article: Plug-in Hybrid

Page 3 of 4  


Costs are high because of the ridiculous opperssive regulations forced upon the nuclear industry by enviro-extremists.

Purely NIMBY.

The stuff HAS to go somewhere;and nobody came up with any better site. Under a mountain in the middle of a vast empty land seems about right.

This would be an argument FOR Yucca Mtn. Having the present wastes located allover the country in MUCH less secure sites than Yucca makes NO sense. Transportation is a short-term window of "opportunity" that is difficult to attempt with any chance of success.

It's OK because it's far better than what we have now.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

So, back to my question: do you want a nuclear waste dump in YOUR town?

We need to stop producing it. We are passing on a problem that has to be dealt with for 10,000+ years.

The people living in Nevada don't see it as a vast empty land. They live there.

Okay, so you want to move it into someone else's backyard. Isn't that the very NIMBY you mention?
If nuclear power is so wonderful let the people who benefit from it live near it's waste. Don't shove it down someone else's throat.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

So,AGAIN;not RELEVANT,as one picks the safest,best-suited place to locate the storage facility.

And it's STILL a vast empty land. Most of it is owned by the Federal Government,too.

No,it's based on science and logic,not emotion.

Some time in the future,we ALL will be benefitting from it. It's time to plan for that NOW,so face reality.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Jim Yanik wrote:

The scientists in Nevada disagree.
You have explained your postion clearly:
You want the benefit.
You want to put the waste in someone else's backyard.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

But have they come up with any alternative places? No. (where were they -before- Yucca Mtn.was selected???)
I suspect they too are being NIMBY.

Wrong,-in the best possible place.
Can YOU suggest any place in the US that is a better site than Yucca Mtn.? I suspect not.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

They were loudly saying not to put it in Nevada. Just like scientists in *every* other state were saying.

You can call it that but they would call it protecting their citizens.

I'll assume you are not arguing about wanting the benefit.
You don't want it in *your* backyard. You've made that clear.
You claim science has determined that Yucca Mountain is a good place to put nuclear waste.
If only science were always objective. For simple things it can be. But there will never be a scientific proof that Yucca Mountain is a good place to store nuclear waste. That is a conclusion. Not a fact. For complex problems there will always be lots of apparently conflicting facts.
The scientists working for the federal government really want a place to dump the nuclear waste. They looked at the facts and drew the *conclusion* that Yucca Mountain is safe.
The scientists working for the state of Nevada really don't want the nuclear waste dumped in their state. They looked at the facts and drew the conclusion that Yucca Mountain is not safe.
The likely difference: who's backyard it is being dumped in.

No. There is no *good* place. That is exactly why everyone wants it dumped in someone else's backyard.
And that is the major reason why we need to stop producing it.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

ERm no, to my understanding, the objects were made purely on political reasons, no scientific based reasons made at all. I persoanlyl will take a nicely designed, built and manned nuclear storage facility in 'my back yard' any day. The only reasons given for why that facility is not good, is emotionally based, and scientifically unsound.
I worked at a nuclear reprocessing plant for a while. thats like a storage facility squared. lots of material comes in and out, and is processed, its not sealed, locked up and then kept in one place. The CND weirdo's still pickett every now and then, but its nothing very serious. As for whata i was doing at the plant - i was brought in to test potential safety inspection, and emergency shutdown robots. Part of a team that heavily analysed the data from sending vehicles around in hot rooms, seeing how they affected data, if it was possible to add layers and distance between human operators and maintainance people, and anything warm, or hot.
If you want to talk terrorist crap, there are MANY better targets out in the world today for gathering nuclear materials. for instance, in 2002, a lot of easily frightened nuclear and terrorist worriers panicked over a shipment of MOX pellets that went from Japan to sellafield. The ship was slow, and poorly armed. apart from 9mm sidearms for the armed members of the crew (two dozen or so) the ship carried two .50cal guns, one each fore and aft. That was it. A bunch of 'licker'd up rednecks ina boston whaler' could have hijacked the ship, if needed. It wasn't escorted.
As with terrorism, 90% of whats spread as 'dangers' and 'threast' from nuclear materials, is nothing more than plain old FUD.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Then they were not trying to solve the location problem,they just were NIMBY.No wonder they were ignored.

They certainly were not acting in the best interests of the Nation. Nor as scientists.

I live in FLORIDA;the geology/hydrology is totally wrong for it here. If it were geologically and hydrologically the best place,I'd WELCOME IT. Heck,I'd try to get a JOB there,and live within reasonable driving distance from it.

The best available in the CONUS.
NOBODY has shown otherwise. (all they say is "not here";NIMBY,=UNACCEPTABLE,it's gotta go somewhere.)

YOU are not "objective",except for your no-nuke philosophy.

Yes,it's necessary. It's certainly not good to stay with the status quo. It's here,we have to deal with it.

A pretty good decision.

Gee,think they were BIASED? (like you)

Yes,there is. The place where it's the safest,and least likely to affect anything.

AH,there's the TRUE drift of your objection;it's NUCLEAR,therefore unacceptable anywhere.You feel that having a single national repository would make muclear power more feasible.You are not concerned with the safety of the PRESENT nuclear wastes.You don't want any solution to safe storage of nuclear wastes. I suspect you WANT some disaster to happen so that it bolsters your anti- nuke beliefs.
Just as I suspected.Just another anti-nuke enviro-weenie.

Now you show your true colors.
PLONK.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You need to take your meds.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Doesn't bother me, but then, i used to work at a nuclear reprocessing facility...

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Many cities ALREADY HAVE a nuclear waste dump nearby,and very vulnerable to terrorists.Many also get nuclear shipments trucked through them,too. Any city with a fair-sized hospital.
I believe that many of the nearby residents are looking forward to good,high-paying government jobs from Yucca Mtn.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Hello, Those facts don't matter to the greenies. They just want to close down nuclear power plants. There was a protest at the local nuclear power plant about 15 years ago. I drove by the plant very early in the morning and saw about a dozen really expensive cars and motor homes. I later watched the nightly news shows and saw several famous actors being interviewed. I realized that those expensive cars and motor homes belonged to those rich actors and other rich people that drove from their million dollar homes in Hollywood. They used lots of gasoline to travel to my small town and only God knows how much wood was used to make their million dollar homes. I would NEVER donate money to any greenie group. Jason
--
NEWSGROUP SUBSCRIBERS MOTTO
We respect those subscribers that ask for advice or provide advice.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
In some respects the "greenies" may be our own worst enemies. For example look at the debacle they've created in California. Poor Californians have had to screw around with special "California Emissions" vehicles for over 20 years. The vehicles cost incrementally more and are hard to sell outside of California. They also require special additives in their gasoline, making theirs the most expensive fuwl in the contiguous 48 states, more than 50 gallon higher than some states.
During the California "energy crisis" a few years ago my employer tried to build a clean, natural gas-fired electric generating plant in Simi Valley but couldn't get the damn thing licensed in Calif. because of the absurd regulations and punitive licensing fees.
Californians did this to themselves and the same group 9or rather same mindset) is now trying to do it everywhere.
Blocking the long term storage of spent fuel rods at Yucca Mountain has effectively shut down *ALL* future nuclear powered elect generating stations. Why? Because your Federal Govt enacted legislation that says you cannot get a license to build a nuke plant if you don't have available storage for spent fuel rods. Of course you can store them on site at the nuke station itself but then that means having a nuclear waste site at every new generating station and we know the greenies will never stand for that.
snipped-for-privacy@nospam.com (Jason) writes:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Hello, You made some great points. I live in California. Several years ago the greenies worked together to get a law passed that required oil companies to place some sort of new additive in gasoline. Several years later, it was discovered that the additive was causing people to get cancer. In addition, various gas stations had defective tanks and the gasoline leaked into the ground water. People living near those gas stations came down with cancer. The oil companies were sued. I read several news report about those cases and none of the liberal reporters ever mentioned that the greenies were to blame for causing the cancer causing additive to be placed in the gas. I realize the oil companies should not have allowed the gas tanks under the ground to leak. However, the greenies should also have been sued because they were the ones to blame for causing the additive to be in the gasoline. Jason
--
NEWSGROUP SUBSCRIBERS MOTTO
We respect those subscribers that ask for advice or provide advice.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Jason wrote:

dude, you have that totally ass-over-tip. the additive is mtbe. it was sold to the california state legislature as an "oxygenate" designed to reduce emissions, much like ethanol is being used today. it's since been banned because it contaminates ground water supplies with a taste like turpentine. now, here's the real rub: mtbe was mandated after lobbying by arco, whose refining process just happens to produce a lot of mtbe, much more than they could otherwise use. the hook they used was "oxygenation" being better for emissions - something that's not necessary with a fuel injected vehicle, the vast majority of vehicles on the road. speculation is that the real reason arco wanted mtbe mandated for all gasoline was not only to get rid of their excess mtbe production, but also to reduce mpg, therefore increase gas sales. and they succeeded. but guess whose wife was on the board of arco at the time this mandate found it's was through the state assembly? go on, guess...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

I have to laugh at the enviro-nuts;they want everyone to use renewable energy sources,one being windpower,and now they are trying to get a California windfarm shut down because the windmills are chopping up birds.
And Sen.Kennedy is pissed bacause power companies want to put a windfarm waaay far out on the horizon of his Cape Cod home,-ruining his view-!!. (a barely noticeable windfarm,a mote on the horizon.)
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I agree with you related to this issue. Thanks for making me laugh--I had forgot about the Sen. Kennedy story that you mentioned. Did you hear this other Sen. Kennedy story: Sen. Kennedy took a ocean trip in his boat with his girlfriend. Someone took a picture of him and his girl friend having sex on the deck of the boat. The following day, the photo appeared in a newspaper or magazine. A news reporter stated: "It appears from this photo that Sen. Kennedy has changed his mind related to off shore drilling." Jason
--
NEWSGROUP SUBSCRIBERS MOTTO
We respect those subscribers that ask for advice or provide advice.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Jim Yanik wrote:

And where is the "safe and clean" nuclear waste supposed to go, please? http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/physics/sobel/Nucphys/waste.html - "But one has to plan storage and protection for the public on a time-scale of thousands of years."
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

ok, crash test someone using lithium batteries. I'll personally take hydrogen over that.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Why? Please explain exactly what Lithium-ion batteries will do in a crash.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.