I am not happy with Obama, but I thank God every day that McCain is not president. He is the darling of defense contractors, Wall Street Investment-Vulture firms, & war-hawks. It would take McCain about five months to get us into a war with Russia, with unthinkable consequences. Russia won't tolerate manipulation & patronization from us, like many small nations have to.
@bboucharde you're a fucking moron..fuck the the russians..what do we have to fear from them?.this is the same bullshit we heard from you pansy ass liberal when reagan was in office..what happened?..reagan took the Pinkos down...go hide in a cave you coward
@chrycohauler I am probably more nationalist & conservative than you are, but not in the old, worn out left-right paradigm you hear on Rush Limbaugh: Republican= good, Democrat= bad. Russia has gone through massive changes in the past 20 years, but many country-club Republicans don't get it. Look, the Russians have their turf, and we have ours. We can trade with them and work out problems with them without going to war. Russia happens to be one of the few nations that we cannot manipulate.
@chrycohauler Point #2: Demonizing Russia has been a financial bonanza for the military-industrial complex in the USA for 60 years. This is what Seymour Melman has termed "The Permanent War Economy." Finally, is there some reason why you have to use words like "fucking" and "moron?".... Normal folks don't use that language unless someone has hurt or threatened them. It looks like you are dealing with some personal issues to suddenly speak like that. Have a good life. Our conversation is over.
@hungryhungrymetroid I voted for Obama in 2008 because McCain is a rabid, anti-Slavic war hawk. I had no choice. I also expected Obama to be an anti-war president, but he has started two new wars (Libya and Yemen) and expanded the war in Afghanistan. The US just cannot afford to continue to police the planet. I have two other grave concerns about him: (1) He cannot stop big government spending, & he is determined to raise taxes. (2) He is going to "buy" 15 million Latino votes for fall 2012.
McCain is so wrong here. Nuclear Power powers our homes;Oil powers our cars. Without an electric car, nuclear power would not in anyway reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Nuclear Power would, however, reduce our dependence on coal--which is necessary for life to continue. I am pro nuclear power, but it will only rehab us from our oil addiction if an electric car--that does not contain any of the current shortcomings--is produced.
@The6000Sabre all of your facts are 100 percent true... and people are scared of chernobyl...your right, it wasnt built as a nuclear power plant, unfortunately people don't listen to reason... This is why the world has pot, to slow down the idiots and make them impervious to intelligence :D
Yeah, McCain is kinda stupid... THEY ARE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL EXTREMISTS! Admittedly, there have not been many nuclear power plant failures over the years, but the more unsafe plants we have, the more risk there is.
nuclear power plants shouldn't the way to go on our planet we should be turing our planet into a total green metropolis and shipping industry to mars for the betterment of mankind and the expansion of the human race. people think to short term we should be looking towards the stars but... we rather see who paris hilton is fucking at the moment its reall sad.
@jonorancid ever read 1964, by George Orwell? Vrey depressing. It's about how the world govts. are capable of creating a utopia, but that would involve changing the seat of power so they would lose power. Therefore they keep war going to avoid this from hapening. Seem somewhat... familiar?
@ChaoticDemonOverlord mate its 1984 and i have read it. and the world unionization is an inevitability. it just depends if u wanna be on top of the pyramid or down the bottom
Thats the only real problem with it. Think about coal, it destroys huge amounts of land in mining operations. Its hardly better then waste disposal, atleast nuclear waste has a halflife.
Atm nuclear power is THE only real safe powersource, until they start developing better batteries for the windmills.
The waste has a VERY long half-life, I don't think it is going to hurt anything because it gives off so little radiation. You perfer coal, wind, and solar to nuclear and it just doesn't make sense. Wind and solar are too inefficient for our energy demands, coal has a huge abundance, but nuclear has a much higher energy output making it the best option we have available.
More radiation is given off from coal power plants, airports, and even old basements than a nuclear power plant. what people need to do is stop thinking they know what they are talking about. LEAVE IT TO THE EXPERTS, AND TRUST THEM. sea men (hehe) travel the oceans for years at a time living with nuclear power plants. I don't think that they have any radiation poison problems.
radio active material does not come out of the stakes and there is plenty of proof of that. for one thing the nuclear material never comes in contact with any of the water that is being evaporated. The radiation is to low to hurt anybody and if its not then we are all screwed because if you use your cell phone, tv, pretty much any electronic device it is going to emmit more free radicals than a nuclear reator at 10 yards away. even, then you can put reactors away from the population
1st off chernboyl killed 30 people from the explosion and more from direct contact with radiation causeing cancer and most of europ will be contaminated with nuclear fall out for some100yers ..2nd if there was a radiation risk im sure your givit would report it i mean just because our govit "the us" has some of the bigest fagots in the whole mothafucking world doesnt mean they want us dead does it?
btw franksanatra34 canadian nuclear reactors use "hevy" water to cool their reactors..hevy water is still h2o but there is another nutron per atom 1-in every 186,000 h2o particles contain an extra nutron...secondly this could cause a radiation leak.."if" somehow that water escaped the cycle and contaminated the populations water suply
"if somehow that water escaped the cycle" That cannot happen... at least not in a modern reactor. you could literally detinate a nuclear bomb on top of the reactor, inside the ractor, and below the reactor and that would never happen... laws of physics, why don't you look to see how they are designed, believe it or not these nuclear physicist actually know a little something about what they are doing.
hay! aggiefitz and franksinatra34... stop fighting about stupid shit! omfg!...."franky" your rong nuclear power plants are monatured by the "INEA" or the international nuclear energy asociation ...they travel to over 100 sites around the world and no nuclear radiation leaks are EVER reported because there are none...=\
The US released radioactive iodine gas in the arizona desert or someplace like that to see what effect it would have on you guys during the 50's
The russian plant Chernobyl let out a shitload of that stuff when it went boom which caused alot of the youths of that generation to get thyroid cancer and baby's to be born disfigured in the areas mainly where the gas travelled.
It's simple really.
But all that comes out of the stacks should be H2O. Nothing more.
you're confusing conventional fired plants with nuclear firing. Nuclear firing has the cleanest emissons of any other fired plants, however it requires the most conrol.
Chernobyl was a disaster based on the communist russian leaders pushing nuclear power overboard. they forced the plant's construction crew to cut major corneres,
you can see Obama laughing, and he laughs when McCain is lying. so it's to bad that either they didn't show his respose, or the debate didn't have one.
Franksinatra34: There is NO SUCH THING as 'safe' nuclear plants. Believe me; where I come from, we have had our share of radiation in our little town east of toronto, and i can tell u it is not safe, and looking at the LARGER issue is, soon were are going to run out of precious earth do bury the radioactive waste. They've already started dumping it into lakes...
He is typing this with his third arm that is jutting out from beneath his chin.
Forgive my extreme environmentalist viewpoint, but I'd rather not suffer radiation poisoning. I happen to agree with Senator Obama: it has to be safe.
In August Senator McCain toured a nuclear plant in Michigan to tout nuclear power's safety record. The plant he chose to tour had suffered a partial meltdown in 1966.
these comments show the ignorance towards nuclear power and some major misconceptions on wind and solar power. Nuclear waste can be safely stored now and even possilbly be reused in the future. Nuclear power has the best track record in safety of all power types. Solar and wind power are terribly inefficient currently. wind power cannot increase in efficiency and solar power will take a while to do so. Neither of the two produce enough energy to even compare with nuclear energy.
My question is, what's wrong with making sure Nuclear power is safe? I have a couple examples on what happens when you rush it, I believe one was in the US and one was in Ukraine.
i totally did not spend like, 39538053495035 years in science just to fucking learn about this and get some old guy to tell me that it's not safe -_- OBAMA ! <3
US does not want Iran to have Nuclear Energy plants or to build Neclear Weapons. Wouldn't US be just as hypocritical of Iran. Why us and not Iran? If Iran is a threat than US with Neclear Plants can build Neclear Weapons. Beside if US had Neclear Plants it would be eaiser for terriorist to bomb our nation. Stick with wind &solar McCain if you really want to protect America.
This is SO TYPICAL McCain. Every damn thing he says brings us backwards NOT forwards. Can't anyone of you republicans see he is Bush and Co. all over again. WHY ARE WE EVEN ARGUING ABOUT THE NUCLEAR OPTION. But I guess its just like RoeVWade. You guys are so reactionary and unprogressive its just sick! NOW right now wind generators are successful in taking care of small towns, Now, right now coorporations are using PhotoV cell panels on the roofs of warehouse like Fed Ex does in Memphis!
It's not the safety of the generating facility. It's the lack of anywhere to put the waste, currently stored in many times leaky, rusting 30+ year old barrels all over the country. The one place everyone banked on putting all this stuff is stuck in legal limbo for the foreseeable future. Until the issue of what to do with nuclear waste is resolved, it is irresponsible to propose 45 new nuclear plants. Not to mention it will take 30 years to permit and construct that many plants "right away".
that's right, the problem is where to put the waste, but it seems that mccain doesn't care about it, maybe we wants to put the radioactive waste in our homes
That's unusual. McCain actually said something I agree with. Nuclear energy is safe if the plants are constructed properly. Citing the record of Nuclear power plants on navy vessels illustrates this nicely I think. Chernobyl is an example of a poorly constructed nuclear plant. The problem of what to do with the waste has been solved many different ways, saying otherwise is just ignorance of the facts. Yes nuclear waste is dangerous if not handled correctly - so is human feces.
I have just watched about 10 minutes of the presidential debate on TV. Not something i would normally watch but i sat down anyway as i wanted to see there views. All i can say is McCain is doing nothing but bring negativity to America and putting forward ideas that will only cause big problems in the future. I cannot believe anyone would back this guy up, he has nothing but childish aggression towards Obama and i think McCain is doing a good job at blinding his supporters.
Actually, we currently import about half of the nuclear fuel we use.
Nuclear proponents will claim we can MAKE fuel or re-use it forever.
Uhm, I don't buy that, really.
And while those nukies claim nuclear power is carbon-free, it's not. They use diesel equipment to mine it, transport the ore, and lots of power to refine it.
That actually produces a lot of carbon, and also ignores the cost of waste disposal.
The simple fact is that we still haven't solved the very real problem of what to do with the waste.
Reprocessing? Sure, but still... fast forward a hundred years and there will be piles of nuclear waste littering the planet. And this isn't just any kind of waste - this is toxic poisonous material that lasts for thousands and thousands of years, seeping into the water table, getting loose and getting into everything.
Nuclear power is irresponsible and should be phased out asap.
my wife and I watching in Canada were laughing out loud...yes, those extreme environmentalists that want safe nuclear. Ask the people of eastern Europe if they want safe nuclear facilities. Good grief what an idiot. Nice pick for VP too...I thought Canadian politicians were inept.
So let's imagine that it is as safe as McCain's lobbyist bbq buddies claim. It also is the most capital intensive and expensive form of electricity presently in operation. cui bono, senator?
It is not safe. Everybody could just get all the dirty waste, attach it to a bomb, blow it up in a city like New York and make millions of people sick. Only thing you need is a gun to get into one of the power plants. They dont have guards with a lot of firepower.
"Beware of the leader who bangs the drums of war in order to whip the citizenry into a patriotic fervor, for patriotism is indeed a double-edged sword. It both emboldens the blood, just as it narrows the mind....the leader will have no need in seizing the rights of the citizenry. Rather, the citizenry, infused with fear and blinded by patriotism, will offer up all of their rights unto the leader and gladly so. How do I know? This is what I have done. I am Caesar." - Julius Caesar = McBush/Palin
those navy ships only need to be refueled every couple years. There's a big difference between the navy storing a few fuel rods in some bunker, and long term storage for the volume of waste that will be produced by this massive nuclear array of plants McCain envisions.
If he's elected, good luck to him finding a state willing to host such a facility for the next 10,000 years. You are running out of Indian reservations to exploit.
McCain has continually maintained that nuclear energy is safe and that the navy has a flawless 60-year nuclear record. In fact, the world's navies have experienced more than 1,200 major accidents, which have resulted in dozens of ship sinkings, hundreds of explosions and fires, costly repairs and loss of life.
Nuclear waste is dumped in Nevada, Yuka Mountain. Waste spill happens frequently on the road also. There's a new breakthrough in solar technology which the panels are like stickers. It'll just stick to the rooftop.lol
Nuclear energy, ummmm, can you look it up please, im curious, how fucken safe do you think it really is. Old dude talks as if his ship is testimony for all nuclear instance out there.
He suggests- what? That except for a few "extremists", most Americans are in favor of dangerous and unsafe nuclear power plants? And we all know it's a fine line between being an extremist and being a terrorist.
When McCain abandons the proposed Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Repository and instead reprocesses and stores all the nuclear waste (NO PROBLEM!) in the backyard of one of his favorite Arizona homes, then I'll stop writing him off.
McCain can sleep in tomorrow morning because after tonight it's all over...my friends get used to it...President Barack Obama...cause you're going to hear it alot.
Funny how McCain glosses over the storing of nuclear waste....it's not a big deal when it's being stored in Yucca Mountain in Nevada, but when the idea of it being stored in Arizona comes up, suddenly he gets all "extremist" and expresses concern about safety.
Not only is no one 'willingly' going to want to be the guardians of nuclear waste, not many people want it to be shipped through their neighborhood. I put 'willingly' in quotes, to signify that people aren't always aware of such events or are unable to have any say in the matter.
not really. chernoyble was a disaster not because nuclear energy is unsafe but because that country was still trying to get up to speed with FARM equipment.
here is how you run a nuclear (fission) power plant. take purified uranium and put it in heavy water. this water gets hot. this heat is transfered to pipes that have cold stream water in them which turns to steam. if the reaction goes to fast drop a carbon rod in. it's not insanely hard it just takes effort to do it RIGHT. they didn't.
I have little problems with the act of how energy is created from nuclear reactions, in fact I think you're right it can be fairly safe. My HUGE objection is that concerning the waste management. To me, their is almost no reasonable solution as to how to handle this. Stuffing it under a mountain, to me, is not a well thought out idea, sweeping the dirt under the rug in a hope to hide it from view doesn't seem very responsible, especially when talking about >1,000 of years.
your perfectly right. the obvious final solution would be to find somewhere that dumping this waste ISN'T an issue. one option? the sun. in a hundred years or so we may very well be able to do this. another option? nano tech sorting with the high energy alpha and beta particles reclaimed for energy.
holding stuff we can't process TODAY in a safe location is not a bad solution. storing it then forgetting about it IS a bad solution.
First, I LOVE science, and second you are dangerously naive.
Relying on science to find a solution to problems we are KNOWINGLY CREATING now is totally insane. I just don't see how this is a sane idea, or for that matter anywhere near reasonable. Do you really think it's a good idea to knowingly risk your life today, because some time in the future science might find a way to reverse, or stabilize your risky behavior consequences?
I most certainly do not say we should continue risky behavior and hope future tech can fix it. i said lets do relatively SAFE behavior and fund efforts to reduce that risk to zero (or even turn it into a benefit).
don't let the horror stories of nuclear energy make you become irrational about radiation. heck the bricks in your house around you are radioactive. measure the dangers and deal with them. this is a viable energy source with CONTAINABLE environmental dangers.
Is it macabre of me to almost burst out laughing at the sick nature of a CANCER SURVIVOR talking about "Oh yeah we sailed around with nuclear waist all the time. It aint no thang!"
wow, you people are stupid. What on earth would mcCain and cancer have to do with nuclear waste. It's not like he was in a nuclear waste accident so stop speculating and gay shit.
... MushookieMan, You just what? was out sick the entire time your teachers were trying to teach you about cause/effect and inference in high school?
Have you ever heard of Chernobyl? Yeah, if you don't think cancer and exposure to nuclear waste exposure are linked maybe kinda sorta then... well... I don't have any words. Of course McCain doesn't seem to mind so maybe you could win your very own Darwin Award and volunteer on one of those ol' Nuclear Schooners.
I know radiation causes cancer. I said that nuclear waste wouldn't be related to mcCains skin cancer as SOME people were suggesting. Go fuck yourself silly.
Women of America look...men of America look..will you kill unborn baby or not? Decide now and remember God while you are thinking to take decision. And prove your heart on Nov. 4, 2008.
Obama wants the nuclear plants to be safe. Does anyone else believe that that was a fucking stupid comment? If McCains plants go up entire cities will melt. God I hate that man!
I said mccain has a problem with Obama wanting nuclear energy safe. You do not seem to understand that comment. Mccain made it sound like we should put up the plants no matter what the cost. I have been alive through 3 mile island and Chernobyl. Have you ever seen a meltdown? Ie: Chernobyl?
"i like that nuclear waste is no longer an issue."
Actually we have just discovered that you can eat it and turn it into a productive fertilizer! Its amazing that we can be as short sighted and ignorant as we want, because science will find a solution just in time before we destroy ourselves. Huray for Science!
sorry mr mccain, but my name is Joe, i'm a plumber and I don't vote for liars. my problem isn't just healthcare, it's our economy and our school system just to name a few, and the deterioation is due to continous support of the elite in which I am not a part. Of course you can't hear me because "joe the plumber" that you know doesn't exist. FOOK OFF and I HOPE you ROOT in HELL!!!!
"sorry folks, we won't be able to pay your social security benefits, we spent it on wall street. wall street got drunk and got into a devasting crash. we tried to warn you not to vote for the bailout. try getting a third job or vote for my pal mccain"
"MushookieMan (2 minutes ago) wow, you are a fruit. I didn't tell you to vote for mc Cain. I fucking said don't make up "quotes". Suck my dick, BITCH"
You obviously have a problem with sarcasm. You are barely worth a response, but here it is: Do you understand english or do you have a mental condition that translates it into your own version?
Yes, I too am glad to see that at such a time in history when people should be taking an insightful journey into our political system, we don't forget to include the useful name calling and school yard bullying, a core role in our political discourse.
Thought I am adamantly against McCain, that is the stupidest thing to say. Your endorsement of the one that is likely to seize power out of fear of being on the 'loosing' side is what tyrannical dictators want of you.
Please try to view politics in a reasonable and productive fashion, and not give in to the institution of authoritative dominance.
I don't see this as a campaign issue. Many democrats and republicans favor nuclear power.
It's actually a no brainer that we should be building more nuclear power.
The problem is the hurdles. So many Americans were terrified of the Chernoble meltdown that they want nuclear power - but not in our neighborhood. We have to find a way to calm people down and get the plants built.
We can reduce our foreign energy dependency by 60-70% in 10 years if we go nuclear.
environmentalists didn't help there cause when they went nuts over nuclear power.
there ARE some environmental issues to consider (like hot clean water being dumped back into cold streams) but they are relatively minor compared to coal and oil power plants.
oh no nuclear waste! sheesh if handled even relatively cautiously it's pretty safe. you spill it on the road way? you move everyone away and PICK IT UP, and put it back in a container. it's not going to melt your brains on sight.
well it IS preventable but it is exorbitant compared to say a simple solution of oh i don't know...nuclear power? I'm all for improving the plants we have NOW but not for building horrible NEW plants that are massively dirty (even the 'clean coal' ones).
improve what we have then phase them out for nuclear, solar, wind, and geothermal. it seems like a no brainer.
Actually, it is quite safe. The truck used to transport the waste can survive falling off a cliff and exploding. Nuclear plants have quadrupal redundant safety measures. Chernobyl was a poorly built reactor. And while we may be dependent on oil for cars, it will reduce a massive number of dependencies on fuel to heat homes. It's not the only answer but as a Dem, I wish the Dems would get out of the way on this one.
there is actualy a video on youtube somewhere in which they hit this container by a train then poor jet fuel on it and set the fuel on fire. remember the twin towers steel actualy failed because of the heat of burning jet fuel...these containers survive HOURS in these conditions without fail AFTER being hit by a train. the designers where so overkill on these things that a simple traffic accident would be a joke.
electric cars, look into flywheel vehicles. they had a rough model working in denmark in the 1960's, the issues then have been solved now.
as to storage, the massive site they selected is all ready being build. one location that can be well secured is SURELY better then the millions (yes millions) of broom closets in hospitals (yes broom closets), the dumps (yah YOUR dump), and the other insanely unsafe locations.
and thats the LOW danger items (which would be great for a dirty bomb).
The tests done show there's a limit on how much energy you can store in a flywheel, based on how fast it can spin without exploding.
As to storage: Yucca Mountain is iffy.
A better solution (R.A. Heinlein) is to filter the waste, embed the result in cement blocks with graphite as a buffer, and stack the blocks in the desert.
Surround with razor wire fence and patrol with dogs. No risk of earthquakes or ground water contamination.
actually the OLD ones are not. the newer ones are awesome (with gyro balancing). The newer flywheel systems use magnetic bearings, carbon composite systems, and spin at insane speeds. when they fail they just make really hot sand in a steel container (no BOOM and metal everywhere).
when they test breaker systems they use flywheel batteries (can't be shorting out the power plant can you? hehe). some industrial scale ones have run for YEARS with only 2% energy loss. thats a huge deal.
Unfortunately the limiting factor is the strength of the materials used.
The energy in just one gallon of gasoline is quite respectable.
Getting a flywheel system to store as much energy as, say, 10 gallons of gasoline, and shrinking it to fit under a car's hood would be an amazing accomplishment.
And of course, you'd have to have a strong (heavy) casing for that system, because if the flywheels failed they would explode with all that force.
one revolution in materials and we have the materials we need. carbon fiber materials made a huge leap in what we can do with these technologies, and we all ready know we are no where near the limits of even this material.
some of the amazing physically _possible_ designs we have seen with some of these materials are things like rigid balloons that are 'filled' with a vacuum being used to 'balloon' materials around. these are designs we can think of now even without the materials to play with.
Corbaman: "I don't see this as a campaign issue. Many democrats and republicans favor nuclear power. It's actually a no brainer that we should be building more nuclear power."
Nuclear power will never be safe? Nuclear power is safe now, and only gets safer as technology progresses. Even when you filter out most of the pollutants from coal (and BTW CO2 is the LEAST of your worries when it comes to pollutants from coal) you still have the EXTREMELY dangerous process of mining coal.
3 mile island is the worst nuclear civilian accident in US history, and even then, not one civilian died and the health impact was immeasurably small.
Tell all of the engineers who worked tirelessly building in safety features that it was "sheer luck." You don't get a virtually flawless safety record by "sheer luck." If it's only sheer luck, then why were the russians not so lucky? Is it perhaps the engineering and safety deficiency they had? No, couldn't have been...
sure, GIVE the foreigners nuclear power and let them rest for years to develope REAL weapons of mass destruction.
IllBeBackIn2014 6 months ago
How is McCain's unflinching faith in nuclear power plants holding up in the wake of Japan's earthquake?
dionusos2 10 months ago
I am not happy with Obama, but I thank God every day that McCain is not president. He is the darling of defense contractors, Wall Street Investment-Vulture firms, & war-hawks. It would take McCain about five months to get us into a war with Russia, with unthinkable consequences. Russia won't tolerate manipulation & patronization from us, like many small nations have to.
bboucharde 10 months ago
@bboucharde you're a fucking moron..fuck the the russians..what do we have to fear from them?.this is the same bullshit we heard from you pansy ass liberal when reagan was in office..what happened?..reagan took the Pinkos down...go hide in a cave you coward
chrycohauler 10 months ago
@chrycohauler I am probably more nationalist & conservative than you are, but not in the old, worn out left-right paradigm you hear on Rush Limbaugh: Republican= good, Democrat= bad. Russia has gone through massive changes in the past 20 years, but many country-club Republicans don't get it. Look, the Russians have their turf, and we have ours. We can trade with them and work out problems with them without going to war. Russia happens to be one of the few nations that we cannot manipulate.
bboucharde 10 months ago
@chrycohauler Point #2: Demonizing Russia has been a financial bonanza for the military-industrial complex in the USA for 60 years. This is what Seymour Melman has termed "The Permanent War Economy." Finally, is there some reason why you have to use words like "fucking" and "moron?".... Normal folks don't use that language unless someone has hurt or threatened them. It looks like you are dealing with some personal issues to suddenly speak like that. Have a good life. Our conversation is over.
bboucharde 10 months ago
@bboucharde Then you better hope obama wins again. i know I do.
hungryhungrymetroid 6 months ago
@hungryhungrymetroid I voted for Obama in 2008 because McCain is a rabid, anti-Slavic war hawk. I had no choice. I also expected Obama to be an anti-war president, but he has started two new wars (Libya and Yemen) and expanded the war in Afghanistan. The US just cannot afford to continue to police the planet. I have two other grave concerns about him: (1) He cannot stop big government spending, & he is determined to raise taxes. (2) He is going to "buy" 15 million Latino votes for fall 2012.
bboucharde 6 months ago
@bboucharde YEt I would still take him over any Republican anytime.
hungryhungrymetroid 6 months ago
McCain is defective: He has worms in his head.
TheCalifornian 10 months ago
McCain is so wrong here. Nuclear Power powers our homes;Oil powers our cars. Without an electric car, nuclear power would not in anyway reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Nuclear Power would, however, reduce our dependence on coal--which is necessary for life to continue. I am pro nuclear power, but it will only rehab us from our oil addiction if an electric car--that does not contain any of the current shortcomings--is produced.
centerthinker 1 year ago
More people have died drilling for oil and mining coal. Nobody died or was injured at Three Mile Island.
Chernobyl wasn't designed as a nuclear power plant. It was a converted nuclear warhead factory.
The6000Sabre 1 year ago 2
@The6000Sabre all of your facts are 100 percent true... and people are scared of chernobyl...your right, it wasnt built as a nuclear power plant, unfortunately people don't listen to reason... This is why the world has pot, to slow down the idiots and make them impervious to intelligence :D
Church1766 1 year ago
@Church1766, thanks
The6000Sabre 1 year ago
negr0bama stinks
The6000Sabre 1 year ago
holly crap when obama laughed i remembered the south park episode the funniest twist i ve ever seen hah
if u did not see it go watch it its called
' about last night ' season 12 ep.12
IroNMetalliC01 1 year ago
I'll give palin what's in my nuclear pants.
MistahhB 1 year ago
Yeah, McCain is kinda stupid... THEY ARE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL EXTREMISTS! Admittedly, there have not been many nuclear power plant failures over the years, but the more unsafe plants we have, the more risk there is.
ChaoticDemonOverlord 1 year ago
nuclear power plants shouldn't the way to go on our planet we should be turing our planet into a total green metropolis and shipping industry to mars for the betterment of mankind and the expansion of the human race. people think to short term we should be looking towards the stars but... we rather see who paris hilton is fucking at the moment its reall sad.
jonorancid 1 year ago
@jonorancid How are we supposed to turn our planet green without nuclear power? Fail.
brianng999 1 year ago
@jonorancid ever read 1964, by George Orwell? Vrey depressing. It's about how the world govts. are capable of creating a utopia, but that would involve changing the seat of power so they would lose power. Therefore they keep war going to avoid this from hapening. Seem somewhat... familiar?
ChaoticDemonOverlord 1 year ago
@ChaoticDemonOverlord mate its 1984 and i have read it. and the world unionization is an inevitability. it just depends if u wanna be on top of the pyramid or down the bottom
jonorancid 1 year ago
nuclear energy is like a girlfriend, nice most of the time but if you piss her off....
xXRand0mnameXx 1 year ago 7
@xXRand0mnameXx Or if it's that time of the month...
Graywolf233 1 year ago
hehe 0:10 powerpants ^^
z44k5 2 years ago
I wants some powerpants
Darkwizzrobe 1 year ago
since when is nuclear waste enviroment friendly?
i think people gonna have to research the part on where to put the nuclear waste
btw if you guy's are getting 45 nuke powerplants what if a some other alqeada terrorist group fly's a plane into the reactor?
another chernobyl? but then the size of manhatten?
klote2314 2 years ago
@klote2314 Take your own advice and research on Power Plants.
Graywolf233 1 year ago
McCain is a genious. The Chernboyl dissaster was because of their lack of technology, not to mention that fucked up communist shit.
Yuber779 2 years ago
lol no
korythebaker 2 years ago
nuclear energy and wind power are the safest forms of energy the world has known.
irock104 2 years ago
Hate to say it but the Republican is completely right about it. Nuclear power is safe, intelligent and environmentally friendly.
linghun 2 years ago 2
really then what about the waste?
the waste is enviromentfriendly
i think not u are going to have to store it up some where
klote2314 2 years ago
Thats the only real problem with it. Think about coal, it destroys huge amounts of land in mining operations. Its hardly better then waste disposal, atleast nuclear waste has a halflife.
Atm nuclear power is THE only real safe powersource, until they start developing better batteries for the windmills.
lordcrapalot 2 years ago
The waste has a VERY long half-life, I don't think it is going to hurt anything because it gives off so little radiation. You perfer coal, wind, and solar to nuclear and it just doesn't make sense. Wind and solar are too inefficient for our energy demands, coal has a huge abundance, but nuclear has a much higher energy output making it the best option we have available.
bosesamsungdell 2 years ago
More radiation is given off from coal power plants, airports, and even old basements than a nuclear power plant. what people need to do is stop thinking they know what they are talking about. LEAVE IT TO THE EXPERTS, AND TRUST THEM. sea men (hehe) travel the oceans for years at a time living with nuclear power plants. I don't think that they have any radiation poison problems.
Buckstrop55 2 years ago
radio active material does not come out of the stakes and there is plenty of proof of that. for one thing the nuclear material never comes in contact with any of the water that is being evaporated. The radiation is to low to hurt anybody and if its not then we are all screwed because if you use your cell phone, tv, pretty much any electronic device it is going to emmit more free radicals than a nuclear reator at 10 yards away. even, then you can put reactors away from the population
gtq838 2 years ago
Even if you had a complete grasp on what you were talking about, nobody would take you seriously.
I sincerely hope you are trying to spell everything wrong, because, if not, whatever school system you grew up in has failed you.
Also, Linkin Park fucking blows
AlecsMundtIsPissed 2 years ago
Ad hominem arguments is a direct sign of defeat.
fingtyin 2 years ago
1st off chernboyl killed 30 people from the explosion and more from direct contact with radiation causeing cancer and most of europ will be contaminated with nuclear fall out for some100yers ..2nd if there was a radiation risk im sure your givit would report it i mean just because our govit "the us" has some of the bigest fagots in the whole mothafucking world doesnt mean they want us dead does it?
1inkinpark155 2 years ago
btw franksanatra34 canadian nuclear reactors use "hevy" water to cool their reactors..hevy water is still h2o but there is another nutron per atom 1-in every 186,000 h2o particles contain an extra nutron...secondly this could cause a radiation leak.."if" somehow that water escaped the cycle and contaminated the populations water suply
1inkinpark155 2 years ago
"if somehow that water escaped the cycle" That cannot happen... at least not in a modern reactor. you could literally detinate a nuclear bomb on top of the reactor, inside the ractor, and below the reactor and that would never happen... laws of physics, why don't you look to see how they are designed, believe it or not these nuclear physicist actually know a little something about what they are doing.
gtq838 2 years ago
hay! aggiefitz and franksinatra34... stop fighting about stupid shit! omfg!...."franky" your rong nuclear power plants are monatured by the "INEA" or the international nuclear energy asociation ...they travel to over 100 sites around the world and no nuclear radiation leaks are EVER reported because there are none...=\
1inkinpark155 2 years ago
And my main point was that ABSOLUTELY NO RADIATION EXITS THE STEAM TOWERS! Bananas are not radioactive.
aggiefitz 2 years ago
Alright. Here's the basics.
The US released radioactive iodine gas in the arizona desert or someplace like that to see what effect it would have on you guys during the 50's
The russian plant Chernobyl let out a shitload of that stuff when it went boom which caused alot of the youths of that generation to get thyroid cancer and baby's to be born disfigured in the areas mainly where the gas travelled.
It's simple really.
But all that comes out of the stacks should be H2O. Nothing more.
Joppsta360 2 years ago
you're confusing conventional fired plants with nuclear firing. Nuclear firing has the cleanest emissons of any other fired plants, however it requires the most conrol.
CaptainRandus 2 years ago
Chernobyl was a disaster based on the communist russian leaders pushing nuclear power overboard. they forced the plant's construction crew to cut major corneres,
.
CaptainRandus 2 years ago
you can see Obama laughing, and he laughs when McCain is lying. so it's to bad that either they didn't show his respose, or the debate didn't have one.
killtastraphe 2 years ago
My dad works in a nuclear plant.
The smoke stacks pour out steam, and the amount of nuclear waste is extremely over blown.
aggiefitz 2 years ago
Mainly, you're right. theres other impurities there, and nuclear is the most clean way of producing this
CaptainRandus 2 years ago
Our Nuclear Power Plants don't belch Radioactive Steam! That much I know for sure.
Man, you Canadians really need to have those things looked at before someone gets hurt :).
nucflashevent 3 years ago
JK3279: As for coal mining, it could easily be done by remote controlled robots.
Do these robots also serve drinks, fight evil villains and make funny one liners as they defeat them ?
Ooh ooh and do they like, talk in roboty way.
That would be cool.
IRapeMuffins 3 years ago
Franksinatra34: There is NO SUCH THING as 'safe' nuclear plants. Believe me; where I come from, we have had our share of radiation in our little town east of toronto, and i can tell u it is not safe, and looking at the LARGER issue is, soon were are going to run out of precious earth do bury the radioactive waste. They've already started dumping it into lakes...
He is typing this with his third arm that is jutting out from beneath his chin.
IRapeMuffins 3 years ago
Forgive my extreme environmentalist viewpoint, but I'd rather not suffer radiation poisoning. I happen to agree with Senator Obama: it has to be safe.
In August Senator McCain toured a nuclear plant in Michigan to tout nuclear power's safety record. The plant he chose to tour had suffered a partial meltdown in 1966.
iamthebyron 3 years ago
NUCLEAR POWER PANTS
If I vote for McCain, will I get some nuclear power pants?
Xikaze 3 years ago 12
lol, I doubt it... but you probably will get those "non-extremist" un-safe nuclear energy plants
KillerOfBlueberries 3 years ago
just vote McCain 08!!!...
bridgesfu2 3 years ago
heh. unlikely.
Xikaze 3 years ago
these comments show the ignorance towards nuclear power and some major misconceptions on wind and solar power. Nuclear waste can be safely stored now and even possilbly be reused in the future. Nuclear power has the best track record in safety of all power types. Solar and wind power are terribly inefficient currently. wind power cannot increase in efficiency and solar power will take a while to do so. Neither of the two produce enough energy to even compare with nuclear energy.
akmauro 3 years ago
45 Nuclear pants-PLANTS right away..
LOL FAIL.
Tritaga 3 years ago
My question is, what's wrong with making sure Nuclear power is safe? I have a couple examples on what happens when you rush it, I believe one was in the US and one was in Ukraine.
dkozi077 3 years ago
i totally did not spend like, 39538053495035 years in science just to fucking learn about this and get some old guy to tell me that it's not safe -_- OBAMA ! <3
aceliahua 3 years ago
uh duh? Mccain =brain of a chicken only Mccain still needs to look up in the rain and do us a favor
woodtan 3 years ago
"we've had nuclear subs roaming the seas with unknown effects on the surrounding environment, and dammit, we can do that on land too!!"
natereiners 3 years ago
Please vote for McCain .....We Europeans want 4 more years of WhiteHouse Comedy.
elc4pitan 3 years ago
US does not want Iran to have Nuclear Energy plants or to build Neclear Weapons. Wouldn't US be just as hypocritical of Iran. Why us and not Iran? If Iran is a threat than US with Neclear Plants can build Neclear Weapons. Beside if US had Neclear Plants it would be eaiser for terriorist to bomb our nation. Stick with wind &solar McCain if you really want to protect America.
hmmyeah 3 years ago
This is SO TYPICAL McCain. Every damn thing he says brings us backwards NOT forwards. Can't anyone of you republicans see he is Bush and Co. all over again. WHY ARE WE EVEN ARGUING ABOUT THE NUCLEAR OPTION. But I guess its just like RoeVWade. You guys are so reactionary and unprogressive its just sick! NOW right now wind generators are successful in taking care of small towns, Now, right now coorporations are using PhotoV cell panels on the roofs of warehouse like Fed Ex does in Memphis!
clausbohm 3 years ago
It's not the safety of the generating facility. It's the lack of anywhere to put the waste, currently stored in many times leaky, rusting 30+ year old barrels all over the country. The one place everyone banked on putting all this stuff is stuck in legal limbo for the foreseeable future. Until the issue of what to do with nuclear waste is resolved, it is irresponsible to propose 45 new nuclear plants. Not to mention it will take 30 years to permit and construct that many plants "right away".
toddms68 3 years ago 3
that's right, the problem is where to put the waste, but it seems that mccain doesn't care about it, maybe we wants to put the radioactive waste in our homes
thatg98y6 3 years ago
That's unusual. McCain actually said something I agree with. Nuclear energy is safe if the plants are constructed properly. Citing the record of Nuclear power plants on navy vessels illustrates this nicely I think. Chernobyl is an example of a poorly constructed nuclear plant. The problem of what to do with the waste has been solved many different ways, saying otherwise is just ignorance of the facts. Yes nuclear waste is dangerous if not handled correctly - so is human feces.
Ansonidak 3 years ago
Yes, in a way.
A well-designed nuclear power plant is safer than a piece of junk like Chernobyl.
Originally a breeder reactor to make plutonium, Chernobyl was converted for domestic power production.
Badly.
But the real point McCain missed, is that you need disciplined technicians running the equipment.
That's where the US Navy gets their good safety record.
That discipline may come from the threat of Court Martial.
If the Navy ran all the Nuclear plants, we'd be safer.
Jkirk3279 3 years ago
an4491 wow that will probably be THE most stupid thing i will hear for a looooong time...
awsomedude104 3 years ago
I have just watched about 10 minutes of the presidential debate on TV. Not something i would normally watch but i sat down anyway as i wanted to see there views. All i can say is McCain is doing nothing but bring negativity to America and putting forward ideas that will only cause big problems in the future. I cannot believe anyone would back this guy up, he has nothing but childish aggression towards Obama and i think McCain is doing a good job at blinding his supporters.
Obama has my vote!
BlackRainGraffiti 3 years ago 3
Yeah 45 new nuclear power plants @ + - 9 Billion dollars apiece.
image69 3 years ago
Do we have enuff uranium to generate nuclear power or do we have to import it from other countries?
congiestale 3 years ago
Actually, we currently import about half of the nuclear fuel we use.
Nuclear proponents will claim we can MAKE fuel or re-use it forever.
Uhm, I don't buy that, really.
And while those nukies claim nuclear power is carbon-free, it's not. They use diesel equipment to mine it, transport the ore, and lots of power to refine it.
That actually produces a lot of carbon, and also ignores the cost of waste disposal.
Jkirk3279 3 years ago
The simple fact is that we still haven't solved the very real problem of what to do with the waste.
Reprocessing? Sure, but still... fast forward a hundred years and there will be piles of nuclear waste littering the planet. And this isn't just any kind of waste - this is toxic poisonous material that lasts for thousands and thousands of years, seeping into the water table, getting loose and getting into everything.
Nuclear power is irresponsible and should be phased out asap.
Nick0L 3 years ago
my wife and I watching in Canada were laughing out loud...yes, those extreme environmentalists that want safe nuclear. Ask the people of eastern Europe if they want safe nuclear facilities. Good grief what an idiot. Nice pick for VP too...I thought Canadian politicians were inept.
Brant1A 3 years ago
So let's imagine that it is as safe as McCain's lobbyist bbq buddies claim. It also is the most capital intensive and expensive form of electricity presently in operation. cui bono, senator?
annarboriter 3 years ago 2
It is not safe. Everybody could just get all the dirty waste, attach it to a bomb, blow it up in a city like New York and make millions of people sick. Only thing you need is a gun to get into one of the power plants. They dont have guards with a lot of firepower.
an4491 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Beware of the leader who bangs the drums of war in order to whip the citizenry into a patriotic fervor, for patriotism is indeed a double-edged sword. It both emboldens the blood, just as it narrows the mind....the leader will have no need in seizing the rights of the citizenry. Rather, the citizenry, infused with fear and blinded by patriotism, will offer up all of their rights unto the leader and gladly so. How do I know? This is what I have done. I am Caesar." - Julius Caesar = McBush/Palin
nebaioth 3 years ago
those navy ships only need to be refueled every couple years. There's a big difference between the navy storing a few fuel rods in some bunker, and long term storage for the volume of waste that will be produced by this massive nuclear array of plants McCain envisions.
If he's elected, good luck to him finding a state willing to host such a facility for the next 10,000 years. You are running out of Indian reservations to exploit.
GretchenDawntreader 3 years ago 3
McCain has continually maintained that nuclear energy is safe and that the navy has a flawless 60-year nuclear record. In fact, the world's navies have experienced more than 1,200 major accidents, which have resulted in dozens of ship sinkings, hundreds of explosions and fires, costly repairs and loss of life.
Bucephalus2008 3 years ago 3
Nuclear waste is dumped in Nevada, Yuka Mountain. Waste spill happens frequently on the road also. There's a new breakthrough in solar technology which the panels are like stickers. It'll just stick to the rooftop.lol
ObamaForMiddleClass 3 years ago 2
Damn, and I thought I imagined it.....
Do we really want safe nuclear power for our children? uhhhhhhhhhhh
I wouldn't want this guy driving a car, let alone running the country...
Mokinaki 3 years ago 4
Nuclear energy, ummmm, can you look it up please, im curious, how fucken safe do you think it really is. Old dude talks as if his ship is testimony for all nuclear instance out there.
Jetkimchrea 3 years ago
I also noticed this amazing statement.
He suggests- what? That except for a few "extremists", most Americans are in favor of dangerous and unsafe nuclear power plants? And we all know it's a fine line between being an extremist and being a terrorist.
When McCain abandons the proposed Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Repository and instead reprocesses and stores all the nuclear waste (NO PROBLEM!) in the backyard of one of his favorite Arizona homes, then I'll stop writing him off.
Until then...
surferbeto 3 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
McCain was brilliant. Obama is boring.
skydogz1 3 years ago
Your mom was brilliant...oooooo burn!!!!
saint2sinner01 3 years ago
good gravy, he thinks safe nuclear energy is bad! i thought that was something we could all agree on!
sisforshayla 3 years ago
McCain can sleep in tomorrow morning because after tonight it's all over...my friends get used to it...President Barack Obama...cause you're going to hear it alot.
signsbyrusty 3 years ago
Funny how McCain glosses over the storing of nuclear waste....it's not a big deal when it's being stored in Yucca Mountain in Nevada, but when the idea of it being stored in Arizona comes up, suddenly he gets all "extremist" and expresses concern about safety.
TheVladinator16 3 years ago 2
Not only is no one 'willingly' going to want to be the guardians of nuclear waste, not many people want it to be shipped through their neighborhood. I put 'willingly' in quotes, to signify that people aren't always aware of such events or are unable to have any say in the matter.
BayerLexan 3 years ago
umm i want nuclear power just as long it's safew and the waste is safe
Jakewong88 3 years ago
Uh, that's a contradiction of reality.
BayerLexan 3 years ago
not really. chernoyble was a disaster not because nuclear energy is unsafe but because that country was still trying to get up to speed with FARM equipment.
here is how you run a nuclear (fission) power plant. take purified uranium and put it in heavy water. this water gets hot. this heat is transfered to pipes that have cold stream water in them which turns to steam. if the reaction goes to fast drop a carbon rod in. it's not insanely hard it just takes effort to do it RIGHT. they didn't.
addmoreice 3 years ago
I have little problems with the act of how energy is created from nuclear reactions, in fact I think you're right it can be fairly safe. My HUGE objection is that concerning the waste management. To me, their is almost no reasonable solution as to how to handle this. Stuffing it under a mountain, to me, is not a well thought out idea, sweeping the dirt under the rug in a hope to hide it from view doesn't seem very responsible, especially when talking about >1,000 of years.
BayerLexan 3 years ago
your perfectly right. the obvious final solution would be to find somewhere that dumping this waste ISN'T an issue. one option? the sun. in a hundred years or so we may very well be able to do this. another option? nano tech sorting with the high energy alpha and beta particles reclaimed for energy.
holding stuff we can't process TODAY in a safe location is not a bad solution. storing it then forgetting about it IS a bad solution.
addmoreice 3 years ago
First, I LOVE science, and second you are dangerously naive.
Relying on science to find a solution to problems we are KNOWINGLY CREATING now is totally insane. I just don't see how this is a sane idea, or for that matter anywhere near reasonable. Do you really think it's a good idea to knowingly risk your life today, because some time in the future science might find a way to reverse, or stabilize your risky behavior consequences?
BayerLexan 3 years ago
read my post again.
I most certainly do not say we should continue risky behavior and hope future tech can fix it. i said lets do relatively SAFE behavior and fund efforts to reduce that risk to zero (or even turn it into a benefit).
don't let the horror stories of nuclear energy make you become irrational about radiation. heck the bricks in your house around you are radioactive. measure the dangers and deal with them. this is a viable energy source with CONTAINABLE environmental dangers.
addmoreice 3 years ago
Chernobyl failed because of incompetence.
But Three Mile Island ALSO failed.
Could it be because:
a) all machinery fails eventually,
b) Commercial contractors try to save cash by using cheaper materials,
c) accidents happen that were never foreseen,
d) radiation eventually makes concrete fragile and brittle,
e) ALL OF THE ABOVE.
Jkirk3279 3 years ago 2
a) yup. thats why we do maintenance repairs and replacements of parts as well as projected lifetime of plants.
b) yup, and thats why over site needs to be taken with a transparent process for researching performance and construction processes.
c) yup and thats why we have spent many more hours researching improvements in these designs. murphy hides in every device
d) sure, but so does rain, that doesn't mean we don't build bridges. see a) above.
e) well i think i covered them.
addmoreice 3 years ago
McCain is a retard. Everyone is aware that nuclear power is not entirely safe. This isnt the fucking 60s, flyboy
halfghan 3 years ago 4
Let McCain and his beloved family live next to a nuclear plant. Lets see if he would rush to do that.
silverandblack68 3 years ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
SENATOR OBAMA IM NOT GEORGE BUSH, I ONLY VOTED 90 % of the time with him. - JMC
One, two, three o'clock, four o'clock, rock,
Five, six, seven o'clock, eight o'clock, rock,
Nine, ten, eleven o'clock, twelve o'clock, rock, We're gonna rock around the clock tonight.
Put your glad rags on and join me, hon,
We'll have some fun when the clock strikes one, We're gonna rock around the clock tonight
WE WILL
WE WILL
ROCK YOU!!!
PREPARE TO GET "MILK"ED, come November
HomoGeneyes 3 years ago
Is it macabre of me to almost burst out laughing at the sick nature of a CANCER SURVIVOR talking about "Oh yeah we sailed around with nuclear waist all the time. It aint no thang!"
What is he even saying anymore?
SquallCloud 3 years ago 2
wow, you people are stupid. What on earth would mcCain and cancer have to do with nuclear waste. It's not like he was in a nuclear waste accident so stop speculating and gay shit.
MushookieMan 3 years ago
... MushookieMan, You just what? was out sick the entire time your teachers were trying to teach you about cause/effect and inference in high school?
Have you ever heard of Chernobyl? Yeah, if you don't think cancer and exposure to nuclear waste exposure are linked maybe kinda sorta then... well... I don't have any words. Of course McCain doesn't seem to mind so maybe you could win your very own Darwin Award and volunteer on one of those ol' Nuclear Schooners.
SquallCloud 3 years ago
I know radiation causes cancer. I said that nuclear waste wouldn't be related to mcCains skin cancer as SOME people were suggesting. Go fuck yourself silly.
MushookieMan 3 years ago
Again, I find it funny a man with all kinds of cancer on his face scoffs at the need of nuclear energy being safe.
PersonalJesus348 3 years ago
does anyone else think nuclear powered warships was a brilliant idea..?
sarge994 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Women of America look...men of America look..will you kill unborn baby or not? Decide now and remember God while you are thinking to take decision. And prove your heart on Nov. 4, 2008.
agapelove4you 3 years ago
Obama wants the nuclear plants to be safe. Does anyone else believe that that was a fucking stupid comment? If McCains plants go up entire cities will melt. God I hate that man!
Mychaels 3 years ago 2
melt? are you retarded possibly?
MushookieMan 3 years ago
are you possibly a closet homosexual? if so, would you kindly tongue my balls
flang 3 years ago
Stay out of this, FAGGOT.
MushookieMan 3 years ago
I said mccain has a problem with Obama wanting nuclear energy safe. You do not seem to understand that comment. Mccain made it sound like we should put up the plants no matter what the cost. I have been alive through 3 mile island and Chernobyl. Have you ever seen a meltdown? Ie: Chernobyl?
Mychaels 3 years ago 2
a meltdown has nothing to do with spent nuclear fuel, dumbass. Meltdowns occur with live nuclear fuel, so there.
MushookieMan 3 years ago
Wait, so...McCain is anti safe power plants?
Eximity 3 years ago 6
as a sci fi freak I wish for safe fusion plants
ebleyes 3 years ago 2
A "safe" fusion plant could be built on the Moon.
The Moon's surface is rich in Helium 3, an isotope of Helium that comes from the Solar Wind.
The interesting thing about He3 is that it only produces slow-moving neutrons as waste.
Of course, a Moon colony wouldn't NEED a fusion generator.
They'd get unfiltered daylight continuously at the South Pole location, ideal for a solar power installation.
But they could mine the He3 and boost it back to Earth to pay for their imports.
Jkirk3279 3 years ago
I noticed how obama caught right away how mccain used the word 'extremists'. he obviously knew what mccain was trying to do with that..
Veraplay 3 years ago
Why does he keep comparing nuclear subs which are small and often far out in sea to large power plants on the outskirts of cities?
ezsharedock 3 years ago 2
i like that nuclear waste is no longer an issue.
coach10brown 3 years ago 2
didnt you know? it just magically disappeares all by itself now
flang 3 years ago 2
no, it gets stored as he said. so dont worry about it fruit
MushookieMan 3 years ago
"i like that nuclear waste is no longer an issue."
Actually we have just discovered that you can eat it and turn it into a productive fertilizer! Its amazing that we can be as short sighted and ignorant as we want, because science will find a solution just in time before we destroy ourselves. Huray for Science!
BayerLexan 3 years ago
you can eat all the uranium waste u want homie... i m gona stick with no cancer, and keep my sperms unmutated
gabe228 3 years ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
sorry mr mccain, but my name is Joe, i'm a plumber and I don't vote for liars. my problem isn't just healthcare, it's our economy and our school system just to name a few, and the deterioation is due to continous support of the elite in which I am not a part. Of course you can't hear me because "joe the plumber" that you know doesn't exist. FOOK OFF and I HOPE you ROOT in HELL!!!!
chingon711 3 years ago
"sorry folks, we won't be able to pay your social security benefits, we spent it on wall street. wall street got drunk and got into a devasting crash. we tried to warn you not to vote for the bailout. try getting a third job or vote for my pal mccain"
george w. bush
chingon711 3 years ago 4
This comment has received too many negative votes show
when you put text in quotes it's actually supposed to be a quote, dumbass.
MushookieMan 3 years ago
"MushookieMan (5 minutes ago) when you put text in quotes it's actually supposed to be a quote, dumbass."
Sorry but I don't vote for liars. Mccain is not getting my vote. FUCK OFF ASSHOLE!!!!
chingon711 3 years ago 2
wow, you are a fruit. I didn't tell you to vote for mc Cain. I fucking said don't make up "quotes". Suck my dick, BITCH.
MushookieMan 3 years ago
"MushookieMan (2 minutes ago) wow, you are a fruit. I didn't tell you to vote for mc Cain. I fucking said don't make up "quotes". Suck my dick, BITCH"
You obviously have a problem with sarcasm. You are barely worth a response, but here it is: Do you understand english or do you have a mental condition that translates it into your own version?
chingon711 3 years ago
MushookieMan and chingon711:
It's good to see that, with all the current economic and political tension, the civility of YouTube discourse has not suffered.
Good Lord!
wildwilly1111 3 years ago 2
Yes, I too am glad to see that at such a time in history when people should be taking an insightful journey into our political system, we don't forget to include the useful name calling and school yard bullying, a core role in our political discourse.
BayerLexan 3 years ago
"You obviously have a problem with sarcasm. "
I guess I do; because I'm pretty sure you didn't use any sarcasm anywhere. Case closed. Stop spamming.
MushookieMan 3 years ago
get over yourself kid. go back to the minor league and do what your told.
chingon711 3 years ago
"get over yourself kid. go back to the minor league and do what your told. "
you sound pretty gay. "minor league". heh, lol. I don't play baseball fyi. Now go do you chores like mommy's telling you, little boy.
MushookieMan 3 years ago
i don't have the time to play with you, now run along son.
chingon711 3 years ago
mccain just wants to be president to be president. he loves the title. that and to extort even more tax money from the american taxpayer.
chingon711 3 years ago 3
Actually, I think Republicans want political power to prevent anyone else from having it.
Jkirk3279 3 years ago
McCain, if your plan is to freeze all spending, how will you pay to build all of these expensive nuclear power plants?
dafttool 3 years ago 2
McPain is getting his ass whooped,VOTE OBAMA,and go with the winning team!
ryancat32145 3 years ago 2
"go with the winning team!"
Thought I am adamantly against McCain, that is the stupidest thing to say. Your endorsement of the one that is likely to seize power out of fear of being on the 'loosing' side is what tyrannical dictators want of you.
Please try to view politics in a reasonable and productive fashion, and not give in to the institution of authoritative dominance.
BayerLexan 3 years ago 3
I don't see this as a campaign issue. Many democrats and republicans favor nuclear power.
It's actually a no brainer that we should be building more nuclear power.
The problem is the hurdles. So many Americans were terrified of the Chernoble meltdown that they want nuclear power - but not in our neighborhood. We have to find a way to calm people down and get the plants built.
We can reduce our foreign energy dependency by 60-70% in 10 years if we go nuclear.
corbaman 3 years ago
environmentalists didn't help there cause when they went nuts over nuclear power.
there ARE some environmental issues to consider (like hot clean water being dumped back into cold streams) but they are relatively minor compared to coal and oil power plants.
oh no nuclear waste! sheesh if handled even relatively cautiously it's pretty safe. you spill it on the road way? you move everyone away and PICK IT UP, and put it back in a container. it's not going to melt your brains on sight.
addmoreice 3 years ago
Totally agree. Nuclear power waste is a little scary, but its entirely manageable.
The reality is that coal, natural gas, and petroleum always cause damage and it's not preventable.
corbaman 3 years ago
well it IS preventable but it is exorbitant compared to say a simple solution of oh i don't know...nuclear power? I'm all for improving the plants we have NOW but not for building horrible NEW plants that are massively dirty (even the 'clean coal' ones).
improve what we have then phase them out for nuclear, solar, wind, and geothermal. it seems like a no brainer.
addmoreice 3 years ago
The problem with refitting a dirty coal plant is that it costs almost as much as building a new plant.
There are technologies for re-harvesting carbon emissions - but they are massively expensive.
In my opinion, we need to make a strong effort to build nuclear plants - as thats the best hope for reducing external energy dependency.
Coal won't go away anytime soon, but nuclear is the future.
corbaman 3 years ago 2
I, sir, agree with you.
addmoreice 3 years ago 3
ooooook... spill it on the road going WHERE?
as in were does it get stored for the next few hundred years?
and do we have one big site or lots of little ones?
other questions, doesn't having nuclear reactors dotting the nation give "terrorists" ready made nuclear weapons with which to attack us?
idk. not convinced this is a great idea yet.
and Cobraman, the "reduce our oil dependency by 60-70%" is patently false. we won't have nuclear cars will we?
coach10brown 3 years ago
Actually, it is quite safe. The truck used to transport the waste can survive falling off a cliff and exploding. Nuclear plants have quadrupal redundant safety measures. Chernobyl was a poorly built reactor. And while we may be dependent on oil for cars, it will reduce a massive number of dependencies on fuel to heat homes. It's not the only answer but as a Dem, I wish the Dems would get out of the way on this one.
cowboycoco 3 years ago
there is actualy a video on youtube somewhere in which they hit this container by a train then poor jet fuel on it and set the fuel on fire. remember the twin towers steel actualy failed because of the heat of burning jet fuel...these containers survive HOURS in these conditions without fail AFTER being hit by a train. the designers where so overkill on these things that a simple traffic accident would be a joke.
addmoreice 3 years ago
electric cars, look into flywheel vehicles. they had a rough model working in denmark in the 1960's, the issues then have been solved now.
as to storage, the massive site they selected is all ready being build. one location that can be well secured is SURELY better then the millions (yes millions) of broom closets in hospitals (yes broom closets), the dumps (yah YOUR dump), and the other insanely unsafe locations.
and thats the LOW danger items (which would be great for a dirty bomb).
addmoreice 3 years ago
Flywheel vehicles aren't practical.
The tests done show there's a limit on how much energy you can store in a flywheel, based on how fast it can spin without exploding.
As to storage: Yucca Mountain is iffy.
A better solution (R.A. Heinlein) is to filter the waste, embed the result in cement blocks with graphite as a buffer, and stack the blocks in the desert.
Surround with razor wire fence and patrol with dogs. No risk of earthquakes or ground water contamination.
Jkirk3279 3 years ago
actually the OLD ones are not. the newer ones are awesome (with gyro balancing). The newer flywheel systems use magnetic bearings, carbon composite systems, and spin at insane speeds. when they fail they just make really hot sand in a steel container (no BOOM and metal everywhere).
when they test breaker systems they use flywheel batteries (can't be shorting out the power plant can you? hehe). some industrial scale ones have run for YEARS with only 2% energy loss. thats a huge deal.
addmoreice 3 years ago
Flywheel systems work just fine for large, stationary systems.
If you have a flywheel that weighs several tons you can spin it at slow speed and still store lots of power in it.
But using flywheels in vehicles is not practical.
You can't drag a 2,000 pound flywheel with you back and forth to the grocery store !
Now, today's hybrids use regenerative braking to increase efficiency.
MAYBE a low-mass high speed flywheel system might save a couple percent, but that's it.
Jkirk3279 3 years ago
f = m*v^2
half the mass and double the velocity you will quadruple the energy.
speed is the key. the newer flywheels are measured in pounds not tons and spin at simply insane speeds.
addmoreice 3 years ago
Unfortunately the limiting factor is the strength of the materials used.
The energy in just one gallon of gasoline is quite respectable.
Getting a flywheel system to store as much energy as, say, 10 gallons of gasoline, and shrinking it to fit under a car's hood would be an amazing accomplishment.
And of course, you'd have to have a strong (heavy) casing for that system, because if the flywheels failed they would explode with all that force.
Let's see....about two sticks of dynamite.
Jkirk3279 3 years ago
one revolution in materials and we have the materials we need. carbon fiber materials made a huge leap in what we can do with these technologies, and we all ready know we are no where near the limits of even this material.
some of the amazing physically _possible_ designs we have seen with some of these materials are things like rigid balloons that are 'filled' with a vacuum being used to 'balloon' materials around. these are designs we can think of now even without the materials to play with.
addmoreice 3 years ago
Corbaman: "I don't see this as a campaign issue. Many democrats and republicans favor nuclear power. It's actually a no brainer that we should be building more nuclear power."
Agree!
wildwilly1111 3 years ago
old fart
SoEpicRightNow 3 years ago 2
BUILD THE NUCLEAR PLANTS its orders of magnitude safer than coal (what we use now).
ConstantlyQuestion 3 years ago
No, not really.
It's entirely feasible to use an organic filter to trap out the pollutants in flue gas from a coal power plant.
Use Algae to capture the CO2 and transform it to oxygen, press the algae for oil and then use the pressed algae cake for fertilizer.
Thus coal power becomes clean and respectable.
Nuclear power will never be safe.
Even if we had a source of Helium 3 to make Fusion practical, it would have that element of risk.
Jkirk3279 3 years ago
Nuclear power will never be safe? Nuclear power is safe now, and only gets safer as technology progresses. Even when you filter out most of the pollutants from coal (and BTW CO2 is the LEAST of your worries when it comes to pollutants from coal) you still have the EXTREMELY dangerous process of mining coal.
ConstantlyQuestion 3 years ago
Nuclear power is NOT safe.
If you did a google search you'd find there's been quite a lot of spills and leaks worldwide.
Britain and Japan in particular.
Nuclear Fission is good for one thing: making a big bang.
You can get energy from Concentrating Solar Power that is zero risk to humans, which makes me wonder why we even NEED nuclear power.
As for coal mining, it could easily be done by remote controlled robots.
Jkirk3279 3 years ago
3 mile island is the worst nuclear civilian accident in US history, and even then, not one civilian died and the health impact was immeasurably small.
ConstantlyQuestion 3 years ago 3
Sheer luck.
When something unforeseen happens, like a meltdown, the rulebook goes out the window.
There were worries during the Three Mile Island incident when a large hydrogen bubble formed inside the containment vessel.
If any oxygen had been present, there would have been a core breach, a complete disaster.
Why mess with dangerous, expensive, poisonous nuclear energy when Concentrating Solar Power can provide all our electricity needs?
There's just no need for it.
Jkirk3279 3 years ago
Tell all of the engineers who worked tirelessly building in safety features that it was "sheer luck." You don't get a virtually flawless safety record by "sheer luck." If it's only sheer luck, then why were the russians not so lucky? Is it perhaps the engineering and safety deficiency they had? No, couldn't have been...
ConstantlyQuestion 3 years ago
WATCH SECRET AMERICAN LIES ON YOUTUBE
psoprano 3 years ago
Goddamnit JOHN! Engage in wind, solar and geothermal energy!
katey1dog 3 years ago