$3.00 per gallon gasoline. Why is everyone so panicked?

That's the best you can do?

I guess it is.

Jeff

Nuclear waste disposal is merely a political problem, not a scientific problem, in the US. The rest to the world is years ahead of US in producing their electricity with, safe, clean, efficient pollution free nuclear power and using technology developed in teh US to do so.

The environuts have prevented proper safer disposal nuclear waste in the US. As a result all of the nuclear material that has been used to generate electricity, from day one, still must be stored on site, under six feet of water. .

Ask any US sailor if they are afraid of the nuclear power they have used for

65 years. Only the ignorant or uninformed are afraid of nuclear power . ;)

mike

I suppose all those people who lived near Cheronoble are "ignorant or uninformed." Or dead. And for a period when Carter was President, people didn't think too much of nuclear power around your state capital, especially around an island that is about 5 km long. If I recall correctly, the nuclear power plants that were there no longer have a license to operate.

New designs have been made so that events like the ones I mentioned above are much less likely to happen. Both events were the result of human error, like not believing gauges. And reactors are better designed so that they shut off automatically when there is a loss of power to the cooling pumps or whatever.

It is not true that nuclear plants are totally clean. They make a lot of waste heat, which often ends up in streams. Fish don't like this too much, because oxygen dissolves better in cold water than warm water. There are other enviornmental costs, like the fuel used by the construction equipment, the trees that are cleared for power distribution, and the disposal of the plants after their useful life.

Nuclear waste is dangerous for thousands of years. I will be dust long before the nuclear waste has decomposed. Before finding a final resting place for it, we need to make sure that the resting place with be stable for thousands and thousands of years.

I didn't know the Navy used nuclear power during WWII (2007 - 65 = 1942 - just after the US joined the war). That was even before we bombed Japan with a nuclear bomb. Gee,and I thought all the subs and air craft carriers were diesel back in the war. I can't wait until the Intrepid is back in dock in NYC. I will ask to see the nuclear reactors. ;-)

Jeff

Is that the best you can do? Obviously I meant to type 45 years since the Nautilus was commissioned. Like I said only the ignorant or uninformed are afraid of nuclear power. To mention Chernobyl and Three Mile Island in the same breath proves one is indeed "ignorant or uninformed." The largest circulation newspaper the New York Daily News, back then, ran a front page headline the boldly proclaimed "Danger of Nuclear Explosion at TMI" that also proves the media is "ignorant or uninformed." as well.

Two atomic bombs were dropped on Japan and "People" still live in Hiroshima and Nagasaki since they were rebuilt after the war "People" still live near Chernobyl and the second reactor at TMI never was out of operation. It is currently providing folks in eastern Pa some of its low-cost, safe, efficient power, along with the Nuke plant up river at Berwick. ;)

Nuclear power currently supplies around 80% of the electricity in Japan, around 90% in France yet only 20% in the US. Conversely Bituminous coal, which IS pollution, provides around 53% in the US. If we can get to 80% 0r 90% the vast majority of our pollution will be eliminated

The environuts, who are so afraid of nuclear power, would prefer we breath only on every other day to reduce C02 to save the world from global warming ;)

mike

Considering all the things you get wrong (like the first digit of the VIN), it was obvious that you got the nuclear power use wrong. What you mean is not obvious, however. And it was 55 years ago, on Jan. 17, 1955 that the first nuclear sub was launched, not 45 as you said. You got it wrong twice. May I make a suggestion: Check things quickly on the internet before posting.

In years past, I read a lot about the TMI incident. The officials in charge did not know if the plant was going to blow up or not. I give President Carter a lot of credit for going there. And he knew the risks of nuclear power; he was qualified to command a Navy nuclear sub, but he left the service after his father died before he could become a sub skipper. Thank you for correcting me about TMI 2. I had thought it was decommissioned; obviously, I was mistaken.

Considering the risks of nuclear, I disagree that saying "Chernobyl and TMI" in the same breath as nuclear power is not ignorant. The risks are great. So is the potential for benefit. And people will remember the emergency at TMI and Chernobyl for a long time. Many people were killed at Chernobyl. And many people are expected to suffer from the emergency. Chernobyl was a result of poor management and oversight at a power plant.

I do have to take issue with your characterization of people as "environuts." There are a lot of people who are very concerned about the environment of this planet. Considering that we all have to breath the air on this planet, I don't think their concerns are unfounded, at all.

And many environmentalists are realizing that nuclear power is safe, cheap, and relatively clean. (No power is totally clean: even windmills kill birds and require fossil fuels to build and maintain them.)

Personally, I think nuclear power is the way to go. By using standardized designs, the cost of building and running the plants is relatively cheap. And the cost of review and licensing is cheap, too, because a group of twenty plants can be reviewed more cheaply than twenty different plants. And when safety issues come up at one plant, we will know how to fix all the plants.

However, there needs to be a long-term fix for the nuclear waste disposal problem. Yucca Mountain is not scheduled to open for about 10 years. And the Senate Majority Leader does not want the mountain to open ever.

Jeff

Actually, Environmentalists will want you to breath a lot more. You make a lot less CO2 walking to the train station or to work or whatever than your car does.

You the comments that you and Mike make about "environuts" are really stupid, IMHO, because they don't encourage discourse. We all have to share this planet. One way to get along is to show respect to each other.

Jeff

What's your point? Chernobyl was not a light or heavy water facility and it was not US technology, did not have a containment building. You comments appear ignorant or uninformed that keep going around in circles . In the nuclear sense a nuclear power plant can't "blow up" any differently than any other.

We al all environmentalists in that we do not want to $#it were we eat. The environuts on the other hand do not want us to eat so we don't need to deal with the $#it When one mentions nuclear power the environuts go.......well nuts Like I said from the beginning, nuclear waste disposal is a political problem not a scientific problem.

mike

Calling people names, like environuts is so kindergarten, Mike.

The technology of Chernobyl was different. The risks, however, of nuclear power are real.

Nuclear waste disposal is both a scientific problem, because the site must remain safe for thousands of years, and a political problem. Why don't we just dump the waste into a repository in your back yard, Mike?

Jeff

actually mike, the environuts have changed their stand on CO2 reduction.

they now want us to only breath once a week.

ofnuclearpowerare real.

All technology has risk. Millions of people are killed by coal and oil power every year, but no one bothers thinking about that. Nuclear is one of the safest methods of generating power per KW/hr.

If its in the concrete storage cask, you can stick it in my backyard or my basement. Through the magic of discounting I can revisit the issue in 100 or 200 years and either reseal the cask or extract the spent fuel for profit.

You and I will be dust in 100 years (well, I will be cremated). If you're in a casket, at best, you'll be a stinking mass of bacteria and worm poop.

But the radioactive waste will still be there. And the way that some people will try to make money is to sell the spent fuel to terrorists, who can try to put the fuel into a conventional bomb, to spread radioactivity around (called a dirty-bomb).

Jeff

I posted opinion and asked for a civilized debate on the subject. It is no longer allowed to debate a topic unless you agree with a Liberal point of view.

If I had quoted the Liberal version of the oil crisis then you would nod your head at the screen.

Obviously you feel a great NEED to call people names and insult them just because they have an opinion on something.

NOTE:I'll stop but you should at least acknowledge that I didn't stoop to your level of name-calling and insults.

bye.

I noticed when I state a FACT you just chuckle. At least you didn't call me a name or insult me. You might be getting better?

EXXONMOBILE $500 Billion Profit for 2006

LOL, Liberals want to buy "eco friendly" stocks, go ahead.

I'll get a 30% return and the Libs get a -5% return and wonder why that gov't check is 1/10th of their earnings.

Like most liberal types, you use ONE EXAMPLE to explain away the great technology of nuclear power.

By that Logic, cars would be outlawed.

Cars would be outlawed if we used the numbers game.

Ready to walk an average of 350 miles a week? Or ride a bike?

Why do you want to support terrorist countries? Build nuclear power plants and stop buying their oil.

Your stated "fact" is not necessarily a true fact. You are not getting any better.

You claimed to state facts. Except you knew, or should have known, that they were not true.

Oh, whine. You are now arguing that only liberals tell the truth!!!

Lets be very clear:

1) You lied to start with. 2) You were called on it. 3) Now you tacidly admit you lied, by not even attempting to support your statements. 4) Instead you want an ad hominem discussion.

Stick with the topic, and stop trying to evade and obfuscate.