Me First?

[dotnmarty]

Does Honda make a 40 hp nuclear reactor?

 

[drjohn71a]

Oh Brent.... that was good! I sent it to my boys. So, I guess no hoya dumpong within 12 miles of shore. John

 

[dotnmarty]

Georgetown's basketball team is called The Hoyas. Georgetown is located in Washington D.C. Those Jesuits really have a sense of humor!

 

[Sneaks]

Disgusted with our politicians on both sides of the fence. We seem to be poorly represented--what with earmarks, Pork Barrel economics, lack of morals and lack of common sense.

Doc, it looks like the good folks of Pierre South Dakota took that disgust to the polls with them....

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15622299/ :shock: :shock:

 

[mikeporterinmd]

"not Russia or China. (You all do know that Iraq has the largest
untapped oil supplies left in the world, right?) "

No Russia and China have the largest untapped and undiscovered oil reserves inthe world. We in the us have vast untapped reserves. Also , and you should look this up, the largest use of oil in the U.S. is heating oil. Something like 30 percent. Mostly on the east coast. We could cut all of that with a few small nuke plants, like the french. and no I still dont want to talk about it. the kid has NROTC drill tonight.

fuel oil: 710+4151=4,861
gas: 9,225
total oil use: 20,584

So, that's fuel oil at 23%, not far from your 30%. However, gas is 44%, or not quite
double fuel oil.

These are estimated nine month 2006 averages taken from

http://auto.howstuffworks.com/framed.ht ... petro.html

Yes, we could use nuke plants, but we need a viable plan for storing the
waste that comes from those plants.

It would be much easier to not drive SUVs around quite so much.

US oil production has been declining steadily over the last 20 years. Stating
that we have vast reserves isn't a statement that can be disproven because it
doesn't mean anything. However, we can state that US production is not keeping
up with US demand and there are no indications it ever will unless we make
changes.

I don't know so much about Russia and China reserves. For China, numbers
I found don't show huge reserves - not when compared to the middle east/persian
gulf.

Mike

 

[Sea Wolf]

Mikporterinmd wrote:

"Yes, we could use nuke plants, but we need a viable plan for storing the
waste that comes from those plants."

Mike-

I think the problem is more of the Not In My Backyard (NIMBY) type than the technology type. Many folks, especially those unfamiliar with the technical problems of containing nuclear waste, are simply hysterical about any such storage near them.

I have a friend who is a Planetary Geologist from NASA who was put in charge of the nuclear waste storage program from the AEC at one point, and he has said that there is virtually no rational discussion possible with a community once they find out that the AEC is looking at a location for storage anywhere near them.

It's too bad nuclear power has such a bad rep from the cold war and a few careless incidents from the past. It could seriously help solve our energy dependency on oil.

Thanks for your comments!

Joe.

 

[mikeporterinmd]

Mikporterinmd wrote:

"Yes, we could use nuke plants, but we need a viable plan for storing the
waste that comes from those plants."

Mike-

I think the problem is more of the Not In My Backyard (NIMBY) type than the technology type. Many folks, especially those unfamiliar with the technical problems of containing nuclear waste, are simply hysterical about any such storage near them.

I have a friend who is a Planetary Geologist from NASA who was put in charge of the nuclear waste storage program from the AEC at one point, and he has said that there is virtually no rational discussion possible with a community once they find out that the AEC is looking at a location for storage anywhere near them.

It's too bad nuclear power has such a bad rep from the cold war and a few careless incidents from the past. It could seriously help solve our energy dependency on oil.

Thanks for your comments!

Joe.

I could never understand the "people" problems associated with nuclear plants. I knew a
guy that was a security guard at one. The place was staffed with poorly paid, sloppy
employees. Just doesn't make sense to try and save money in that way. Think
Homer Simpson. Really.

Sure, who wants to trust the low bidder on a contract to store nuclear waste near
their house...

Maybe we can send it all to France

And while nuclear might == home heat to many people, I suspect that many of
us could make do with electric commuter cars. If the power came from a "good"
source...and the cars were cheap enough so I could afford to maintain a truck
or SUV to pull my CD-22...

Mike

 

[Anonymous]

The current administration has an interesting method of enforcing laws and regulations, particularly in the areas of environmental and worker protection and consumer product safety. They appoint someone to run an agency who comes from an industry that the agency regulates. The administrator tries to 'enforce' a law or regulation. The industry challenges the law or regulation in court, whereby the administrator settles the suit by capitulating to the industry. This tactic is nothing new to the U.S. government, done with a wink and a nod here and there. But it has never been implemented so blatantly or vigorously as by the current administration. How can they, or any future administration, be trusted to manage something with such serious consequences as the nuclear energy industry.

Given the overall trend of corporations to cut what ever corner they can to maximize profits for the shareholders, they have demonstrated that they will push the safety envelope just as far as they can. There have been way too many real-life examples of this with catastrophic results.

I'd like to see nuclear energy be made to work, and I believe that the technology likely exists to ensure a reliable and safe environment for that industry. I simply don't have evidence that the safety factor will win out over the greed factor. In my experience, it's just the converse.

Hope my disagreement isn't too disagreeable to my C-Dory compatriots.

Tom

 

[dotnmarty]

I remember when public utilities were public utilities. Gasoline should be included, as well as nuclear power.

 

[Captains Cat]

The current administration has an interesting method of enforcing laws and regulations, particularly in the areas of environmental and worker protection and consumer product safety. They appoint someone to run an agency who comes from an industry that the agency regulates. The administrator tries to 'enforce' a law or regulation. The industry challenges the law or regulation in court, whereby the administrator settles the suit by capitulating to the industry.

Hope my disagreement isn't too disagreeable to my C-Dory compatriots.

Tom

I don't disagree with you altogetherTom but how about a few (more than one) examples? I don't think it's as "rampant" as you make it out to be. It's hard to get folks that are knowledgeable in an industry to run an agency that regulates them without having come from that industry, or at least has a lot of experience with it. I don't think I'd want someone in there that was ignorant at what he/she was doing. Not that they shouldn't enforce the laws, however. That's what IG's are for, along with oversight committees.

I don't think it's just the "current administration" either. (on edit) Matter of fact, the "current administration" is a good example of why a person should NOT run an agency/branch of govt. unless he knows something about a part of it at least. Although I voted for him the last time, George Bush (the current one, not his Dad) should not be running the USA. Neither he nor Rummy know much about the military and have not conducted the "war" the way it should have been conducted, if it should be conducted at all.

Here we go again, what does this have to do with C-Dorys? Maybe since it's "that's life", it doesn't matter?

Charlie

 

[dotnmarty]

Charlie wrote:

I don't think I'd want someone in there that was ignorant at what he/she was doing. Not that they shouldn't enforce the laws, however. That's what IG's are for, along with oversight committees.

Based on this weeks election most people in South Dakota and the other 49 states agree with you.

 

[Captains Cat]

Charlie wrote:

I don't think I'd want someone in there that was ignorant at what he/she was doing. Not that they shouldn't enforce the laws, however. That's what IG's are for, along with oversight committees.

Based on this weeks election most people in South Dakota and the other 49 states agree with you.

I've got an old 48 Star Holiday Ensign (US Flag) (about 16 X 22 and made of wool) that was a leftover from the Battleship Missouri (BB 63) when we recomissioned it. I offered that and all the rest of the "relics" we found on board during the reactivation to the Navy Museum but they didn't want it. I hang it off of the end of my barn in Maine whenever I'm there on the Fourth of July.

Her Grandmother, who lived to be 93 and passed away in the late 80's had a small one that she used to hang out, rather than buy new flags when Alaska and Hawaii came into the Union, she made, and sewed on an extra star for each of them. Quite a sight, sure wish I had that one too.

Now the Dems can have a shot at fixing the things they said were wrong, we'll see how they do. It's not easy!! :wink

My bride gets to choose which of the current states we will not recognize over that holiday!! :lol:

 

[Sawdust]

And screw up things that are right?

Dusty

 

[Captains Cat]

And screw up things that are right?

Dusty

I'm sure they will. That was a TIC comment*

*Tongue in Cheek

How you doin' shipmate? Happy Vets day! (observed)

Charlie

 

[Catman]

Mike on Shelly-IV, I absolutely agree with you regarding respect for our right to privacy, indeed, our Bill Of Rights.

Tom/Reckless Abandon: Nicely stated. And Marty, my friend, thanks for the courage you showed in initiating this thread, and adding to it.

I'm a proud Democrat, and I'm damn glad we jettisoned this phony crock of liers and self-aggrandizers, and eventually came to realize we were seduced by cotton candy, balloons and sweet talk. Thank goodness we're now accepting what was evident six years ago.
:smiled

 

[dotnmarty]

OK guys, it's Veterans Day. Let's just pause and take a moment to be grateful for the US Constitution and those precious men and women who sacrifice(d) to defend it. Then, next week, regardless of our pollitics, lets take some time and read the Constitution. It's the least we can do to honor those who defended it.

 

[Anonymous]

Hey Catman, go back to the first page and you will realize that Marty did not start this thread. I do however appreciate the part about the courage shown. Actully this thread was an exercise in human nature. I wanted to see where some of you come from politically and to determine if we are so narrow minded as to wholly blame one group or another. I have concluded that for the most part we share the same frustrations and am wondering where we go from here. Has this wonderful system our founders created become our undoing or is there hope that we can make it work as it was intended.
And yes it is Veterans Day, my appreciation to those of you making it happen today. Mike on Huda Thunkit (Vietnam-1970) :thup

 

[Catman]

Alasgun, you're right, and I stand corrected. dotnmarty didn't start this thread. In fact, you did. And you did what none of us did, which is begin a conversation about politics. Heck, a major election, fer cripes sakes.

You and I might have more in common than we think. We both love our country. We're both Americans, and reap the glory of that birthright, carved as it is by brave veterans and conscientious, dedicated citizens back home.

I just want to assert this: We're bound to disagree, but as the cliche goes, we need not be disagreeable. I will verbally bite policies and politicians I believe deleterious to the American middle and underclass. Yet I will never attack you as an individual. And now at middle age, I no longer accept same.

 

[Catman]

And I don't at all mean to say you were disagreeable, if that's what I sounded like. I just like it when people with different opinions can talk to one another.