to insure insurance companies so that they might insure the people they can't make a profit on.
>The problem is the federal government is NOT the proper place for such social experiments.
Yeah, because they do this for 1/2 to 1/4th the price we do and take care of everyone in most every civilized country on the planet.
"Experimental phase" for the free market, rape and pillage the sick system we have is over and it's a failed product.
Oh heck no.. I've worked for the government so I know.. It's NOT an efficient way to do ANYTHING where you need to limit costs and for health care, cost is HUGE.
Have you ever heard about the amount of fraud in just one program: Medicare? What about the level of service at the VA? I'm pretty sure we cannot afford single payer, it will be hugely more expensive than what we have now and like the VA and the DMV we will get crap for service, with folks dying of survivable illness because the resources won't be there.
So what we actually need is LESS government involvement not more. We need to get back to situations where individuals are paying their own medical bills directly, because THEN we'd restore market forces to medical costs and that would drive efficiency as well as quality of care.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
If you have energy storage, you can obviously use that to solve the problem. But if you have energy storage, you build renewables instead of nuclear because they are half the cost.
Neither statement is true. Energy storage helps nuclear even more than renewables, because it needs much less to adapt output to demand. For the cost of energy delivered, and considering how long reactors last, nuclear has no competition, and also the greatest unrealized potentual. The scam is that "cheap" renewable capacity has little connection to the actual cost of energy delivered, or much effect in reducing emissions. Add in the storage/backup, overbuild, and grid upgrades needed for intermittent sources, and the cost skyrockets.
For the doubters, please explain why the developing world is still choosing coal if renewables are really so cheap. Globally, renewables aren't even offsetting this growth in coal.
Uranium is radioactive ...
And the radioactivity we talk about is not the Uranium but the decay products, and those are not fuel.
I really don't get why people are so dumb about how a nuclear reactor works.
You have Uranium, which is made from two isotopes: U238 and U235. The natural distribution is 99.3% U238. And the rest is U235. In ordinary reactors you can not burn that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
The Canadian CANDU reactors can "burn" natural uranium, but I don't know how they do it, was never interested in figuring it.
Anyway, a standard reactor in the US burns Uranium that is enriched to about 6% Uranium 235. Let that sink into you. Where does that 6% come from? We are talking about changing the 99.3% versus 0.7% ratio into a 94% versus 6% ratio. Obviously to make 1 ton of 94/6 Uranium you need about 10 tons of natural uranium and you throw away 9 tons of it as waste. That is the fist kind of waste. But the US found an easy way to get rid of it, they use it as armament for their A10 bombers and spread it all over the middle east.
And yes, it is radioactive and highly poisones.
Anyway, now lets look at the reactor again. Now you fill that 94/6 uranium mix into a reactor. Only the 6% part, the Uranium 235, is actually used as fuel. When it is spent, it is spent. Depending on reactor design, you can burn it down to 1%, often only 3%. Lets assume, best case. You burned it don to 1%.
Now you have 94% Uranium 238, 5% decay products - the so called actinides - and 1% unspent fuel left.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
The highly radioactive parts are the Actinides, not the Uranium. And Yes: only a fucking one single percent of fuel is left in the waste
And it is for fuck sake not really that complicated to read that up and get a damn clue.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Well, someone who mixes up U235 with U238 is not really that credible when we talk about nuclear "waste" :P
Anyway, unless we are talking about breeder reactors, normal reactors have only 1% fissionable fuel left when the fuel is spent: so reprocessing makes not really that much sense.
Natural uranium is 99.3% non fissionable and 0.7% fissionable. To get reactor fuel you need something like 95% - 5% ... usually we go for 94% - 6%.
So if spent fuel has significantly more than 1% fissionable uranium, then it makes sense to reprocess because it is already higher enriched than natural uranium. And that is the only point in reprocessing. If you reprocess you need to get all the high radioactive stuff out of it.
Bottom line it makes much more sense to just store the spent fuel instead of dividing it up into 40% unused uranium, enriching the remaining 50% uranium to a 94% - 6% ratio again and getting rid of the actinides. (Keep in mind, for a ton of reprocessed Uranium, you need another 5 - 8 tones of "fresh uranium" so you can extract the U235 from the fresh and put it into the "reprocessed" one)
Waste processing only made sense when you wanted to have breeders and use the Plutonium for bombs ...
France is reprocessing. Ever been at La Hague? They have 8 reactors at La Hague if I remember correctly. More than half of them are used to run the reprocessing industry. Imagine that. They have like 70 reactors all over France and 8 to run the reprocessing site. One of the reasons why they use so much power at night, or have such a high base load.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Thank you for the link, I'd have been happy to read it, but I was unable to get the article to load in two different browsers. Most numbers I googled hovered around 60-70,000 metric tons. I feel like a world spanning freight train would hold more than that...
70,000 metric tons are the current plutonium stocks. 700,000 tons is the stock of DU. Add other radio-effluents (i.e. emitters) and this number continues to climb.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
Answering myself with one way of doing it, I order to have $1,000 per year plus get $10,000 10 years from now, you could either:
Put $10,000 into an index fund
Or
Put $10,000 into solar PLUS $4,000 into an index fund and withdraw the $4,000 after it grows to $10K.
So to get the same dollar return we have to put in $14,000 with the solar plan, only $10,000 with an index fund. $1,000 return on $14K is only 7%, vs the 10% average return of an index fund. AND the index fund is liquid - you can spend it when you get sick and can't work. Can't spend solar panels.
Not a single Republican amendment or proposal was included. You're lying.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Have you ever heard about the amount of fraud in just one program: Medicare?
Fraud by private companies, exactly. The problem isn't the government, it is the criminals who profit off cheating others.
Yes, I'm glad you're admitting that rather than a single one, that dozens of Republican proposals or amendments were included in the PPACA.
They had their fingers all in it. And that isn't even counting all of the exchanges they set up. Which they had wanted for years and years.
Timothy Jost, emeritus professor of law at Washington and Lee University School of Law, told us that "the basic statement that hundreds were adopted is wrong."
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Awww, poor widdle Nazi is al triggered, big mouth online, small dick in reality.
Nuclear does not help with Carbon Pollution SINCE it adds a 96,000 year burden of containment...which guards will have to drive to.
Leaks
I prefer a nation of laws over your "get with the times".
I think we should still beat women, keep black people as slaves and chop off the hands of bread thieves. So I fully agree, laws should never change.
I never said ignore the law. Change the damn law.
p.s. You're an idiot.
I prefer a nation of laws over your "get with the times".
I think we should still beat women, keep black people as slaves and chop off the hands of bread thieves. So I fully agree, laws should never change.
I never said ignore the law. Change the damn law.
p.s. You're an idiot.
Well, then go try to change the constitution and call me if you manage to get universal single payer health care shoehorned into it someplace. Until then, don't be blathering on about how I should "get with the times" when I bring up how the Constitution precludes what you want to do. There IS a prescribed method to amend the US Constitution, I suggest you avail yourself of the proper means and stop this wholesale ignoring of the basic laws of this land just because you think you have a cause.
By the way.. Beating women was never legal in this country, nor was chopping off hands the prescribed punishment for stealing. Further, it was BECAUSE of the founding principles of this country that slavery was eventually recognized as illegal and done away with here and afar in other countries where our success at abolishing the institution became known.
Also, I've not advocated for laws that cannot be changed, far from it. I'm simply advocating that we should enforce them as written and only change the laws though the prescribed legal method. This is how laws are supposed to work, and anything short of following the laws and their original intent is tantamount to being lawless. Being lawless is a dangerous place for all involved.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
You are correct. I didn't say I wouldn't give Congress credit, I said I wouldn't give Trump credit. The OP tried to claim that Trump, personally, is the only one trying to improve the climate.
Trump != Congress. Even if it is controlled by his party.
Your claim was:
Not a single Republican amendment or proposal was included.
You just cited a source that documents the included Republican amendments bad proposals.
Guess you've admitted your error. Either that, or you were actually saying "Because more than one Republican Amendment or Proposal was included, it is technically accurate to say that not a single one was included since more than one is not a singular" but be honest with yourself, that is just pedantry on your part.
... and working to block vehicle fuel economy standards.
p.s. You're an idiot.
Please don't confuse bobbied's prattle with idiocy. It misjudges the problem which is that due to personal bias, hobbies is duplicitous and disingenuous to a high degree.