|
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend Bookmark this thread |
This topic is archived. |
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News |
DeepModem Mom (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Oct-08-07 11:56 AM Original message |
Nuclear Power Primed for Comeback: Demand, Subsidies Spur U.S. Utilities |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
truebrit71 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Oct-08-07 11:58 AM Response to Original message |
1. Nuclear Power? No thanks! |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
TheWraith (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Oct-08-07 12:22 PM Response to Reply #1 |
5. You prefer 40,000 deaths a year from smog and soot? NT |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
truebrit71 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Oct-08-07 12:38 PM Response to Reply #5 |
6. Nope, unless wind turbines generate smog that no-one has detected up to now? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
TheWraith (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Oct-08-07 12:58 PM Response to Reply #6 |
7. Solar and wind produce less than half a percent of our power needs combined. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
truebrit71 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Oct-08-07 01:02 PM Response to Reply #7 |
8. ..at the moment...with proper investment and infrastructure that will change.. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
TheWraith (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Oct-08-07 02:42 PM Response to Reply #8 |
42. Funny then that 437 nuclear plants operate safely around the world every day. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
HiFructosePronSyrup (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Oct-08-07 02:46 PM Response to Reply #42 |
47. According to your numbers, we'd ~43,000 nuclear plants in the U.S. alone. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
TheWraith (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Oct-08-07 03:04 PM Response to Reply #47 |
56. Don't pull numbers out of thin air. There's a clear and obvious difference. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
jpak (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Oct-10-07 10:35 AM Response to Reply #56 |
111. The US does produce enough uranium to satisfy current reactor demand |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
TheWraith (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Oct-10-07 02:52 PM Response to Reply #111 |
117. Even assuming that we couldn't produce more if we actually started mining again... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
jpak (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Oct-10-07 04:49 PM Response to Reply #117 |
124. nonsense again WWraith |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
TheWraith (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Oct-10-07 07:02 PM Response to Reply #124 |
131. Pardon my figure of speech. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
jpak (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Oct-10-07 07:21 PM Response to Reply #131 |
135. Not so - 110 US nuclear reactors were canceled in the '70'-80's because they were too expensive |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
hunter (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Oct-10-07 07:55 PM Response to Reply #124 |
137. Easter Island has its big stone heads. We'll have our wind towers. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
truebrit71 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Oct-08-07 02:51 PM Response to Reply #42 |
51. I'll keep the turbines, you move to Chernobyl and tell me all about the lovely glow... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
TheWraith (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Oct-08-07 03:04 PM Response to Reply #51 |
57. Ah, the strawman argument, for when you really don't have any legitimate counter. NT |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
truebrit71 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Oct-08-07 03:11 PM Response to Reply #57 |
61. How so? Chernobyl DIDN'T happen? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
TheWraith (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Oct-08-07 03:36 PM Response to Reply #61 |
68. Let's break this down. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
truebrit71 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Oct-08-07 03:53 PM Response to Reply #68 |
72. I believe your maths are incorrect.. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
TheWraith (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Oct-10-07 02:49 PM Response to Reply #72 |
116. My math certainly is not incorrect. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
HiFructosePronSyrup (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Oct-08-07 01:29 PM Response to Reply #7 |
12. Really? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
TheWraith (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Oct-08-07 02:28 PM Response to Reply #12 |
26. I'm exaggerating just a little. It's more like two thirds of Nevada. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
ProudDad (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Oct-08-07 01:36 PM Response to Reply #7 |
16. It would never occur to you to cut demand? (n/t) |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
TheWraith (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Oct-08-07 02:33 PM Response to Reply #16 |
34. You can't cut demand enough to make solar and wind alone viable. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
jpak (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Oct-10-07 10:21 AM Response to Reply #34 |
109. More nonsense from the "conservation is a personal virtue" crowd |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
TheWraith (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Oct-10-07 04:40 PM Response to Reply #109 |
123. Those EnergyStar savings are often exaggerated. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
jpak (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Oct-10-07 05:01 PM Response to Reply #123 |
126. Energy Star ratings are NOT exaggerated and more nonsense |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
TheWraith (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Oct-10-07 07:07 PM Response to Reply #126 |
132. I'm glad things worked out for you and your brother, but I choose to employ the reality trump card. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
jpak (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Oct-10-07 07:32 PM Response to Reply #132 |
136. The Luz company tried but California Republicans woudn't let them |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
jpak (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Oct-08-07 01:48 PM Response to Reply #7 |
18. Absolute nonsense |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
AngryAmish (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Oct-08-07 01:56 PM Response to Reply #18 |
19. Problem with PV and wind is energy storage |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
jpak (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Oct-08-07 02:10 PM Response to Reply #19 |
22. There are several large scale energy storage technologies already in operation |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
TheWraith (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Oct-08-07 02:31 PM Response to Reply #18 |
30. Nonsense alright, but it's not coming from me. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
jpak (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Oct-10-07 10:06 AM Response to Reply #30 |
108. I suggest you check your maths |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
TheWraith (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Oct-10-07 06:27 PM Response to Reply #108 |
128. That's not true. An optimal site is considered to be one which produces 35% load. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
jpak (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Oct-10-07 06:48 PM Response to Reply #128 |
130. No this is a common misconception |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
TheWraith (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Oct-10-07 07:10 PM Response to Reply #130 |
133. I know what they produce, but as I said, in shorthand they can be said to produce at X load. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
jpak (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Oct-11-07 12:13 PM Response to Reply #133 |
143. Compressed air storage has been used in Alabama for many years |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
greenman3610 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Oct-08-07 02:30 PM Response to Reply #7 |
28. uh, your math is wrong |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
TheWraith (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Oct-08-07 02:40 PM Response to Reply #28 |
39. No, it's not. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
greenman3610 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Oct-08-07 03:59 PM Response to Reply #39 |
73. you're not listening |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
TheWraith (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Oct-10-07 03:23 PM Response to Reply #73 |
118. I am listening. And I'm actually hearing what's wrong with these scenarios. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Thothmes (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Oct-09-07 07:10 AM Response to Reply #28 |
92. Wind turbines |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Eagle_Eye (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Oct-08-07 12:07 PM Response to Original message |
2. Sounds like a new funnel to send taxpayer dollars into the pockets of contractors |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
AllyCat (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Oct-08-07 01:32 PM Response to Reply #2 |
14. Not only that, no one will finance them any more. So Congress is looking |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
jpak (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Oct-08-07 01:58 PM Response to Reply #2 |
20. This "Renaissance" was a direct result of the Bush/Cheney/GOP 2005 Energy Bill |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Eagle_Eye (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Oct-08-07 02:44 PM Response to Reply #20 |
45. Okay, my estimates are off by an order of magnitude |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
ProudDad (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Oct-08-07 02:41 PM Response to Reply #2 |
40. BINGO!!!! |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Eagle_Eye (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Oct-08-07 03:16 PM Response to Reply #40 |
64. The government makes the rules about power generation |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
originalpckelly (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Oct-08-07 12:14 PM Response to Original message |
3. The left is being propagandized by big nuclear. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
phantom power (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Oct-08-07 12:19 PM Response to Reply #3 |
4. GE is also in the wind turbine industry. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
ProudDad (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Oct-08-07 01:37 PM Response to Reply #4 |
17. Yes... It's called "Greenwashing" |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
PittPoliSci (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Oct-08-07 02:37 PM Response to Reply #3 |
36. better GE than big oil. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
ProudDad (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Oct-09-07 12:02 AM Response to Reply #36 |
86. Hardly!!!! |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
PittPoliSci (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Oct-09-07 12:29 AM Response to Reply #86 |
90. sonic.net was a good link |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
ProudDad (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Oct-10-07 02:03 AM Response to Reply #90 |
105. And I'd choose Solar, etc. over nuclear... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
truthisfreedom (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Oct-08-07 01:22 PM Response to Original message |
9. Any politicians who support advancing nuclear power should offer up their property for waste storage |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Zorro (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Oct-08-07 01:27 PM Response to Reply #9 |
10. Actually there is |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
closeupready (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Oct-08-07 01:30 PM Response to Reply #10 |
13. Not stable enough. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
TheWraith (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Oct-08-07 02:45 PM Response to Reply #13 |
46. Have you actually read non-propaganda information about it? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
jpak (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Oct-10-07 10:43 AM Response to Reply #46 |
112. The 90Sr and 137Cs were NOT retained at the Oklo site for "billions of years" |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
TheWraith (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Oct-10-07 05:13 PM Response to Reply #112 |
127. No, they were retained until they decayed. They did not leave. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
jpak (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Oct-10-07 06:30 PM Response to Reply #127 |
129. I have "read up" on it - the geochemical environment at that site allowed |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
jpak (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Oct-08-07 02:15 PM Response to Reply #10 |
23. The current cost estimate for Yucca Mountain is $65 billion and counting |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
closeupready (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Oct-08-07 01:29 PM Response to Reply #9 |
11. Thank you, I agree. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Odin2005 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Oct-08-07 02:29 PM Response to Reply #9 |
27. The French recycle the waste back into reactor fuel. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
truthisfreedom (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Oct-08-07 06:36 PM Response to Reply #27 |
77. I bet there's waste from that as well. And can you recycle it twice? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Oak2004 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Oct-10-07 12:45 AM Response to Reply #77 |
103. Yes you can, many times over, |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
jpak (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Oct-10-07 10:46 AM Response to Reply #27 |
113. They only use a small percentage of the plutonium produced each year for MOX fuel |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
ProudDad (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Oct-08-07 01:36 PM Response to Original message |
15. This is SERIOUSLY BAD NEWS |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
snooper2 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Oct-08-07 02:06 PM Response to Reply #15 |
21. comparing Chernobal to modern technology.. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
ProudDad (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Oct-08-07 02:24 PM Response to Reply #21 |
24. Right.... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
PittPoliSci (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Oct-08-07 02:33 PM Response to Reply #24 |
33. sure sure... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
ProudDad (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Oct-08-07 02:42 PM Response to Reply #33 |
41. "we've never done that before have we" |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
PittPoliSci (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Oct-08-07 07:18 PM Response to Reply #41 |
80. i'm absolutely positive everyone's very eager to get nuclear materials deregulated. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
TheWraith (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Oct-08-07 02:55 PM Response to Reply #24 |
53. You should try reading up on the situation and doing the math. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
ProudDad (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Oct-09-07 12:05 AM Response to Reply #53 |
87. What color is the sky in your nuclear powered world? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
TheWraith (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Oct-10-07 04:17 PM Response to Reply #87 |
122. Well, you've sucessfully proven that you're completely resistant to facts. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Odin2005 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Oct-08-07 02:27 PM Response to Reply #15 |
25. Newer reactor designs can't meltdown. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
ProudDad (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Oct-08-07 02:32 PM Response to Reply #25 |
32. ... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
PittPoliSci (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Oct-08-07 02:35 PM Response to Reply #32 |
35. you love that phrase. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
ProudDad (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Oct-08-07 02:46 PM Response to Reply #35 |
48. Pacific Gas and Electric Company for one... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Odin2005 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Oct-08-07 02:37 PM Response to Reply #32 |
37. No, I'm a fan of replacing coal and natural gas as fast as fucking possible. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
ProudDad (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Oct-08-07 02:47 PM Response to Reply #37 |
49. Then you should embrace Solar |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Odin2005 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Oct-08-07 02:54 PM Response to Reply #49 |
52. I embrace solar, and I embrace nuclear, and I embrace wind, etc. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
ProudDad (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Oct-10-07 02:05 AM Response to Reply #52 |
106. Nuclear is not clean, safe nor cheap... (n/t) |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
TheWraith (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Oct-08-07 03:07 PM Response to Reply #49 |
60. Actually, it's by far the most expensive form of energy generation. NT |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
truebrit71 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Oct-08-07 03:25 PM Response to Reply #60 |
65. You are correct. Nukes cost far too much. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
TheWraith (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Oct-08-07 03:42 PM Response to Reply #65 |
69. You know well that I was referring to solar. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Pavulon (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Oct-08-07 07:27 PM Response to Reply #49 |
82. Cant smelt aluminum with a windmill |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
jpak (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Oct-10-07 10:51 AM Response to Reply #82 |
114. You can smelt it with hydro- and geothermal electricity |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Pavulon (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Oct-11-07 05:00 PM Response to Reply #114 |
145. Windmills can supply 300 MW |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
TheWraith (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Oct-08-07 03:06 PM Response to Reply #32 |
59. It doesn't work. THAT is what's wrong with it. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
ProudDad (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Oct-08-07 02:44 PM Response to Reply #25 |
43. That "Titanic" is UNSINKABLE (n/t) |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
bananas (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Oct-09-07 04:30 AM Response to Reply #25 |
91. Wrong - even the newer reactor designs can meltdown |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
PittPoliSci (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Oct-08-07 02:31 PM Response to Reply #15 |
29. i think jfk would disagree with you. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
ProudDad (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Oct-08-07 02:38 PM Response to Reply #29 |
38. Solar is ALREADY "practical" |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
TheWraith (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Oct-08-07 03:11 PM Response to Reply #38 |
62. You're completely wrong. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Odin2005 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Oct-08-07 09:51 PM Response to Reply #62 |
83. Yep, the "great solar breakthrough" is always 5 years way it seems. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
ProudDad (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Oct-09-07 12:16 AM Response to Reply #62 |
88. Yes there have |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
hunter (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Oct-09-07 04:56 PM Response to Reply #88 |
101. Diablo Canyon is not shut down, and the electricity it produces is cheap. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
TheWraith (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Oct-10-07 03:47 PM Response to Reply #88 |
121. I've done my homework. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
jpak (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Oct-10-07 10:25 AM Response to Reply #62 |
110. Anti-nuclear groups do NOT get their funding from Big Coal or Oil |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
TheWraith (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Oct-10-07 03:30 PM Response to Reply #110 |
120. Yes, actually a lot of them do. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
jpak (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Oct-10-07 04:53 PM Response to Reply #120 |
125. No they don't and Patrick Moore is a paid shill for the nuclear industry |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
TheWraith (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Oct-10-07 07:18 PM Response to Reply #125 |
134. Who the hell is Patrick Moore? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
jpak (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Oct-11-07 12:24 PM Response to Reply #134 |
144. Patrick Moore was the co-founder of Greenpeace you mentioned previously |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
PittPoliSci (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Oct-08-07 07:20 PM Response to Reply #38 |
81. it would probably be doing pretty well |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
BadgerLaw2010 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Oct-09-07 12:48 PM Response to Reply #38 |
94. On a national scale? No one has ever built anything nearly that large, ever. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Megahurtz (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Oct-09-07 08:54 PM Response to Reply #38 |
102. That's It, |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
ProudDad (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Oct-08-07 02:44 PM Response to Reply #29 |
44. JFK was also a corporate Dem |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
PittPoliSci (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Oct-08-07 07:17 PM Response to Reply #44 |
79. bullshit he was! |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
ProudDad (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Oct-10-07 02:02 AM Response to Reply #79 |
104. "maximizing production of the american economy" |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
hedgehog (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Oct-10-07 08:18 PM Response to Reply #44 |
138. JFK also ran for office 48 years ago. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
defendandprotect (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Oct-08-07 03:05 PM Response to Reply #29 |
58. Our 106 reactors are anything but "safe," and usually in poor condition -- capitalism doesn't . . . |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Nutmegger (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Oct-08-07 11:16 PM Response to Reply #15 |
84. I agree with you. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
defendandprotect (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Oct-08-07 02:31 PM Response to Original message |
31. Of course, they had to steal elections and destroy democracy to get this done -- !!! |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
ProudDad (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Oct-08-07 02:48 PM Response to Reply #31 |
50. It ain't done yet (n/t) |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Purveyor (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Oct-08-07 02:56 PM Response to Original message |
54. France seems to have nuclear power generation down pat with 80% of their |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
defendandprotect (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Oct-08-07 03:03 PM Response to Reply #54 |
55. Even realizing that they could be targets for terrorists + they take six months to shut down? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
TheWraith (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Oct-08-07 03:13 PM Response to Reply #55 |
63. Where are these supposed terrorists? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
truebrit71 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Oct-08-07 03:26 PM Response to Reply #63 |
66. Umm...New York, September, a few years back...what bombs were used there? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
TheWraith (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Oct-08-07 03:45 PM Response to Reply #66 |
70. So you think Bush and Cheney are right about the turrist threat? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
truebrit71 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Oct-08-07 03:51 PM Response to Reply #70 |
71. I think that test is bullshit btw...or did you not see what happened that September morning... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
TheWraith (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Oct-10-07 03:25 PM Response to Reply #71 |
119. So you think that a glass-windowed civilan building is the same |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
defendandprotect (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Oct-08-07 07:02 PM Response to Reply #63 |
78. In the White House ......seemingly stealing nukes at the moment . .. . |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
BadgerLaw2010 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Oct-09-07 12:50 PM Response to Reply #78 |
96. "Global warming creates earthquakes"....wow. I hope you mean localized ice melt shifts. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
jpak (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Oct-11-07 12:08 PM Response to Reply #63 |
142. The 9/11 commission reported that California nuclear plants were on the original AQ target list |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Purveyor (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Oct-08-07 06:15 PM Response to Reply #55 |
75. There chemical plants in Deer Park, Texas that could devastate the City of Houston |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
BadgerLaw2010 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Oct-09-07 12:49 PM Response to Reply #55 |
95. Maybe if these "terrorists" could even set off a simple truck bomb. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
truebrit71 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Oct-08-07 03:28 PM Response to Reply #54 |
67. Yeah, the big bad US of A is gonna follow the footsteps of the 'surrender-monkeys'.... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Purveyor (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Oct-08-07 06:15 PM Response to Reply #67 |
76. Spoken like a true 'freeper'...indeed. /chuckle eom |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Nihil (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Oct-11-07 08:19 AM Response to Reply #67 |
140. More fool them ... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
jpak (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Oct-10-07 10:56 AM Response to Reply #54 |
115. France exploited and depleted the uranium resources of their former sub-Saharan colonies |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
leaninglib (268 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Oct-08-07 04:01 PM Response to Original message |
74. Excellent news...! Nuclear energy is something that must be developed. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Socal31 (707 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Oct-08-07 11:30 PM Response to Original message |
85. There is no arguing about it. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
ProudDad (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Oct-09-07 12:18 AM Response to Reply #85 |
89. Don't forget your lead-lined undies |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
kineneb (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Oct-09-07 12:44 PM Response to Original message |
93. Three words: "Three Mile Island" n/t |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
closeupready (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Oct-09-07 01:03 PM Response to Reply #93 |
97. As I learned from an industry shill in a thread a while back, 3MI was a success story. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
DuaneBidoux (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Oct-09-07 04:02 PM Response to Original message |
98. I have NO problem with Nuclear as long as the TRUE cost of storing waste for 10,000 years is... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
mbperrin (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Oct-09-07 04:13 PM Response to Original message |
99. THE REAL REASON THEY WANT TO BUILD. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
depakid (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Oct-09-07 04:54 PM Response to Original message |
100. It's about freakin time |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
ProudDad (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Oct-10-07 02:08 AM Response to Reply #100 |
107. Please don't spread the fertilizer |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Jersey Ginny (549 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Oct-10-07 09:36 PM Response to Reply #100 |
139. Yup |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
cosmicdot (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Oct-11-07 11:52 AM Response to Original message |
141. NRG Energy, Exelon, Entergy campaign contributions |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
ileus (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Oct-11-07 06:35 PM Response to Original message |
146. It's about time, if France can do it so can the US. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) | Thu May 16th 2024, 01:03 PM Response to Original message |
Advertisements [?] |
Top |
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News |
Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators
Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.
Home | Discussion Forums | Journals | Store | Donate
About DU | Contact Us | Privacy Policy
Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.
© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC