I can hardly believe this... (US environmental policy)

[JohnnyEgo]

Well, that Trailer looked very Fallout-y at least in the scenery, too bad its an MMO, I am not fan of MMO's

Most of this part of the country is full of arroyos, box canyons, buttes, mesas, and the like. It's all very pretty, and all very windy.

And the obligatory un-cropped shot with windmills everywhere:

Still, small communities resent having them, and protests abound. Until the companies double the compensations, that is, then it's always OK.

We're fairly sparsely populated, and the wind farms in this area are on private property, so most of the complaining comes from naturalists, birders, and the faux-hippie earth-muffin types equipped with I-Phones and leather shoes. As is often the case in the US, there was strong economic incentive for private enterprise to build wind plants here, which was far more influential than environmental or governmental aspirations.

 

[fedaykin]

When the operators realized the magnitude of the nightmare, they tried to scram the reactor by dropping all of the control rods. It didn't work. The fuel rods exploded, also igniting the graphite moderators. Boom! Chernobyl.

AFAIK it wasn't the fuel rods that exploded. It was a steam explosion. By the time they fully inserted the control rods, there was already a lot of steam built up. The control rods had graphite tips. Initially, upon insertion, the graphite tips had the effect of speeding up the reaction, and only later would have started to slow it down (they had some inexperienced people working that day who either forgot or didn't know of this effect). But since there was already too much steam and heat, the rods all started to melt, more steam built up and blew the huge metal lid off the reactor, creating a gaping hole in the building and spraying radioactive debris all over the place.

As for Obama, it is equally not honest to present him as being anti-nuclear energy, which is what DB did, when he's clearly not. Whether 8 billion is 'enough' is a whole different matter.

 

[DammitBoy]

As for Obama, it is equally not honest to present him as being anti-nuclear energy, which is what DB did, when he's clearly not. Whether 8 billion is 'enough' is a whole different matter.

Clearly you don't understand what Obama thinks and you buy the hype he presents like a used car salesman.

---

He can proclaim all the tax incentives and guaranteed loans he wants (which makes him look good ) because he knows nothing will come of it, as johnnyego clearly and succinctly pointed out supporting my argument that Obama is a fake.

No surprise that you completely ignore those facts. I'll bet you think Criss Angel's Mindfreak illusions are real too.

 

[fedaykin]

Clearly, you can read Obama's mind.

Meanwhile, back in the real world outside of your warped Republican reality, the facts show that Obama isn't anti-nuclear energy.

 

[JohnnyEgo]

When the operators realized the magnitude of the nightmare, they tried to scram the reactor by dropping all of the control rods. It didn't work. The fuel rods exploded, also igniting the graphite moderators. Boom! Chernobyl.

AFAIK it wasn't the fuel rods that exploded. It was a steam explosion. By the time they fully inserted the control rods, there was already a lot of steam built up. The control rods had graphite tips. Initially, upon insertion, the graphite tips had the effect of speeding up the reaction, and only later would have started to slow it down (they had some inexperienced people working that day who either forgot or didn't know of this effect). But since there was already too much steam and heat, the rods all started to melt, more steam built up and blew the huge metal lid off the reactor, creating a gaping hole in the building and spraying radioactive debris all over the place.

You are 100% correct in that nuclear reactors do not have sufficient quantities of fissile material in a configuration that could generate a nuclear explosion. The fuel rods went into full meltdown, generating tremendous heat and pressure and off-gassing radioactive material through the evaporative process. But the fuel rods themselves did not essentially explode; they facilitated the over-pressurization by the coolant, which caused a steam explosion of the pressure vessel.

 

[Crni Vuk]

Clearly, you can read Obama's mind...

Took you quite some time to figure out DBs skill. He isnt only able to read others mind. He can also smell a commie-bastard from 2 and a half mile.

It comes also with the americano-superiosis-syndrome

 

[fedaykin]

Of course it took me some time, I'm a tree-hugging, commie, pro-nuclear liberal.

 

[JohnnyEgo]

As for Obama, it is equally not honest to present him as being anti-nuclear energy, which is what DB did, when he's clearly not. Whether 8 billion is 'enough' is a whole different matter.

Clearly, you can read Obama's mind.

Meanwhile, back in the real world outside of your warped Republican reality, the facts show that Obama isn't anti-nuclear energy.

I tend to stay out of politics as a practice of polite consideration, as I believe people rarely change their political views based on argument or recitation of facts on internet forums. Generally, I think it's a waste of electrons.

So I will limit myself to a very focused, specific commentary on this one political aspect, and then I will refrain from commenting on it again, for the sake of my own blood pressure as well as everyone else's.

At the best and most charitable characterization I can make, President Obama has shown semi-benevolent apathy towards nuclear power in deed and action. Yes, he has publicly stated that he supports nuclear power. Yes, he has allocated $8 billion in loan guarantees. No, neither of these actions have resulted in any change to the status of the 13 remaining applications to build new commercial power plants in the United States.

So what significant action has the President taken that is pro nuclear? On the most compelling, most important component of the issue, namely waste management, he proposed to completely eliminate funding for long term secure storage from the budget. He appointed three commissioners to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission who all testified in confirmation hearings that they would promise to support the withdraw of the license application for Yucca Mountain. This now puts four of the five political appointees who run the NRC in the position of having publicly stated they support the abandonment of Yucca Mountain. (The fourth being a Democrat from a long prior appointment.)

It is hard for me to reconcile, outside of the context of politics, the statement that someone can claim to support a position while simultaneously acting against core components of that same position.

I firmly believe that it is politically expedient for President Obama to claim that he is 'Pro Nuclear', as it has been at times for his predecessors on both sides of the political spectrum. That doesn't make it true.

 

[Crni Vuk]

no that for sure not. But it probably isnt really acurate to say "anti-nuclear" either. I think the truth is much more simple. He is simply plainyg the "political game". So he isnt trying to anger any side of the fence. Doesnt make him a saint for sure. But he isnt worse then 90% of the other politicans out there.

 

[JohnnyEgo]

I think the truth is much more simple. He is simply plainyg the "political game". So he isnt trying to anger any side of the fence. Doesnt make him a saint for sure. But he isnt worse then 90% of the other politicans out there.

On that, we are in complete agreement.

 

[DammitBoy]

I think the truth is much more simple. He is simply playing the "political game".

This is exactly correct, he is playing a political game by pretending to be pro-nuclear, while his actions, as johnnyego has pointed out, are the exact opposite of pro-nuclear.

Don't play semantics - nothing he has done will produce a single power plant ever. Actions speak louder than hollow words and pretty speeches.

He is a snake-oil salesman - nothing more.

 

[Crni Vuk]

well he is like most politicans in a democracy a product of the political enviroment. Abortions for one group. Mini-flags for the other (if you seen the Simpson episode you will understand).

Maybe Obama even has real intentions. But he cant get them trough because of to much resistance. On the other side. A president is only as powerfull like the sheep under him. It was always that way.

 

[fedaykin]

Yucca Mountain

Hmm, yeah, seems like a good place to store nuclear waste. I didn't know of any reason not to until you mentioned it again and I decided to investigate.

March 2006, the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works Majority Staff issued a 25 page white paper "Yucca Mountain: The Most Studied Real Estate on the Planet." The conclusions were:[27]

* Extensive studies consistently show Yucca Mountain to be a sound site for nuclear waste disposal

Excellent, work can proceed then. Obama and his cronies are idiots, it's perfectly safe, why don't they want to

Nevada ranks fourth in the nation for current seismic activity

Oh wait, what?

In September 2007, it was discovered that the Bow Ridge fault line ran underneath the facility

Fuck!

beneath a storage pad where spent radioactive fuel canisters would be cooled before being sealed in a maze of tunnels.

No way!!!

The concern is that, in an earthquake, the unanchored casks of nuclear waste material awaiting burial at Yucca Mountain could be sent into a "chaotic melee of bouncing and rolling juggernauts

Yikes, not such a good place after all, is it?

Is think DB and I both know what this means. Obama told his relatives in Kenya to use their powerful voodoo magic to conjure up a fault line beneath the facility so that he could use it as a reason to stop the project! Damn him and his shenanigans!

And damn those Nevadans too for not wanting more nuclear crap in their back yard.

The project is widely opposed in Nevada and is a hotly debated national topic. A two-thirds majority of Nevadans feel it is unfair for their state to have to store nuclear waste when there are no nuclear power plants in Nevada.

Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain_nuclear_waste_repository

 

[JohnnyEgo]

Yucca Mountain

Hmm, yeah, seems like a good place to store nuclear waste. I didn't know of any reason not to until you mentioned it again and I decided to investigate.

March 2006, the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works Majority Staff issued a 25 page white paper "Yucca Mountain: The Most Studied Real Estate on the Planet." The conclusions were:[27]

* Extensive studies consistently show Yucca Mountain to be a sound site for nuclear waste disposal

Excellent, work can proceed then. Obama and his cronies are idiots, it's perfectly safe, why don't they want to

Nevada ranks fourth in the nation for current seismic activity

Oh wait, what?

In September 2007, it was discovered that the Bow Ridge fault line ran underneath the facility

Fuck!

beneath a storage pad where spent radioactive fuel canisters would be cooled before being sealed in a maze of tunnels.

No way!!!

The concern is that, in an earthquake, the unanchored casks of nuclear waste material awaiting burial at Yucca Mountain could be sent into a "chaotic melee of bouncing and rolling juggernauts

Yikes, not such a good place after all, is it?

Is think DB and I both know what this means. Obama told his relatives in Kenya to use their powerful voodoo magic to conjure up a fault line beneath the facility so that he could use it as a reason to stop the project! Damn him and his shenanigans!

And damn those Nevadans too for not wanting more nuclear crap in their back yard.

The project is widely opposed in Nevada and is a hotly debated national topic. A two-thirds majority of Nevadans feel it is unfair for their state to have to store nuclear waste when there are no nuclear power plants in Nevada.

Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain_nuclear_waste_repository

Regardless of my general disinclination to make sole-source counter arguments, much less via Wikipedia, I present you with three things to consider:

1. Perhaps you missed the paragraph directly above the one you quoted, which states:

DOE has stated that seismic and tectonic effects on the natural systems at Yucca Mountain will not significantly affect repository performance. Yucca Mountain lies in a region of ongoing tectonic deformation, but the deformation rates are too slow to significantly affect the mountain during the 10,000-year regulatory compliance period. Rises in the water table caused by seismic activity would be, at most, a few tens of meters and would not reach the repository. The fractured and faulted volcanic tuff that Yucca Mountain comprises reflects the occurrence of many earthquake-faulting and strong ground motion events during the last several million years, and the hydrological characteristics of the rock would not be changed significantly by seismic events that may occur in the next 10,000 years. The engineered barrier system components will reportedly provide substantial protection of the waste form from seepage water, even under severe seismic loading.[11]

2. Perhaps, in that same article, you misunderstood that while the surface staging areas could have been effected by the fault line, the deep geological repository would not have been. It could also be pointed out that the research and scrutiny of said areas facilitated plan changes to correct for the peril. Or perhaps you understood that completely, but didn't care, because it was not germane to the point you wanted to make.

3. I am sure many Nevadans don't want the repository in their territory. I am equally sure that many were not enthusiastic about the 900-odd nuclear bomb tests on the adjacent property. However, that 2/3 majority thing sure caught my attention. I was taken aback by the idea that 66% disagree, so I clicked on the citation next to that statement. Which sited the Congressional Record of the House of Representatives for March 8, 2007. Since our government conveniently keeps it's records for the sessions in .pdf format, I was able to easily look the citation up. I read page 2332, which is specifically cited, and page 2331, which was not. They contain the transcript for the honorable gentlewoman from the state of Nevada, Representative Berkley. Ms. Berkley was not a fan of Yucca Mountain, and had several concerns, but not once was it mentioned that 2/3 of Nevadans rejected the proposal. In fact, no statement whatsoever was made as to the number of Nevadans who agreed or disagreed with anything.

At this point, I felt pretty good about staying single-source. Granted, the Congressional Record was on another site, but it was cited by the article, so I didn't violate the spirit of my counterargument. However, my burning curiosity as to where this poll of Nevadans could have come from did cause me to search for it. I could not find it. The closest I came to it was a petition signed by 4000 Nevadans and sent to the NRC (my preferred choice over Wikipedia for information regarding US civilian nuclear matters). It is very clear to me that 4000 Nevadans don't want Yucca Mountain, but that still leaves an undocumented 1,662,667.5 people unaccounted for in that 2/3 majority, give or take. Now, the Reno Gazette did conduct a poll in 2007 that found that 76% of 600 Nevadans surveyed did not want Yucca Mountain, but that, too is a long ways off from 2/3 of 2.5 million people. And of course, that is not the source listed for that particular WikiFact.

And that is why Wikipedia is not the best source for a sole-source argument. Hey, though, good on you for taking the time to research the issue.

Inspired by your quality research, I have been able to find at least one group of people who like Yucca Mountain.

 

[Crni Vuk]

the problem I have with geological research is that it hardly can be called an acurate sience/field like for example math. That doesnt mean those people are idiots or anything ! Or that what they say is inherently incorect. But from what I understand it seems extremly difficult to make predictions. I mean quite often you get 2 experts and they have different oppinions where one is saying "that area is save" while the other might have a different oppinion. Actually that is the problem we have in Germany right now with some area where the gouvernement says that it is save (their experts) while some other people have a different oppinion. Now who is right in the end ?

I just think such decisions are always diffcult for any politican. Becase in the end they are probably when it comes to such things not much better educated then most people. Particularly since many politicans have been laywers or have some degree in economics. But geology ? physics ?

 

[DammitBoy]

I'm reminded of an old saying.

Q: What's the difference between a blind man and a person who refuses to see?

A: Nothing.

 

[Crni Vuk]

well letz say you would be a president or congressman and had to decide a very complex case like to start a war, or use some area for waste or anything like that and you have a handfull of experts which say contradicting things. What will you do ? Particularly when it is clear that with a false decision it is your ass which will be burned in the public.

To say that. I am sure not defending "politicans". Many of them are corrupt and lobbyists. But still many of them also have to decide very complex situations. And if you look at some politicians you can see that they really suffer from it (I doubt Kennedy had much sleep during the cuba crisis for example).

 

[fedaykin]

Regardless of my general disinclination to make sole-source counter arguments, much less via Wikipedia,

Heh, I knew someone would say that. People tend to play the "Wikipedia cannot be trusted" card when you rebut their argument with information from Wiki. Still, that doesn't change the fact that most of what I quoted was accurate. Wiki is not sole-source, its articles contain references to multiple sources. Regardless of the chance of human error which exists even in academic writing, I see no major reason to doubt the accuracy of these articles.

I present you with three things to consider:

1. Perhaps you missed the paragraph directly above the one you quoted, which states:

No, I saw that, and noted that this was before the fault line was discovered in 2007 which changes matters.

2. Perhaps, in that same article, you misunderstood that while the surface staging areas could have been effected by the fault line, the deep geological repository would not have been.

The article doesn't appear to say that and it doesn't make sense regardless. If the epicenter were to be directly beneath the repository, a high-magnitude quake would surely affect it considerably.

It could also be pointed out that the research and scrutiny of said areas facilitated plan changes to correct for the peril. Or perhaps you understood that completely, but didn't care, because it was not germane to the point you wanted to make.

This correction was apparently described as "just-in-time engineering". I don't know the details myself, but I wouldn't be willing to bet. Would you be willing to bet if you lived near Yucca Mountain, knowing that a fault line runs underneath it? Indeed, it was not germane for the aforementioned reasons.

I think it's clear enough that knowingly building a nuclear waste facility on or close to a fault line in the state with the 4th largest seismic activity is not the smartest idea. We know what can happen when when a nuclear facility is built on or near a fault line:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/jul/18/japan.justinmccurry
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iNL9X8M_c6o
Japan is lucky, because there is no large-scale nuclear disaster...yet. But despite the safety precautions that Japanese engineers take against quakes, there's a considerable risk. Again, would you be willing to bet?

If Obama gave the green light to the project and a decade later a spill happened as a result of a quake, guess who'd be blamed.

I hope you can see that there are legitimate objections to be made which serve as a basis for Obama's opposition to the project. It makes sense not to take any chances with radioactive waste.

2/3 majority

This is indeed an error. When you mentioned it I tried finding the source too and it's not in the cited document.

I did, however, find multiple polls which may have originally served as a kind of source for the 2/3 claim. Aside from the poll you mentioned (apparently this one: http://www.nevadaappeal.com/article/20071127/NEWS01/71127006 ), there was this one in 2002:
http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/yuccamtn/poll.html
Note how there is an almost equal sample of Dems and Reps. Furthermore, they are almost equally opposed to the project. If Obama's catering to Nevadans on this issue, he's catering to Dems and Reps alike.

Of course it still isn't true that 2/3 of ALL Nevadans are opposed.
But I'm a bit surprised that you appear to be hinting (?) that all 2.5 million residents would have to be questioned to get an accurate picture of public sentiment. I'm sure you realize that this is neither possible, nor necessary. A well-designed poll can produce a representative picture. And the poll in the Review Journal link seems to have done that:

The margin for error, according to standards customarily used by statisticians, is no more than plus or minus 4 percentage points. This means that there is a 95 percent probability that the "true" figure would fall within that range if the entire population were sampled.

There are mentions of the Yucca Mountain project being unpopular among Nevadans elsewhere on the internet as well. It certainly doesn't seem to be a myth that many Nevadans oppose it. But you already admitted that initially in your third point.

 

[DammitBoy]

Nevada certainly didn't oppose the tax dollars spent to build the Yucca mountain facility.

A politician caters to whims and polls. We need someone better than that to move forward with solutions instead of worrying about their precious political career.

 

[fedaykin]

Yeah, because it's not a politician's job to serve the people....what?