BTW, Rebel, I have nothing against dogs, even owned a few myself. In my living situation & physical condition (disabled on my left side due to 4 brain surgeries) walking a dog is not an option, so my cat is more manageable. The Maine Coon Cat KEM mentioned is a demanding character though, almost 21 years old, 39 inches long, and talks a lot (loud, too). Sorry if I offended your dog's feelings, especially if he can read what I wrote. LOL

Yet another example of government stupidity and greed. We should find out who put sentence into the bill and make sure they don't get re-elected.

But Billy__y4 says nuclear power is far less expensive than wind/solar and says nuclear plants are perfectly safe. He does admit storing nuclear waste is a problem, especially storing the most dangerous wastes like plutonium at the new Nevada site, whch is located very near several quake falult lines.

Billy systematically explains the cost versis the benefits and how nuclear power is financially sound. He also cautions us to not become political, when discussing potential radiation hazards for our enviroment and using depleted uranium for weapons of war.

Billy also believes using nuclear waste for weapons is not a serious health hazard, our government, DOD, the pentagon experts, our president and his staff, all agree with Billy. So, I am now confused and will have to watch the news and see what those guys and gals have to say about this serious debate.

If nuclear waste is a safety 'problem' than nuclear power is not safe.

No new nuclear reactors should be built until all existing nuclear waste can be safely stored.
Maybe NASA could send it up to Mars?

starislon2: Too expensive. And any mistake on the pad, during launch, or achieving the right trajectory after leaving earth's orbit could be utterly catrostrophic. Same applies to putting nuclear power on earth orbiting satellites. When/if the orbit decays and they go through reentry...

If we're going to go through all that trouble, why not just build massive solar panels in earth orbit (we have the technology now) and devise a safe and relatively cheap means to get the energy back to earth (probably several theories already in the works). May as well ship powerful -- but conventional -- capacitors back and forth intstead of nuclear waste.

Reading the description of the bill leads me to the bill that http://www.downsizedc.org/ is trying to get introduced, called the Read the Bills Act. It specifies that all bills must be read in the House or Senate in their entirety. Legislators must affirm that they have read and understood bills before voting on them.

This would have two positive effects. One, there would be some accountability in Congress, and two, it would do away with the "Gone With the Wind" sized bills that are now prepared by underlings and lobbyists, which are voted on by having the title read in Congress followed by a vote.

Another bill being advocated is the Single Purpose Bill Act. This Act would provide that all bills be single purpose. Any amendments would be limited to the bill itself. In other words, no pork, no riders. If you want a billion dollar pork bill for your main supporter, you have to write a bill for it, you can't quietly tack it on to a budget bill or some other "must vote" bill.

I urge everyone to get behind these two bills and get them introduced, then let your alleged representatives know that you want them passed. That would clean up a great percentage of government abuses right there.

When the government was first established, it was the law that all bills had to be read aloud in the House or Senate, before a quorum, twice, before being voted upon. Apparently, a few years ago, Congress and the Senate yawned and collectively voted unanimously that only the title of bills must be read before a vote. Since then, none of them has any idea of what they are creating as law for We the People.

I imagine this was around the time that they collectively yawned and voted themselves another generous raise and benefits from the treasury of We the People.

Go to Downsize DC and read the bills, then push for them. Possibly, it could be a salvation for the United States, if it is not already too late.

Thanks libertas fugit, makes sense to me that people representing millions of people & the things that drastically affect their lives should have not just an inkling, but a fairly complete understanding of what they are doing & voting for. DUHHH. But then again this is Washington, where incompetance rules supreme, right?

To the issue at hand I will once again propose a question no one has offered a satisfactory explanation for. If one of you pro-nuke people has an answer all you need do to shut me up is answer the question. Here goes:

There are 438 nuclear power plants extant worldwide, but the accepted estimate is we need about 2,000 to meet the world's energy needs. Without even considering ever increasing demand for power those in the know claim there isn't even enough fuel to power that many plants, and just like oil nuclear fuel is a finite commodity. In other words it will run out and once it's gone that's it...no more. Basically then, nuclear power plants are a temporary solution to a permanent problem. Ok, here's the question.

If nuclear power plants are a temporary solution why not spend those resources building 'green' renewable sustainable power sources like wind, solar, geo-thermal, tidal, and hydro electric instead of pouring trillions into nuclear power plants?

Note #1: I intentionally excluded coal, coal shale extraction, coal-gas, bio-fuel from corn, etc. because they are not 'green' and economically a joke.

Note #2: The 'safe' disposal of nuclear waste materials is a ridiculous topic I've discussed many times before so I won't waste our time right now except to say...CAN'T BE DONE!

Lets see, since there are presently more than a MILLION TONS of nuclear waste being (UN-SAFELY) stored here in the U.S. with much more to come this year alone. How many space shuttle flights would it require, to ship it off into space? How many years does it take us to fly a round trip space flight to Mars?

Wow, I can't even guess the answer to that one. Maybe we should just gather all of that deadly junk up, dig up the hundreds of thousands of barrels we have hidden away, by burying it in thirty foot deep trenches and ship it all to Iraq. We've already ruined that country forever, by spreading DU all over their land. After we've taken all of their oil we can pour the nuclear waste ino the wells. Hear they have a few.

The truth is, we have a honest to God disaster here already with nuclear waste storage problems. It worsens every single day and that will continue until we shut down every single nuclear power plant.

We don't need to place solar panels in space to generate our electrical power needs. They work just fine right here on Terra Firma, if we put up enough of them, combined with wind energy, there will be no problems of having to store additional nuclear waste.

We're screwed anyway and shouldn't even waste our time worrying about it. The DU being used for weapons is going to kill every living thing on this planet within thirty years. Isn't that why we're here, to kill things.

If it would take 2000 reactors to provide the world's energy needs and we use 25% of the energy, then I would guess that the U.S. would need 500 reactors, up from the 100 we have now.

Rather than build 400 more reactors and quadruple the problems, I would go for that 100 x 100 mile area of the Nevada desert. It has been stated that an area that size and in that location covered with solar panels could supply all of the U.S. energy needs.

That is correct Sjc and wind/solar Power Towers along our coast lines would do the same. One minor probem. The oil companes who own the oil fields, uranium and coal mines won't allow it. Oh, they own everything, including us. They don't own the sun, the wind, the tides and geo-themal banks.__ Not yet.

Thanks for the info on those bills libertas fugit. I urge all you anti-nuke people to keep an eye on all Wikipedia articles related to nuclear energy. It is a constant struggle to keep them honest.

libertas fugit: How about this as a proposal for a bill to do what you see needs to be done:

All Bills/Laws must be made in three parts.

1) The Preamble. Here the purpose of the Bill must be clearly stated.

2) The Body of the Bill. Here the structural elements of the bill is brought forth

3) The Criteria for Success. Here there is a listing of the expected results of the Bill. This would also serve as a guide for executive implementation of the Bill and for adjudication.

The courts could strike down any law if found to be inconsistent within this structure. This would stop riders. This would stop charades with Bills camouflaging the intent of the politicos by using elements that are popular and slipping in the kernel they really want then the prez does a selective signing.

Raising fuel economy standards in cars is the single most important action the government can take to reduce greenhouse pollution and so it must be front and center of any energy bill.

KEM,
I read somewhere the payload capacity for the space shuttle was originally 50,000 pounds, but it might have been increased a bit. Even at 100,000 pounds there still wouldn't be enough fuel to send all that crap away. Besides, as we have discussed many times before (and Paul Bramscher August 9th, 2007 4:32 pm) mentions rightfully on this thread, it's just too dangerous. Even with a 'mass driver' it would still be very risky. The best solution to not having dog crap in your back yard is just not have a dog. To quote an often repeated sort of crude expression that is still quite appropriate, "Don't start any sh*t, and there won't be any to clean up"...follow my drift?

sjc_1 August 9th, 2007 7:50 pm

Actually, sjc_1 it has been studied & reported that it is a ten mile square (100 square miles) area needed to supply all our energy needs, or a ten mile square wind farm to do the same. If we combined wind & solar on the same land that would even be better. The biggest problem with this, after a discussion with my very knowledgable brother is a lot of power gets lost in the transmission of electricity because of resistance. That's why it would be better to have things more localized, like community windmills & individual solar panels on every home, office, and factory.

KEM: I don't like the dog analogy. I have 'em, like 'em, and am willing to clean up after them. Otherwise, your posts have been a monumental contibution to my education. I don't even read Billy's stuff anymore.

But I totally agree on the nuke thing. I have always contended that until they could figure out what to do with the trash, they should NEVER build these things.

PAUL: I LOVE your posts! So informed. Especially the DU stuff. I'm so horrified by this I can hardly get my brain around it.

Related to those that don't know what our goverment is doing with the waste from nuclear reactors, start educating yourself to the effects of DU and our wonderful weapons of mass destruction that use this stuff.

Here is a place to start. Be WARNED: This is very graphic and highly disturbing....

http://www.bushflash.com/pl_lo.html

This is how America brings democracy to Iraq!

Oh no Rebel, we have an Irish Terrier, that wasn't me that said that, it was my friend Paul. he has a cat, a Maine Coon. Which by the way, is a wonderful animal. We have a cat now too since Evelyn Smith passed away.

Ahhh Billy, wonder where he is today? I miss him, because it's fun to shoot him down and Paul does it best, Top gun there. Paul gives great info on so many subjects, his intellect scares me. I do know that we'd better clean up OUR shit, and we don't have many years left to do it. Nuclear power is gonna kill this beautiful planet with nuclear waste and DU use. I still cannot believe, so few care to listen.

Man, metamorph August 9th, 2007 9:38 pm, you said a mouthful there. Check this out...about 50+% of our fuel needs in this country are for personal transportation (cars, trucks, motor cycles, etc.). We get about 12-13% of our oil from Iraq. So if we increase our fuel efficiency by about 25% we dont even need Iraqi oil, hence no need to be in Iraq over a war for oil.

The CAFE standard is 21.5 MPG for light trucks & 27.5 MPG for cars. Call it an average of roughly 24 MPG. 25% of 24 is 6, or a 6 measly gallon improvement in MPG means we can tell the Iraqis to go to hell with their oil. That means taking the MPG up to 30. Hell a Model T Ford from the twenties got 25 MPG, so how far have we come in 80+ years?

The father of a girl I perform music with has a VW that gets 57 MPG. Why can't we match or even come close to that? I'm sure we CAN do that. It's not about the technology, but the politics.

The push to produce more power using nuclear is not because safer truly 'green' means are not available. We have that capability already with better & safer means than nuclear; it's about the politics of maintaining the status quo to enrich big centralized power producers to the detriment of the consumer. How can they gouge you if you have a windmill or solar panels on your roof for your own power supply. They abhor anyone setting themselves free from suckling off the power grid teat, as Gore Vidal will personally attest to.

Fact: In June 2005, RMI (Rocky Mountain Institute) issued a press release of a recently completed survey showing 'green' renewables (wind, solar, geothermal, small hydroelectric, but not even including 'big' hydroelectric) produced more electricity than all the existing nuclear plants.

To correct the case of corporate/government mis-management of our 'commonwealth' resources we need to shift all subsidies & tax breaks from the hydrocarbon & nuclear industries to 'green' renewables. Congress made a start this week by taking $16 billion in subsidies from big oil (which Bush says he'll veto), but damned if they aren't screwing us again by giving $25 billion to nuclear (as mentioned in Wasserman's article). Net result is we are still between $9 to $41 billion shy that could be better spent elsewhere. Imagine the possibilities, including millions of good paying jobs for Americans, if we funded renewables on a par with the hydrocarbon & nuclear industries. This travesty of energy policy must STOP.

Thanks Rebel Farmer (and you too, KEM). Everyone has their special gift, and I believe KEM'S is inclined toward humor, wouldn't you say, Rebel?

You know, I haven't seen anything of Billy since I posed the same question to him on another blog as the one posted on PaulMagillSmith August 9th, 2007 6:09 pm up above.

Say Rebel Farmer, KEM has already seen this little gadget my brothers invented, but I thought you (and others) might like to take a look. We've made about 50,000 of them so far, but sadly they aren't effective at detecting DU. Next project I guess. www.nukalert.com

metroeloise August 9th, 2007 8:46 pm, said:
How about this as a proposal for a bill to do what you see needs to be done:

All Bills/Laws must be made in three parts.

1) The Preamble. Here the purpose of the Bill must be clearly stated.

2) The Body of the Bill. Here the structural elements of the bill is brought forth

3) The Criteria for Success. Here there is a listing of the expected results of the Bill. This would also serve as a guide for executive implementation of the Bill and for adjudication.

The courts could strike down any law if found to be inconsistent within this structure. This would stop riders. This would stop charades with Bills camouflaging the intent of the politicos by using elements that are popular and slipping in the kernel they really want then the prez does a selective signing.

That is an excellent idea, metroeloise. Ties right in with what they are trying to do with the RTBA and the Single Purpose Bill act. You should go to the DownsizeDC site and suggest that. We need all the ammo we can get to overcome and empty the DC Cesspool.

(Note: I rarely post the same writing on two different article, but this one somehow seems appropriate since spent nuclear fuel is the source of this weaponry.)
===========================================================

How would you rather die? From a blinding flash that vaporizes you or blows you apart into sub-microscopic pieces? Or from a long, painful, slow death caused by cancer?

While a good article on the best known instruments of the nuclear Sword of Damacles hanging over all of us in this world, this article fails completely to even mention the most pervasive & insidious nuclear 'genie' facing us that is already out of the bottle…namely DU (depleted uranium).

Unless the US immediately ceases the use of DU munitions, in combat & on practice ranges, all life forms on this planet down to a microbial level could be doomed to extinction. And it won't be a coup de gras (quick death), but a slow protracted agonizing one. In fact, it could not only be the fauna that goes away, but the flora as well, since the two are inter-connected. Even severe climate change doesn't have the drastic killing potential of depleted uranium.

I am not the expert you should listen to, only a concerned world citizen, and messenger. If you Google depleted uranium, or even just DU, you will find over 1,300,000 references to this weapon of mass destruction, and very few articles, other than biased militaristic propaganda, will have anything good, positive, or constructive to say about it.

Our government doesn't want the public to know this threat to all of us exists (and by continued use of DU weapons is even increasing as you read & I write), is in denial of the danger to even our own soldiers, obfuscates & twists research already completed on this nuclear menace, and even has actively intimidated & blocked those trying to do further research.

Have you heard about this criminal & life threatening subject through the main stream media?…very, very rarely. Will you hear more before it becomes an undeniably catastrophic disaster?…probably not. Will our government & military try a cover-up until irreversable damage is widespread (it might be already)?…most likely.

Although this article deals with the vital subject of internationally stopping the further proliferation of nuclear bombs (or power plants) it fails to even mention the looming disaster from the atomic war going on right now by the past & continued use of depleted uranium weaponry. It's not a big bang and a bright white flash, but a more subtle, pervasive, insidious cancerous growth that must cease IMMEDIATELY.

I challenge every person who cares for themselves, family members, friends, country, and world, to Google & read about the horrific consequences of DU usage. Be careful if you have a weak stomach or caring heart because many of the numerous articles are very graphic. The pictures of the deformaties are backed up by incontrovertable statistics & facts that will make you question the sanity and monsterous behavior of anyone who would even consider the use of such a vile weapon on fellow humans. The tens or hundreds of millions who died from war, genocide, and intentional starvation during the last millenium will seem like a tea party compared to the BILLIONS who could suffer a slow miserable painful death from DU usage.

GO NOW!!! Google DU and read, then come back and post your findings & opinions on this blog…I DARE YOU TO SEE TRUTH.

(Note #2 "depleted" is a misnomer. DU still emits a third of the radiation of fuel used in nuclear power plants.)

Paul, that is correct, power is lost through resistance as the electical power travels long distances. However, if we set up large wind/solar/geo-thermal generating plants, the electrical power could easily be connected to the electrcal grids already being used by the hundreds of power plants in the nation.

The power grids are already here and connecting into them would not be any more expensive, than it would be to hook in new nuclear plants. The larger the cables the less loss of power due to resistance. If we built small clean energy plants in every small town, city, and community for example, the cost of running new supply lines would be a major factor to consider.

If we had eight to ten of the large solar/wind power systems in the United States, connected to the power grids, already constructed and being used now by the power generated by hydro-electric dams, we could shut down every nuke and coal fired plant and have very inexpensive electricity, where every home could be heated and cooled with it and at a cost even the most poor could afford.

We could stop using natural gas and fuel oil for cooking and heating also. Would the oil companies ever allow it? Never in the next fifty to sixty years, and by that time the deadly pollution we are now spewing out into our atmosphere, will have made the subject immaterial and a moot issue.

If I were dictator of the US (like Bush), I'd start a national energy intiative to: (a) find a clean and environmentally sound method of obtaining hydrogen and (b) achieving economy of scale with private hydrogen power plants, about the size of a furnace in a modern home.

You'd be able to either get hydrogen piped directly on the grid (as with natural gas), get a large outdoor tank (as with propane), or buy small tanks (as with gas grills, camping stoves, etc.) Your choice. Perhaps there would also be the chance to utilize solar or wind on your property to split H2O and manufacture your own hydrogen.

This is, I believe, THE most important and visionary engineering goal for the 21st century. Oil and nuclear dependence has only lead to war, autocracy, centralized control and command, loss of self-determination, rise of large monopolies, and a disaster that we'll be passing on to future generations -- both ecological and political.

My money goes to solar/wind/geothermal -- but especially hydrogen power.

RE: Paul Bramscher August 10th, 2007 10:28 am

"My money goes to solar/wind/geothermal — but especially hydrogen power."

I am inclined to be in complete agreement with you, Paul, after doing a bit of research on the matter. Too bad you're not the 'dictator' right now.
----------------------------------------------------------------- "This Pachyderm's Gotta Go"
(Or the tale of the unwanted tail)

Hydrocarbon & nuclear are definitely declining technologies, but they are a ten foot tall/wide elephant in a room with a two foot tall/wide door. Getting rid of them/it is the problem. The elephant will crash around, make a lot of noise, get violent, but eventually leave nothing but a stinking rotten smelly corpse on the floor.

Before they make the room unlivable for the future we need to shoot the sucker first, but a seemingly unconcerned public and a crochety senile old rich man upstairs named BushCo keeps us from pulling the trigger. He values the elephant crap in the room to fertilize his friend's (named Big Oil & Nuclear) switchgrass plantations down in Texas.

There's a group of people in a place called DeeCee who could get the elephant out of the room magically, but they won't because they are too fearful, and seem to value payments of elephant crap for the flowers of their friends back home where they live.

Hey, I've got an idea! This crochety old man upstairs seems to listen intently to this other even more crochety old man who is in the same big house. How about we arrange a blanket party for him (impeachment if you missed the symbolism) some day. Without the even more crochety old man around the crochety old man might become fearful of a blanket party for himself, and listen to the neighbors who have been complaining repeatedly that the elephant is stinking up the whole neighborhood and has to go...NOW.

If he will put his hearing aide in & listen, then we can show the crochety old man how to build a fifteen or twenty foot door (renewables for those who missed that one, too), so the elephant can peacefully retire from the room, and we can all sleep comfortable & safe in our homes at night.

I do not advocate putting it one 100 square mile area. The illustration was to show how much land would be required. Whether is is a 10 mile by 10 mile area or a 100 mile x 100 mile area, it would be a small fraction of the land available.

It should be distributed for sure. Power transmission can cost 10% of the energy per 100 miles. Since the sun and the wind are available just about everywhere in sufficient quatities, distributed power generation is the way to go. Few losses and less vulnerability to central source outages.