America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last post 8 years ago by teedubbya. 88 replies replies.
2 Pages<12
Let the debate......continue
tonygraz Offline
#51 Posted:
Joined: 08-11-2008
Posts: 20,262
Give it time.
Brewha Offline
#52 Posted:
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,182
Pancakes are still better than waffles......
MACS Offline
#53 Posted:
Joined: 02-26-2004
Posts: 79,791
Brewha wrote:
Pancakes are still better than waffles......


Wrong again.
Brewha Offline
#54 Posted:
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,182
MACS wrote:
Wrong again.

Typical cello off type......
MACS Offline
#55 Posted:
Joined: 02-26-2004
Posts: 79,791
Brewha wrote:
Typical cello off type......


Actually... where cello is concerned I'm more of a "leave it as it lies" type. If it comes in cello... leave it there, if not... whatever.
MACS Offline
#56 Posted:
Joined: 02-26-2004
Posts: 79,791
Wait, what??

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3156594/Is-mini-ICE-AGE-way-Scientists-warn-sun-sleep-2020-cause-temperatures-plummet.html
Brewha Offline
#57 Posted:
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,182
MACS wrote:
Wait, what??

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3156594/Is-mini-ICE-AGE-way-Scientists-warn-sun-sleep-2020-cause-temperatures-plummet.html

So we should bring back leaded gas?
Gene363 Offline
#58 Posted:
Joined: 01-24-2003
Posts: 30,820
Brewha wrote:
So we should bring back leaded gas?


No, it's toxic and not a 'carbon enhancing' fuel. Coal fired power plants, OTOH, will become the rage.
MACS Offline
#59 Posted:
Joined: 02-26-2004
Posts: 79,791
Brewha wrote:
So we should bring back leaded gas?


Of course not. My point is, you've got 'science' on both sides of the debate. Many people would like you to believe the one side, and make drastic changes which impact world economies... based on data from scientists getting paid for their research by people who would appreciate a certain result (whichever side you're on).
Brewha Offline
#60 Posted:
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,182
MACS wrote:
Of course not. My point is, you've got 'science' on both sides of the debate. Many people would like you to believe the one side, and make drastic changes which impact world economies... based on data from scientists getting paid for their research by people who would appreciate a certain result (whichever side you're on).

Seriously? Bringing solar cycles in to the issue of excess green house gases shifting the climate is like asserting that winter is the cure for the warming.

There is relevant science on both sides of this issue though. This article just isn't part of that.

Btw, what are these "drastic changes which impact world economies"?
MACS Offline
#61 Posted:
Joined: 02-26-2004
Posts: 79,791
Yes, seriously. Some folks believe we're causing the warming... others believe it's a part of the cyclical nature of our journey through space.

The planet warmed and cooled before we arrived. It'll do so when we're gone, too.

If you think environmental regulations haven't affected our economy, you're not being honest.
Brewha Offline
#62 Posted:
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,182
MACS wrote:
Yes, seriously. Some folks believe we're causing the warming... others believe it's a part of the cyclical nature of our journey through space.

The planet warmed and cooled before we arrived. It'll do so when we're gone, too.

If you think environmental regulations haven't affected our economy, you're not being honest.

The climate naturally changes over time - true enough.

Environmental regulation often outlaws the cheapest and most profitable methods, affecting the economy. also an accurate statement.

Is industrial pollution causing an unnatural and undesirable shift in the climate? Yes. And according to assorted govmut agencies, and your personal friend Pres O, the debate is over and it is time for action.



Retooling for green initiatives, like doing away with incandescent lightbulbs, deny companies from profiting on their existing equipment and manufacturing procedures.Yet retooling creates new jobs, and those more expensive bulbs do save us on our electric bill as the years go by.

Here's the difference Macs, big money corporations are crying apocalypse. I see progress and growth that will be best for our kids.

So, show me the apocalypse that I might know the true evil of moving to a greener world.
MACS Offline
#63 Posted:
Joined: 02-26-2004
Posts: 79,791
I'm not crying apocalypse. And I agree if we can do things to make it better for our progeny, then we should.

I got a few coworkers who went solar and get money back from the power companies, instead of paying them. I wish it made sense for me, but a small house with 2 people... we don't use enough 9 out of 12 months to make it worth it. If they really want to make a big difference solar should be more affordable.

Nuclear energy is safe, cost effective, and sustainable. Why don't we build a few more plants? France gets 75% of their power from nuke.

BUT - my concern - is the pendulum swinging too far, too fast? Are the things we're doing even a drop in the bucket compared to what China/India are doing to negate whatever we do? And is it worth it to let businesses that were here... go there, while we go deeper and deeper into debt?

I dunno... I don't trust the government enough to believe them. I don't trust the POS (I left out the TU on purpose) as far as I can spit.

I don't know. People smarter than I am can't agree... so they don't know (for sure) either.
tonygraz Offline
#64 Posted:
Joined: 08-11-2008
Posts: 20,262
Nuclear power is great, but there are safety concerns and environmental concerns. Where do we put the spent radioactive waste ?
Brewha Offline
#65 Posted:
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,182
MACS wrote:
I'm not crying apocalypse. And I agree if we can do things to make it better for our progeny, then we should.

I got a few coworkers who went solar and get money back from the power companies, instead of paying them. I wish it made sense for me, but a small house with 2 people... we don't use enough 9 out of 12 months to make it worth it. If they really want to make a big difference solar should be more affordable.

Nuclear energy is safe, cost effective, and sustainable. Why don't we build a few more plants? France gets 75% of their power from nuke.

BUT - my concern - is the pendulum swinging too far, too fast? Are the things we're doing even a drop in the bucket compared to what China/India are doing to negate whatever we do? And is it worth it to let businesses that were here... go there, while we go deeper and deeper into debt?

I dunno... I don't trust the government enough to believe them. I don't trust the POS (I left out the TU on purpose) as far as I can spit.

I don't know. People smarter than I am can't agree... so they don't know (for sure) either.

Well I don't disagree with any of your points.

And even the left can go too far too fast. So I figure the fight between left and right just helps steer us to center.

To me the question is how fast we can adapt to and adopt the future we need. Its people that say we don't need to that I take issue with....
frankj1 Offline
#66 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,221
tonygraz wrote:
Nuclear power is great, but there are safety concerns and environmental concerns. Where do we put the spent radioactive waste ?

I have been asking that question for 3 decades.
MACS Offline
#67 Posted:
Joined: 02-26-2004
Posts: 79,791
tonygraz wrote:
Nuclear power is great, but there are safety concerns and environmental concerns. Where do we put the spent radioactive waste ?


The Navy has 12 nuclear carriers. Have for years. Perfect safety record.

We can send probes to Mars and other planets, why can't we send it to Jupiter? Gotta be a way we can do it safely...
banderl Offline
#68 Posted:
Joined: 09-09-2008
Posts: 10,153
They can't get rid of it. What happened to that facility inside of some mountain out west? I live in Illinois and I believe that all of the spent rods need to be stored on site. Which isn't a long term solution.
Gene363 Offline
#69 Posted:
Joined: 01-24-2003
Posts: 30,820
Nuclear waste can be reprocessed and reused, out current methods are crude and wasteful. The number one problem with nuclear power is opposition from wild eyed anti nuclear clods who know nothing about science, especially the design and operation of nuclear power plants. France did an excellent job educating their people on the use of nuclear power and is doing a much better job than we are here in the USA.

Because of anti nuke hysteria we have tons and tons of fuel we could burn in reactors all over the country piled up in repositories. Existing power plants also have many tons of spent fuel in pools and dry casks waiting to reprocessed and recycled. The US government has been collecting billion$ with a capitol B for years to process that fuel and store the final waste. Those billions from from rate payers and the power companies. The government is years behind and paying fines, from tax payer collections, for not implementing a plan. Jimmy Carter, another anti nuclear power nut, shut down an entire reprocessing plant after it was completed, to this day it sits rusting and deteriorating in Barnwell, SC.

Yucca Mountain is a great place to park waste, it was only politics that killed that project. Nevada and Harry Reid got billions funneled into that project, they wanted the money for construction evaluation and testing ad nauseam, just not the waste.

A country that landed on the moon and returned could easily handle nuclear waste, including transportation. The USA could do it safely and efficiently if it were not for the wild eyed anti nuke extremists tying them balled up in red tape and BS. I swear there are more idiots in this country that believe in UFOs, magic healing crystals and other such malarkey than basic science.
tonygraz Offline
#70 Posted:
Joined: 08-11-2008
Posts: 20,262
Gene - are you aware of Carter's credentials ? He knew more about nukes than most scientists and certainly more than you.
Thunder.Gerbil Offline
#71 Posted:
Joined: 11-02-2006
Posts: 121,359
MACS wrote:

Nuclear energy is safe, cost effective, and sustainable. Why don't we build a few more plants? France gets 75% of their power from nuke.
.


We are building new plants. There are 5 or 6 currently under construction. At least some of them are predicted to be on line by the end of this decade. The NRC is reviewing additional license applications too, so there will probably be more after that.

I get what you are saying about France being 75%, but keep in mind the US accounts for 1/4 of the entire planet's electricity (all methods). France is like 2%. Even with aging plants, around 1/3 of all the nuclear power in the world is generated in the US. We're still the largest producer, by a huge margin. Should it be more? Yes. But we are still reeling from Three Mile Island. Chernobil didn't help the comfort level come around much either. These things all come into play. We're exceptionally hungry for electricity to the point where we can't even make enough and have to buy it from Canada and Mexico, so something needs to improve.
Abrignac Offline
#72 Posted:
Joined: 02-24-2012
Posts: 17,278
tonygraz wrote:
Gene - are you aware of Carter's credentials ? He knew more about nukes than most scientists and certainly more than you.


Time to put my boots on.
Gene363 Offline
#73 Posted:
Joined: 01-24-2003
Posts: 30,820
tonygraz wrote:
Gene - are you aware of Carter's credentials ? He knew more about nukes than most scientists and certainly more than you.


And that makes him even more wrong. It is also exactly why we don't have a sand energy policy in this country, it's controlled by politics and hysteria.

With all due respect to Navy nuke experts, they do know their stuff, but operating a nuclear power plant on or under the sea while a daunting task does not directly translate to dry land nuclear power generation. In fact, the uranium fueled closed loop pressurized steam generator system employed by many power plants is parallel to navy nuclear power plants and not necessarily the best design for land based power generation.

Carter's reasoning was that reprocessing commercial nuclear fuel, which does generate some plutonium, would caause a proliferation nuclear weapons. The answer was to blend it with conventional nuclear fuel use it to generate power and repeat, it didn't need to go to a bomb program. He was wrong and both India and Pakistan developed nuclear bombs anyway. Meanwhile, (partially) spent fuel piles up at US power plants.

Are you aware that one of the founders of Greenpeace is now a proponent of nuclear power? Clean carbon free nuclear power.

See: http://archive.wired.com/science/planetearth/news/2007/11/moore_qa
Abrignac Offline
#74 Posted:
Joined: 02-24-2012
Posts: 17,278
Well it seems Carter does have some nuclear experience.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Carter wrote:

Carter long dreamed of attending the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis. Meanwhile, he enrolled at Georgia Southwestern College in nearby Americus. After taking additional mathematics courses at Georgia Tech, he was finally admitted to the Naval Academy in 1943.


http://www.jimmycarterlibrary.gov/documents/jec/jecbio.phtml wrote:
He was educated in the public school of Plains, attended Georgia Southwestern College and the Georgia Institute of Technology, and received a B.S. degree from the United States Naval Academy in 1946. In the Navy he became a submariner, serving in both the Atlantic and Pacific fleets and rising to the rank of lieutenant. Chosen by Admiral Hyman Rickover for the nuclear submarine program, he was assigned to Schenectady, New York, where he took graduate work at Union College in reactor technology and nuclear physics, and served as senior officer of the pre-commissioning crew of the Seawolf, the second nuclear submarine.


http://www.jimmycarterlibrary.gov/documents/jec/jcnavy.phtml wrote:

16 OCT 1952 - 08 OCT 1953 -- Duty with US Atomic Energy Commission (Division of Reactor Development, Schenectady Operations Office)

From 3 NOV 1952 to 1 MAR 1953 he served on temporary duty with Naval Reactors Branch, US Atomic Energy Commission, Washington, D.C. "assisting in the design and development of nuclear propulsion plants for naval vessels."

From 1 MAR 1953 to 8 OCT 1953 he was under instruction to become an engineering officer for a nuclear power plant. He also assisted in setting up on-the-job training for the enlisted men being instructed in nuclear propulsion for the USS Seawolf (SSN575).

9 OCT 1953 -- Honorably discharged at Headquarters, 3rd Naval District. Discharge was at Carter's request. Total service: 7 years, 4 months, 8 days.

10 OCT 1953 -- Appointed to US Naval Reserve and placed on inactive duty.

7 DEC 1961 -- Transferred to retired reserve with rank of Lieutenant at his own request, but without pay and allowances in accordance with Title X, U.S.C. section 1376 (a).




Carter enrolled in the US Naval Academy in 1943 and graduated in 1946. At that time the curriculum was a war shortened 3 year program instead of a normal 4 year program.

Admiral Rickover didn't start the Nuclear Navy until 1949. From the beginning until now, the U.S. Government owned Bettis Atomic Laboratory has been the home of the US Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program. It wasn't even founded until about 2 1/2 years after Carter graduated from the Academy.

Since the Navy did not even have a nuclear program when Carter was a cadet, I doubt he was in a nuclear physics curriculum. It would be my guess the Navy would have been be using every bit of available classroom time, especially since it had been reduced by 25%, to teach the cadets about existing programs, not programs that wouldn't even be on the drawing board until years after Carter graduated.

According to his biography, Carter was in the Navy's nuclear program for about 11 1/2 months.

18 OCT 1952 to 03 NOV 1952
(two weeks, nothing listed)

03 NOV 1952 to 01 MAR 1953
Assigned to a billet where he claims to have assisted in the design and development of nuclear propulsion plants. About a month after reporting for this assignment, Carter was sent to help with the cleanup of the Chalk River Nuclear Power Plant. But, from Carter's own published biography he had no formal education in nuclear physics. Are we to believe that someone with no background at all is going to be helping design nuclear propulsion systems?

01 MAR 1953 to 08 OCT 1953
He's being taught how to be a engineering office at the same time he's helping set up an OJT program for sailors. Why is he being taught to be an engineering officer, didn't he just spend about three month helping design the system?

He was then transferred to inactive reserve status until his discharge from the Navy was approved.

By his own admission, he never served aboard an operating nuclear platform. In fact, the keel of the Seawolf to which he was attached as a member of the crew wasn't laid until about a month before he left active duty. It wasn't completed until July of 1955, almost two years after Carter was discharged.

At that is the extent of Jimmy Carter's self-proclaimed technical expertise in nuclear physics.

Jimmy Carter can claim to be a nuclear engineer if he wants, but the emperor can also claim to have new clothes.
tailgater Offline
#75 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
Yet, he pronounces it as nookuler.

dstieger Offline
#76 Posted:
Joined: 06-22-2007
Posts: 10,889
MACS wrote:
The Navy has 12 nuclear carriers. Have for years. Perfect safety record.

We can send probes to Mars and other planets, why can't we send it to Jupiter? Gotta be a way we can do it safely...



I used to think the same way. Unfortunately space launches don't have the same safety record as Navy Nuclear programs.
tonygraz Offline
#77 Posted:
Joined: 08-11-2008
Posts: 20,262
tailgater wrote:
Yet, he pronounces it as nookuler.




Wrong president.
tonygraz Offline
#78 Posted:
Joined: 08-11-2008
Posts: 20,262
Didn't we lose a nuke sub ?

No - we lost 2 of them !
Abrignac Offline
#79 Posted:
Joined: 02-24-2012
Posts: 17,278
Chit happens
dstieger Offline
#80 Posted:
Joined: 06-22-2007
Posts: 10,889
Both in the first decade and a half of the program. None in over 45 years since. They aren't exactly lost. We know where they are.
Thunder.Gerbil Offline
#81 Posted:
Joined: 11-02-2006
Posts: 121,359
dstieger wrote:
Both in the first decade and a half of the program. None in over 45 years since. They aren't exactly lost. We know where they are.


And, IIRC, neither was lost due to a reactor incident. Both reactors are sitting intact on the ocean floor and being monitored.
tailgater Offline
#82 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
Carter and Bush both say it wrong.
teedubbya Offline
#83 Posted:
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 95,637
tailgater wrote:
Carter and Bush both say it wrong.



They are both pretty interchangeable in most ways.
Gene363 Offline
#84 Posted:
Joined: 01-24-2003
Posts: 30,820
Thunder.Gerbil wrote:
And, IIRC, neither was lost due to a reactor incident. Both reactors are sitting intact on the ocean floor and being monitored.


True!
tonygraz Offline
#85 Posted:
Joined: 08-11-2008
Posts: 20,262
No, Bush stays home and paints while Carter builds homes for the poor.
Brewha Offline
#86 Posted:
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,182
So, if not nuke plants, then what?
Gene363 Offline
#87 Posted:
Joined: 01-24-2003
Posts: 30,820
tonygraz wrote:
No, Bush stays home and paints while Carter builds homes for the poor.


Trumped by, Bush keeps his mouth shut and Carter cannot close his.
teedubbya Offline
#88 Posted:
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 95,637
Bush was funny this week. Made him almost like able even though he poured gasoline on an already dangerous world.
Users browsing this topic
Guest
2 Pages<12