If we had the political will of France we could answer a few difficult questions on nuclear power and we could adopt it..but neither political party has the fortitude. The fact is no wants the waste..Nevada is tired of being the nations nuclear experimental lab..and very few other states have the isolation needed for stoarage. Maybe your Sarah Palin will support using Alaska...or maybe your new VA Governor will volunteer....but then again a state that is afraid to house terrorits is certainly not going to store nuclear waste. Oh my..what are we to do? I have a suggestion..get over it.

OMg...imagine a socialist country like France has the political will..for the common good of their people...to make a decison on nuclear power...god..I hate it when socialist and communist countries do that

Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 11/01/2009 11:14PM by Vince(1).

Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If we had the political will of France we could
> answer a few difficult questions on nuclear power
> and we could adopt it..but neither political party
> has the fortitude. The fact is no wants the
> waste..Nevada is tired of being the nations
> nuclear experimental lab..and very few other
> states have the isolation needed for stoarage.
> Maybe your Sarah Palin will support using
> Alaska...or maybe your new VA Governor will
> volunteer....but then again a state that is afraid
> to house terrorits is certainly not going to store
> nuclear waste. Oh my..what are we to do? I have
> a suggestion..get over it.

Again - the Yucca site is actually complete. The real issue wasn't that Nevada didn't want to store the waste, the issue was much more complex. A lot of the issue came from securely transporting waste across the country to the Yucca site, also many States didn't want waste to be transported through their area to go to the Yucca site. Combine that, and special interest lobbying, and we have the current impasse. At this point it is cheaper to put the site into a minimal use mode - it doesn't mean it won't happen, just that currently Harry Reid has currently managed to get it "shut down". Given a few more yeas of storing waste at multiple insecure sites and this issue will be revisited.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

You just describe how virtually every state between Maine and Nevada doesnt want nuclear waste transported through their state...and then you lay it all on Harry Reid..what a conclusion. The issue isnt the political will of Harry Reid..there isnt a republican or democrat out there willing to stand up to the fear of nuclear waste...it's political will.

Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.

My point being, Harry Reid touts it as "his" accomplishment. Eventually it will be revisited, and the likelihood is they will eventually use Yucca. Logic and science will actually dictate that.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

Well you insinuate that our fear of nuclear is unwarranted by the science..I agree..it's the lack of leadership from either party. When the federal govt determines state rights must be secondary to the national interests maybe a decision will be made...thats not exactly the republican agenda right now. VA's next Attorney-general is going to ensure he protects VA's state rights against the ever spreading socialist fedearl govt agenda

Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.

No - I didn't insinuate that at all. I merely stated the issues that have been used to derail the current efforts.

We need a safe, secure, isolated, and environmentally neutral place to store spent radioactive fuel. Yucca was selected for just that reason, based on extensive survey and other scientific analysis. Leaving it to stockpile in various dumps throughout the country is negligent and poses a greater risk to our safety that moving it to one site will. Nuclear fuel lasts something like 13 years, and then has to be cycled out and replaced. We can always suffer a train wreck, or other incident, and with the chemicals we already transport across state lines, spent nuclear fuel is a lot less worriesome in the area it could affect as opposed to a simple chlorine or other caustic chemical tanker spilling, and likely it would be easier to clean up.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

And then there's this...

U.S. Tops in Energy Resources
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=34233

When I see things like this it makes me believe even more that there is a drive behind the scenes to hold our reserves to the end - of course making the US more of a target in the eyes of the rest of the world. Information like this cannot help us in the world view.

MEMORANDUM October 20, 2009
To: Senate Environment and Public Works Committee
Subject: Terminology, Reporting, and Summary of U.S. Fossil Fuel Resources
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=01feb68b-ef57-4748-8f5c-d88c0e7d6bd5

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University
Attachments:

Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If we had the political will of France we could
> answer a few difficult questions on nuclear power
> and we could adopt it..but neither political party
> has the fortitude. The fact is no wants the
> waste..Nevada is tired of being the nations
> nuclear experimental lab..and very few other
> states have the isolation needed for stoarage.
> Maybe your Sarah Palin will support using
> Alaska...or maybe your new VA Governor will
> volunteer....but then again a state that is afraid
> to house terrorits is certainly not going to store
> nuclear waste. Oh my..what are we to do? I have
> a suggestion..get over it.
>
> OMg...imagine a socialist country like France has
> the political will..for the common good of their
> people...to make a decison on nuclear
> power...god..I hate it when socialist and
> communist countries do that


You have a point about no one wanting the "waste", but you are wrong in your belief that a government need be socialist to bring about such opportunity, or that we should simply "get over it". Nuclear Energy Production has become tremendously more efficient since we last built a Domestic Plant decades ago, and they in fact operate onboard our CVN's (Nuclear Aircraft Carriers) without problems, and without the need for re-fueling aside from every 15-20 years (This means no waste inbetween). Also, we no longer have a need for the enormous cooling towers often associated with Nuclear Power Plants, and we can also in fact place them in secure underground containments facilities, which would also happen to not only protect them against attacks, but also protect the surrounding area should any accidents occur.

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Again - the Yucca site is actually complete. The
> real issue wasn't that Nevada didn't want to store
> the waste, the issue was much more complex. A lot
> of the issue came from securely transporting waste
> across the country to the Yucca site, also many
> States didn't want waste to be transported through
> their area to go to the Yucca site.

i figured out how to resolve that problem. classify the waste's location, transport it into the facility and then inform people it's there but keep the information about how/when it was transported classified. problem solved!


"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."

coal is shit. Dont go down that road. It is a short term solution with long term problems like water air pollution oh and it is a band aid solution.

dono Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> coal is shit. Dont go down that road. It is a
> short term solution with long term problems like
> water air pollution oh and it is a band aid
> solution.

oh come on, black lung isnt THAT bad.


"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."

dono Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> coal is shit. Dont go down that road. It is a
> short term solution with long term problems like
> water air pollution oh and it is a band aid
> solution.

The Chinese are contracting for our coal. If we don't use it, they will - so... problem not solved.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

fuck china

un-fairfax aboveground Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> fuck china


Most definitely.

Unfortunately, common sentiments aside, that won't stop coal mining for Chinese or existing US coal fired power plants. The Chinese are bringing a new coal fired plant online every 30 days right now - so the demand is only going to increase.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

And Al Gore continues to benefit from essentially a position as an inside trader with the Federal government.

Gore’s Dual Role in Spotlight: Advocate and Investor
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/03/business/energy-environment/03gore.html

Quote

WASHINGTON — Former Vice President Al Gore thought he had spotted a winner last year when a small California firm sought financing for an energy-saving technology from the venture capital firm where Mr. Gore is a partner.

The company, Silver Spring Networks, produces hardware and software to make the electricity grid more efficient. It came to Mr. Gore’s firm, Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, one of Silicon Valley’s top venture capital providers, looking for $75 million to expand its partnerships with utilities seeking to install millions of so-called smart meters in homes and businesses.

Mr. Gore and his partners decided to back the company, and in gratitude Silver Spring retained him and John Doerr, another Kleiner Perkins partner, as unpaid corporate advisers.

The deal appeared to pay off in a big way last week, when the Energy Department announced $3.4 billion in smart grid grants. Of the total, more than $560 million went to utilities with which Silver Spring has contracts. Kleiner Perkins and its partners, including Mr. Gore, could recoup their investment many times over in coming years.
...

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Unfortunately, common sentiments aside, that won't
> stop coal mining for Chinese or existing US coal
> fired power plants. The Chinese are bringing a new
> coal fired plant online every 30 days right now -
> so the demand is only going to increase.


You might have already stated it, but the best way to screw China over, is to take control of the resources which they want. They own our asses right now with all of this "Made In China" crap, so we need to repay the favor.

Right now, China has all the leverage. Very few US companies have the funds to use to purchase up these assets, and China is investing and buying them up all over the world with their massive surplus that the US has funded.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Right now, China has all the leverage. Very few US
> companies have the funds to use to purchase up
> these assets, and China is investing and buying
> them up all over the world with their massive
> surplus that the US has funded.


Their leverage is all with the bums in D.C., especially the WH. Now they want to allow for China's top MIL Commander to be given access to the Penatgon. What next? Let's give the Chinese Air Force a tour of Area 51 while we're at it, ya know?

On a similar note, if we want to pursue profit and cheap labor in our production efforts, we should seriously push for development within the Caribbean. The first place I'd locate a business to take over the "Made In China" market would be the Bahamas, then possibly Costa Rica, Panama, etc. They all have prime locations (Major Seaports, and Shorter Distances), well defined banking institutions, and controllable political situations. Combine all of that with a sizeable population which is willing to work for less money than employees here in the United States, and voila, you have a Profitable Production Market.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/03/2009 01:13AM by ThePackLeader.

BTW, this is where all of our money to China is going:












Two new modern and stealthy, Type 054A guided-missile frigates were launched with the 3rd, 4th, and 5th building. More than twenty are projected.



A new, large LPD amphibious assault vessel, Type 071, was built and launched in 2006 by the PLAN.






Two new, improved Project 956, Hangzhou guided-missile destroyers were delivered to the PLAN in 2006, bringng to four the number in service.






Many more stealth catamaran FACs were built during 2006.



By way of reference, in general numbers, over the last five to six years, the PLAN has built and launched over 80 new major surface combatants for its fleet. In that same time period, they have not decommissioned any major surface combatants, meaning they have added 80 major surface combatant vessels to their inventory. In that same period, the US Navy has built 46 new major surface combatants. At the same time, the US Navy has decommissioned 49 major surface combatants, many of them with 10-15 years of service life remaining, meaning a net loss of three major surface combatants in this period.

They spend far less on national defense then we do.

Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.

Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> They spend far less on national defense then we
> do.


The U.S. does spend more of our GDP on defense, but the growing concern is how aggressive the Chinese are in modernizing and expanding their military. Even during the most tense periods of the Cold War, China didn't invest so much in their defensive capabilities.

They are poised to become a real superpower, just like India. Whereas India's defense is centered around Pakistan, China's main rival is the whole western world.

Facts don't really concern Vince. In his worldview, the US is the bad guy, and everyone else should build up their military in response to us because we are so aggressive.

Unlike those lovable Russians who are the most peaceful country on the planet.

Russia simulated attack on Poland
http://www.thenews.pl/international/artykul119078_russia_simulated_attack_on_poland.html

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 11/03/2009 10:07AM by Registered Voter.

Facts dont concern me...intreresting but untrue. The difference between myself and most of you is that I can look at the facts for what they are...without any jingoistic attitude that says whatever the U.S. does is for the world's good..and what everyone else does is for evil.

The China military question...eeesh..you define the issue in terms that lead to only one conclusion...expansion of the Chinese military is and con only be a bad thing...and the 10 times greater spending on our military can only be for good. SInce the end of the Korean War has the Chinese military engaged in any foreign adventures? None, that i can think of beyond maybe a few advisors in some African countries and perhaps in Cuba for a short period of time. Compare that to our military...our military has been involved in more and more foreign adventures.

The fact is we have a vested interest in a stable China..given their extesnsive territory..their large population and diversity of ethnic groups..some of who want independence...like our southern states once wanted independence....our well being will be enhanced by a Chinese military big enough to controil the unsatbling forces within it.

We do not need to fear a stronger China..unless of course our plans are to engage in a war with them.

Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Facts don't really concern Vince. In his
> worldview, the US is the bad guy, and everyone
> else should build up their military in response to
> us because we are so aggressive.
>
> Unlike those lovable Russians who are the most
> peaceful country on the planet.
>
> Russia simulated attack on Poland
> http://www.thenews.pl/international/artykul119078_
> russia_simulated_attack_on_poland.html


Maybe the Russians feel about Poland like you do about Venezuela. Ex-Soviet satellite nations walk a tight rope which they had better learn to navigate if they hope to remain independent.

Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.

Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Maybe the Russians feel about Poland like you do
> about Venezuela.

that it's ruled by a melodramatic crazy guy that gets laughed at in the UN?


"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."

Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ex-Soviet satellite nations walk
> a tight rope which they had better learn to
> navigate if they hope to remain independent.


??

Almost all former Eastern Bloc nations adopted pro-western policies. Now, many are members of NATO and allow American military exercises on their soil, especially Poland. There is no possibility that Russia will retake eastern Europe like it did after WWII.

Despite the show of strength from the exercises near Poland, the Russian military has been a piece of shit since the early nineties. They are in no shape to retake any country.

Yes but as can be seen, Vince believes they have a right to their former subjugated countries. Thus they must walk a tight rope, because God forbid anyone has to defend them from those peace loving Russians.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> The China military question...eeesh..you define
> the issue in terms that lead to only one
> conclusion...expansion of the Chinese military is
> and con only be a bad thing...and the 10 times
> greater spending on our military can only be for
> good.




Despite all the trade we do with China, they are still very much a Communist nation that looks to the west as a competitor. The differences and tension may not be as obvious as it was with the USSR, but it is still there.



> SInce the end of the Korean War has the
> Chinese military engaged in any foreign
> adventures?

Not until the late 1970s has China had its act together, economically and politically speaking. Even when China was aligned with the Soviet Union it wasn't expanding its military like it is doing today. Up until the early 90s the Chinese military was very rudimentary and served only as a defense force.


Vince, would you really want a country like China to assert its dominance over the world? They eat cats for Christ's sake.

Dont confuse men with nations...however it is obvious that the right of the Venezuelan to elect a "melodramatic crazy guy" is a second priority to most on here to them being other then a front for US interests.

Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.

eesh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Vince(1) Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> > The China military question...eeesh..you define
> > the issue in terms that lead to only one
> > conclusion...expansion of the Chinese military
> is
> > and con only be a bad thing...and the 10 times
> > greater spending on our military can only be
> for
> > good.
>
>
>
>
> Despite all the trade we do with China, they are
> still very much a Communist nation that looks to
> the west as a competitor. The differences and
> tension may not be as obvious as it was with the
> USSR, but it is still there.
>

Competitor? As in ideological conquest of the world? Pleaseee... The fact is we are partners...our life style depends on them..and their continued enomic growth depends on a very large part on us. Rock that boat over silly idealogical issues and you will have a financial mess yet unimagined.
>
>
> > SInce the end of the Korean War has the
> > Chinese military engaged in any foreign
> > adventures?
>
> Not until the late 1970s has China had its act
> together, economically and politically speaking.
> Even when China was aligned with the Soviet Union
> it wasn't expanding its military like it is doing
> today. Up until the early 90s the Chinese military
> was very rudimentary and served only as a defense
> force.

It still remains a wholely defensive force...so far they havent been stupid enough to throw a large part of their economy down the military commode as we have.
>
>
> Vince, would you really want a country like China
> to assert its dominance over the world? They eat
> cats for Christ's sake.


I dont want anyone to dominate the world..and I do not think it's an us or them choice.

Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/03/2009 10:00PM by Vince(1).

Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Dont confuse men with nations...however it is
> obvious that the right of the Venezuelan to elect
> a "melodramatic crazy guy" is a second priority to
> most on here to them being other then a front for
> US interests.

You mean like drug running? Yeah, vital US interest there. Oil? Chinese investment there. Nuclear energy? Iran investment there. Hmm.

Anyone here think the US would EVER let Venezuela come close to developing a nuclear bomb? So that would dictate some kind of policy if they even tried (not that I seriously expect them to). If Iran or North Korea or someone tried to help them with nuclear energy, or we had even a hint of their trying to base or acquire nuclear bomb technology do you think we would act to reset the government there? By HEAVY pressure, or some other means?

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Dont confuse men with nations...



Venezuela is very much Chavez, just as North Korea is very much Kim Jon-il. Chavez has developed a cult of personality and structured the government around his person.

Venezuela is Chavez.

Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I dont want anyone to dominate the world..and I do
> not think it's an us or them choice.

You are seriously naive.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

You are seriously a homo. But you already knew that.

Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> It still remains a wholely defensive force...
>

This is what France and England said when Hitler was building Nazi Germany, and what we said when Stalin took over in Russia.

eesh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Vince(1) Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > It still remains a wholely defensive force...
> >
>
> This is what France and England said when Hitler
> was building Nazi Germany, and what we said when
> Stalin took over in Russia.

There is no valid comparison between Germany and current day China....none. A better comparison would be made with our militaristic intervention policies.

Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.

Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> There is no valid comparison between Germany and
> current day China....none.



Complacency is the wrong attitude. In the 1930s and 40s, we had your attitude towards Germany and Japan.

Despite the economic investments in the U.S., China is very capable of surviving on its own if shit hits the fan.

I dont think so...Chinese leadership is dependent on keeping the millions and millions of people employed. If there was ever massive unemployment...the days of Communist rule would be over. And perchance you think that a good thing for...I suggest you think a little more.

Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.

Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I dont think so...Chinese leadership is dependent
> on keeping the millions and millions of people
> employed. If there was ever massive
> unemployment...the days of Communist rule would be
> over. And perchance you think that a good thing
> for...I suggest you think a little more.

Uh, it's fucking China. They have a a pool of over a billion people at their disposal, and the government can make the people do pretty much anything thanks to the beauty of communism. To say China is dependent on America is not just dumb, it's fucking retarded.

--------------------------------------------------------------
13 4826 0948 82695 25847. Yes.

MrMephisto Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> To say China is dependent on America is not just
> dumb, it's fucking retarded.


Especially when they have their own oil supply while we depend on the Middle East for it.

Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I dont think so...Chinese leadership is dependent
> on keeping the millions and millions of people
> employed. If there was ever massive
> unemployment...the days of Communist rule would be
> over. And perchance you think that a good thing
> for...I suggest you think a little more.

Riiiiiight. They can relocate millions of people out of their homes and ancestral lands to build a dam. "Employment" is as simple as saying, "We need a road through that impassable mountain. Any loyal citizen of the peoples army will gladly report to the Office of Re-Assignment and join the glorious cause. If you are not currently working this is a mandate." (understood at the end of the message) "Oh - by the way - if you are found unemployed, of working age, and not at the office within 30 days you will be thrown in the penal mines and no one will ever hear from you again."

You act like the Chinese are just peace loving hippies that want to spread love and joy to the world Vince. Why don't you move over there if they are so wonderful - I am sure they would welcome you with open arms.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University