Reptile & Amphibian Forums

While most people are for nuclear power, many "environmental" groups have successfully blocked it, time and time again.

Consider this:

We dig uranium ore out of the ground and refine it (basically concentrating it).
We extract a huge amount of energy out of it-and it is the cheapest energy around. It could make hydrogen powered cars possible because a huge amount of energy is needed to make hydrogen .
We can no longer put it back into the ground from where it came because it is too dangerous. I am surprised that some hot-shot environmental lawyer hasn't figured out a way to make the EPA make entire Earth a clean up site due to all the natural Uranium!

We refine the raw ore, but environmental organizations have filed suits and blocked the re-refining of the spent fuel rods! This would cut the volume of nuclear waste by about 90%. If we can refine it once, why are they so against it being re-refined? Don't they want to reduce the nuclear waste by about 90%?--Again, it's lawsuits that mean money for the "environmental" lawyers, and that is all they care about.

Uranium is one of the most common substances on Earth. I read once that you could get at least a few kilograms of it by digging up any football field in the country about 4-5 feet deep and refining that soil. This was any football field, not a special one with special dirt!

Most of our electrical power comes from burning coal that is laced with plutonium. Would you rather that tons of plutonium be burned (along with thousands of tons of coal) and the resulting soot be placed into the atmosphere for us to breath, or would you rather that uranium be used in power plants and returned to the earth from whence it came?

Many will cite things like Three Mile Island, but do you know how far technology has come since that plant was built? We even know how to use "pellet" technology now that makes meltdowns impossible. Do you remember the computer you had 30 years ago and how reliable it was. (I bet you didn't even have one then, and if you did, it would be larger than a house and could do less than a modern hand held calculator!)

And one last question for environmentalists. How can you let the French beat us in this field, when we are the ones designing and building their modern power plants (not to mention storing their spent fuel on our land, but we can't store our own)?

Why do "environmentalists" block these things? (Again, I am talking about organized "environmentalist" groups that bring lawsuits to stop these things from happening.) Are they concerned about the environment or their bottom line? You tell me.

Rodney

One question. Will I or will I not have time to drink one last brewski? Good post.

Men of Vision! Great Thinkers. You see the BIG picture too. Didn't mean to imitate your unique style of ALL CAPS-please don't get me on your bad side. I like your conclusions. And right from the couch too. Show those stupid scientists and environmentalists the truth.
I am so enlightened by your posts. Really. I am a better man now. Thank you for helping to consolidate such complex issues so simply, I really, really appreciate it. Also, I am a bit more relaxed too from seeing that there are such simple solutions to what were hyped up by crazy environmentalists(organized) to be big world problems.

Jose

Glad to be of service. Anything to put a smile on your face.

Aw cheer up Jose!

Go hug a tree!

Charlie

PS Please take your medication immediately!

some of the stuff I posted, I didn't come up with--like the facts about Uranium being present in coal-but as far as I know, everything I have posted is true to the best of my knowledge. I probably just argue the point a little better than most. But I must admit, I spend a lot of time thinking about this stuff. I raise animals for a living and I have to think about something when doing the cage cleaning chores, driving long distances making deliveries and such. Raising animals can get kind of monotonous, even though I love what I do.

I have always found it ironic though, that we can't replace Uranium in the ground after we use it. Who cam up with that one?

Here's one I did come up with:

Why do environmental lawyers readily accept cash when it is made out of tree pulp?

Rodney

Rodney,

You said:
We extract a huge amount of energy out of it [uranium]-and it is the cheapest energy around.

Response:
I think you have to calculate the entire cost of nuclear energy. Since there is a great deal to loose if there is an accident, you have to try to calculate the cost of potential danger. It would be irresponsible and anti-intellectual to pretend that risk didn't have to be calculated in cost. No business on earth has that luxury. When your planning for the future of a society its hard to calculate the cost of an asset that has the capability of destroying that society.

You said:
We can no longer put it back into the ground from where it came because it is too dangerous. I am surprised that some hot-shot environmental lawyer hasn't figured out a way to make the EPA make entire Earth a clean up site due to all the natural Uranium!

Response:
Radioactive isotops occur naturally in the environment. We can't concievabley remove it all. Once we remove and concentrate some of it, we can't just bury it irresponsibly exclaiming, "Well the earth is full of it!" Once we concentrate it, we know its potential to do harm. It would be cruel to just bury it in the earth because it came from the earth with out taking responsibility for the potential danger.

You said:
We refine the raw ore, but environmental organizations have filed suits and blocked the re-refining of the spent fuel rods! This would cut the volume of nuclear waste by about 90%. If we can refine it once, why are they so against it being re-refined?

Response:
You can cut the volume of spent full rods, but what good is that? There isn't so much of it that the sheer volume is a problem. Its the radioactivity thats a problem. Further refining would just further concentrate it.

You said:
Uranium is one of the most common substances on

Response:
U-235 makes up about .7 percent of the naturally occuring uranium. 99.3% is U-238. Even so, how much exists naturally doesn't change our responsibility once we process it. You can't pretend, for example, that since it exists naturally we have no responsibility for the concentgrated product we produce.

You said:
Most of our electrical power comes from burning coal that is laced with plutonium. Would you rather that tons of plutonium be burned (along with thousands of tons of coal) and the resulting soot be placed into the atmosphere for us to breath, or would you rather that uranium be used in power plants and returned to the earth from whence it came?

Response:
Again, the fact that uranium comes from the earth makes little difference - coal comes from the earth too. The question you ask is whether coal is a better solution to our energy needs than nuclear. But you don't provide any evidence one way or the other. The question is worthy of debate, but you did nothing to introduce the salient considerations.

You said:
We even know how to use "pellet" technology now that makes meltdowns impossible.

Response:
Nothings impossible. Certainly meltdowns haven't become "impossible" and dealing with the waste is a big issue. The forecasts I've seen predict little change in nuclear use one way or the other. I suspect there is a reason for that.

Joe