HOLY SHIT! Must see documentary, GASLAND!

It's

now more than ever...

Even more reason why the ENTIRE US needs to run on nuclear power. Much cleaner than all that other shit, and cheaper and more sustainable.

 

Hydroelectricity?

There is zero worries of a meltdown with western nuclear design.

 

1) All western reactors have a negative thermal coefficient. This means the reactivity of the core decreases as the temperature increases. Chernobyl had a positive reactor coefficient, meaning the reactivity of the core increased as fuel heated up which led to the explosion.

 

2) Western designs have thick concrete and steel containment domes, Chernobyl did not.

 

 

3) Western reactors are light or heavy water moderated, Chernobyl was graphite moderated. (I should note the British do have some graphite moderated plants, but they use a different cycle than that of Chernobyl)

 

4) The new reactors made by GE, Westinghouse, and Areva are passively safe. What this means is light water is used as a moderator to slow neutorns down to the thermal spectrum so they will interact with other fuel elements. In a loss of coolant accident the water boils off, the neutrons remain fast and the reactors stop. This means melt downs are impossible.

 

5) You receive four times as much radiation in a year, than you would if you stood at the fence of 3 Mile Island.

 

6) We need 200 more 20 years ago.

 

Very interesting, are you a nuclear engineer?

Nuclear plants create a tremendous amount of power with very little cost.

 

For instance, there is a nuclear power plant in homestead,FL. It had something like a 2 degree shift in temperature, it went into safe mode, and shut down power from Key Largo to Orlando for about an hour about 2 years ago. That is just one plant that can power just about the entire state, and there are almost zero potential risks, and MUCH less environmental issues. It will cut our dependency on foreign and domestic oil more than in HALF from what I was told.

Good to see nuclear power gaining support, though still way behind where it should be. I've worked with DOE and NRC now for many years and, as ts640 described, the current generation of reactors is extremely safe; I'm hesitant to say anything is fail-proof, but they're as close as possible. We are also getting much better at sequestering nuclear waste as well so that the environmental impact from waste storage is minimal. From start to finish, nuclear power is without doubt the cleanest and safest option.

Very interesting, are you a nuclear engineer?

 

MechE.

The French are doing fine with it..... And they fcuk up everything they touch.... (sorry Tommy).

Yes the new designs out are a much improvement over the Babcock-Wilcox designs of the past, and much more reliable and efficient. The only concern is where do we get rid of spent fuel and materials from our current reactors and potential future ones...with the Nevada location in limbo due to political posturing..

Water wells that tap into groundwater acquifers typically don't go more than a few hundred feet. The fracking takes place thousands of feet down. It is extremely unlikely that fracturing at that depth would have any effect on the groundwater unless the underlying rock formation was already in a condition that would allow gas to seep upward anyway. Not saying it could never happen, but it isn't a huge crisis like they are trying to make it out to be.

 

Shale gas, like shale oil is a bottom of the barrel energy resource, we are tapping into it because we have few other fossil fuel alternatives. Its true that the shale is buried thousands of feet, but by cracking it, it is possible for gas to permeate to the surface, and if a formation already has natural seepage, fracking it will only make it worse.

 

The real problem is the FRACK PROCESS, which uses trillions of gallons of water laced with toxic chemicals. Half of this dirty water is NOT RETRIEVED, some left deep in the ground and ALSO on the surface in collecting pools, where evaporation and leakage into ground water occur. Once in the environment these nasty chemicals will be around for a long time, NOT GOOD.

 

What really bothers me is the environmental exemptions granted to the industry.... the EPA doesn't have to monitor the sites due to the fact that they are out of its fcuking jurisdiction, and Haliburton doesn't have to disclose all of the chemicals it uses, thats pathetic.

 

I am all for drilling but for the love of god, do it RIGHT, either deep in the ocean or some one's back nine in Texas. If shale gas is the way to go, figure out a way to extract it that doesn't even remotely affect the water supply. Our priories are seriously fucked up, if we put energy ahead of clean water, which is basic to life.

I am all for drilling but for the love of god, do it RIGHT, either deep in the ocean or some one's back nine in Texas. If shale gas is the way to go, figure out a way to extract it that doesn't even remotely affect the water supply. Our priories are seriously fucked up, if we put energy ahead of clean water, which is basic to life.

 

I agree, however deep-water drilling can be hazardous too, that is the major problem with this BP oil spill, it's in a depth they haven't really drilled at before. If they had been able to drill at lesser depths, they would know better how to handle it.

This guy was on NPR last week, very interesting...

 

New Film Investigates 'Fracking' For Natural Gas

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.p...oryId=127932770

 

Most corporation don't give a sh!t about anyone but their bottom lines. I'd love to see the list of the patriots that got contributions. Could be Avatar part two.

 

GasLand (2010)

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1558250/

watching it now

Hydroelectricity?

I forgot to add that hydro in the US is a dying industry, with the increasing environmental issues, and rising ocean levels, storage of water for generation is declining every year, increased water releases for environmental reasons prevails...I even doubt that Lake Mead will ever fill up again...

Most corporation don't give a sh!t about anyone but their bottom lines.

 

Damn straight, this is the most basic zero sum fallacy that for one to win someone else has to lose. When in reality the only way to get big bottom lines in the long term is to meet human needs and create value for our fellow human beings.

 

This paper is a good read:

 

 

The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits

by Milton Friedman

http://www.colorado.edu/studentgroups/libe...p-business.html

So let's stop drilling for oil and gas, and let's stop using coal while we're at it, because we are wrecking the beautiful mountains. Forget nuclear power. We need to go back to a simpler time before we had cars and electricity and lived in caves. The only downside is that we are going to have to give up Lambo Power.

 

Water wells that tap into groundwater acquifers typically don't go more than a few hundred feet. The fracking takes place thousands of feet down. It is extremely unlikely that fracturing at that depth would have any effect on the groundwater unless the underlying rock formation was already in a condition that would allow gas to seep upward anyway. Not saying it could never happen, but it isn't a huge crisis like they are trying to make it out to be.

 

 

exxxactly- I'm actually a wellsite geologist and I work in the Marcellus shale (haven't seen the doc. yet, so I don't know where it takes place)- the fracking takes place in the marcellus formation (where the gas is) which is typically on the order of 6,500 feet below the surface. Not to mention the abundant (not to mention thick) layers of siltstone and limestone which act as gas and oil caps. I'm not trying to defend the industry or anything, I just think a little cautious skepticism is always in order.

I think if properly regulated and not rushed, it would seem fracking is safe...when hurried for the sake of profit, lots of stuff fucks up a la' BP.