Bush To Start Making Nuklear Power Plants

www.msnbc.msn.com...

president George W bush is planning to start construcing many oil and nuclear power plants all over amarica. some of the old military bases are going to be changed into refineries.

I think these are both great ideas. Nuclear power has proven to be a safe and clean source of electricity and our country is in desperate need of more refinery capacity. We haven't built either since the 1970s!

I bet those terrorists are jumping up and down from this news. All the brand new ideas of how to destroy america they must be having!

Croat, we already have nuclear plants they could target and any new plants I'm sure would be more resistant to attack than existing ones. And we are presently quite vulnerable from refineries, not by really the actual destruction of one, but the impact that would have on our petroleum distillate supply, so increasing capacity by building new refineries would help.

Nuclear power is a great idea, more money for our uranium exports USA, USA, USA!

They should try and develope the pebble bed reactor technology more fully, as the chinese are doing this now.

wired-vig.wired.com...

Nuke Plants are better then any damn bunker out there. Go ahead, crash a airplane into a reactor, be lucky to scratch the paint.

Second, more refineries? Well, maybe Russia is finally getting it's act together and gonna start pumping oil out of Siberia. There is a HUGE oil deposit, from Siberia to Alaska, larger then the Gulf. But Siberia a hell hole and out of ALL the places of Alaska the idiots want to drill in a National Reserve. Not in any of the non-protected areas, the thousands of square miles worth, but the couple hundred square miles that is protected. If they went 10 feet over and drilled no problem, but no, they want to drill in protected lands instead of the land that isn't.

.
Its not Nuklear.

*jumping up and down having a tizzy fit*

Its Nu Ka Ler. Nukaler.

Or Nukalur if you are French.

Can't you people even speak South Texas?
.

Slank, glad to see someone else lose it over the spelling.

Nukular (intentional) power is a great idea, but everyone is aware that such plants still need oil products, from plastics to lubricants, right?

Originally posted by djohnsto77
Croat, we already have nuclear plants they could target and any new plants I'm sure would be more resistant to attack than existing ones. And we are presently quite vulnerable from refineries, not by really the actual destruction of one, but the impact that would have on our petroleum distillate supply, so increasing capacity by building new refineries would help.

Well thats true, but I still think its dangerouse. I mean one of them could get hired to work there and then blow it up!

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
everyone is aware that such plants still need oil products,
from plastics to lubricants, right?

ANWR and harvesting Utah's shale should take care of that.
NUKE plants! Excellent! No more Saudi oil. I'm all for it.
Then we can dump the nuclear waste on terrorists.
Even better.

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Then we can dump the nuclear waste on terrorists.
Even better.

I like the way you think FlyersFan! Too bad I don't have anymore WATS votes left this month....

Notice the location idea: closed military bases.

This is brilliant idea: No extended environmental evaluation of the site, jobs for locals that were lost when the Air Force pulled out, reletively remote locations.

I'll bet it's still going to be 20 years before the juice flows.

My question is--Why old military bases? Is it because the land is available--refineries don't require that much land. Or is it because it would be easier, at any time, to militarize it? Or have I just been on this website too long.

Like previously said to replace lost jobs in the area is one reason.

But the even better reason is that since the land is owned by the United States government, it can allow anything there under just Federal law thereby avoiding state and local regulations.

Originally posted by djohnsto77
We haven't built either since the 1970s!

well i think to be exact it was 1973 (nuklear plants anyways, jk nu ka ler)

People are missing some interesting points in this proposal...

The mandate that the DOEnergy will decide where to place LNG import terminals, regardless of state objections or zoning requirements. How do you fancy living next to a giant sleeping dragon that could explode into a fast-rising ball of hell any moment?

The idea that new plants will be built in large numbers will stimulate the bottom line of various contractors, and also stimulate something else..the production of DU. Anybody got any ideas what to do with all that DU? FlyersFan wants to dump it on terrorists, which is not too far from the truth of what will happen. It will be dumped..but on civilians in foreign lands, not boogeyman terrorists. Those terrorists are not jumping up and down waving their arms, wearing signs that say "Shoot Me" yaknow. They're interspersed in civilian populations, entrenched in urban areas. The astronomical increase in birth defects in Iraq as well as the Balkan theatre tells the story better than I could.

I'm all for the idea of nukular power, as the beloved POTUS says, but I'm also aware of the downsides. Zoning (less usable land equals higher real estate costs for everyone except, you guessed it, the energy concerns, who will get tax breaks proportional to the sharply increased prices), groundwater contamination, dirty waste Uranium and radiated water. These things don't just go away. Well..they do go away eventually, maybe 6000 generations from now.

New corporate protection laws (tort 'refinement') make it impossible to extract damages from corporations who have injured you or your family. This so called reform has changed the legal landscape in America to give a patently ridiculous advantage to those who require no additional help to be rich and profitable. They are now operating with impunity. You will notice the effect this has on their compassion quotient, in the months and years ahead.

If these new plants were being built and operated with necessary, sensible (from the common man's standpoint) precautions, safeguards, and checks/balances, then I would be very excited. As it is, they are operating without mandatory regard for your safety.

If you don't legislate responsibility to shackle these corporate goons, they won't act responsibly. They've proven that time and time again.

Nobody seems to remember the robber barons, and the effect they had on the health of this country. Already the mercury, arsenic, and other assorted contaminants like PCBs and Chlorine levels are through the roof. What do you think will happen when this dog is let off the leash entirely?

It astounds me that people still trust these bastards to act in our best interest. There's no precedent supporting any inclination on their part to do so. There never was. There likely never will be.

The green lobby should really get behind nuke power, people need power and that wont change. The only way we can meet demand without more carbon emmissions is to build nuclear power plants, granted the waste is a big problem but we can devise a good system for containing it.

Originally posted by FlyersFan
ANWR and harvesting Utah's shale should take care of that.
NUKE plants! Excellent! No more Saudi oil. I'm all for it.

Then we can dump the nuclear waste on terrorists.
Even better.

Only if that was true, then we could replace saudi oil with australian uranium

Originally posted by drfunk
Only if that was true, then we could replace saudi oil with australian uranium

Yep, and we'll make drfunk and his Aussie friends the super-rich sheiks of the new nuclear economy.

*Sigh* This planets inhabitants are going to kill it real soon.......