PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Presidential election


JRThro
11-03-2008, 12:55 PM
Who are you voting for in the U.S. Presidential election tomorrow?

jetlag
11-03-2008, 02:37 PM
Who are you voting for in the U.S. Presidential election tomorrow?

It's 'Whom' but who's counting!! :D

JRThro
11-03-2008, 03:32 PM
It's 'Whom' but who's counting!! :D
True!

For whom do you intend to vote tomorrow?

JRThro
11-03-2008, 03:45 PM
Btw, as far as I can tell, this is a secret ballot just like the real thing.

Unless Scott can tell me otherwise.

UMRS
11-03-2008, 03:52 PM
I will plug my nose and vote for Mccain. I would have prefered Huckabee.

jetlag
11-03-2008, 05:15 PM
Hey,
I'm voting for Admiral "G#@ D*%#" McCain's son. :D My dad operated on him when the fleet was deployed around Cuba. They were friends. Given his son's incredible service to our Country, I think he more than deserves my vote. What a true hero he is, love him or otherwise.
Allen
Oh, and JR: I really was just funnin ya! :chuckle:

MKP
11-03-2008, 06:02 PM
I have a feeling this thread could get ugly. :(

Bazookadale
11-03-2008, 07:17 PM
I just hope everyone does go out and vote tomorrow.
it's not a done deal and could go either way! Don't think your candidate has already won or lost because of the polls - never believe a poll - except the ones here on YORF!

sandman
11-03-2008, 07:34 PM
I am going to go out and vote just to help make sure that this country is not run by another dummy that graduated close to last in his class. :mad:

What a shock...voting for the smartest person on the ballot!

Notice...I didn't name any names! ;)

You betcha! :rolleyes:

Ltvscout
11-03-2008, 07:44 PM
Btw, as far as I can tell, this is a secret ballot just like the real thing.

Unless Scott can tell me otherwise.
It is as you have it set up. No one knows, including myself, how someone voted in this poll.

This post was made where it belongs, in the FreeForAll forum. As the name states, anything goes here, rocketry related or not, as long as there is no swearing.

I do not censor or delete posts unless asked to by the OP or it's a spam post.

Ltvscout
11-03-2008, 07:45 PM
I just hope everyone does go out and vote tomorrow.
it's not a done deal and could go either way! Don't think your candidate has already won or lost because of the polls - never believe a poll - except the ones here on YORF!
:chuckle:

barone
11-03-2008, 08:07 PM
I just hope everyone does go out and vote tomorrow.....

I heard that the lines at all the polling places were expected to be exceptionally long so they split the days for voting.......

If you plan to vote Republican, you vote tomorrow. If you plan to vote Democrat, you vote on Wednesday......

I early voted and was in line for two and a half hours. If I had known they were going to split the days, I would have waited :chuckle:

STRMan
11-03-2008, 08:25 PM
Actually, I heard a rumor that one of the candidates was considering bringing back the B14. I'm afraid to say who because I suspect it would taint the results, especially on this forum. ;)

Peartree
11-03-2008, 10:07 PM
I am going to go out and vote just to help make sure that this country is not run by another dummy that graduated close to last in his class. :mad:

What a shock...voting for the smartest person on the ballot!

Notice...I didn't name any names! ;)

You betcha! :rolleyes:

One of my brothers told me years ago that you should always vote for the guy who knows that he's stupid because he is certain to hire experts to help him. The REALLY dangerous guy is the one who thinks he already knows everything and doesn't need any advice. :chuckle:

Mark II
11-04-2008, 12:56 AM
It doesn't always work out that way, though. After eight years, I've had enough of dumb and dumber.

Stupid is as stupid does...

Mark \\.

Rocketflyer
11-04-2008, 07:02 AM
Well, think of it this way. If one party runs the house and Senate, with Pelosi in charge of said Senate, refusing to put on the floor any bill she doesn't like, then you can effectively kiss the two party system good -bye, and your second amendnment rights. :eek:

barone
11-04-2008, 07:08 AM
Well, think of it this way. If one party runs the house and Senate, with Pelosi in charge of said Senate, refusing to put on the floor any bill she doesn't like, then you can effectively kiss the two party system good -bye, and your second amendnment rights. :eek:
And we know her answer to the energy problem......turn out the lights and go home..... :mad:

tbzep
11-04-2008, 07:31 AM
And we know her answer to the energy problem......turn out the lights and go home..... :mad:

It would make her look better. :D

cas2047
11-04-2008, 07:35 AM
It would make her look better. :D


LOL! Not much! ;)

Rocketflyer
11-04-2008, 08:12 AM
It would make her look better. :D :chuckle: :chuckle:

Bazookadale
11-04-2008, 11:19 AM
Just cast my vote - the electronic machine was not working but the new system has a paper backup, so when they get the thing fixed my vote will be counted. Watch the PA vote - if Obama leads early but McCain makes a late comeback, that will be my district finally getting their scanner fixed! But whoever wins I will always thank God that I live in a town with a chocolate factory because we get free 3 Musketeers bars (45%less fat) for voting :D

cas2047
11-04-2008, 11:26 AM
But whoever wins I will always thank God that I live in a town with a chocolate factory because we get free 3 Musketeers bars (45%less fat) for voting :D

Some guys have all the luck! ;)

JRThro
11-04-2008, 01:32 PM
Well, think of it this way. If one party runs the house and Senate, with Pelosi in charge of said Senate, refusing to put on the floor any bill she doesn't like, then you can effectively kiss the two party system good -bye, and your second amendnment rights. :eek:
Sorry, but Nancy Pelosi isn't even a Senator.

tbzep
11-04-2008, 02:27 PM
Just cast my vote - the electronic machine was not working but the new system has a paper backup, so when they get the thing fixed my vote will be counted. Watch the PA vote - if Obama leads early but McCain makes a late comeback, that will be my district finally getting their scanner fixed! But whoever wins I will always thank God that I live in a town with a chocolate factory because we get free 3 Musketeers bars (45%less fat) for voting :D

I wonder if voters get anything in Lynchburg, TN? :chuckle:

Rocketflyer
11-04-2008, 02:32 PM
Sorry, but Nancy Pelosi isn't even a Senator.

Correct :o . Speaker of the House.

ghrocketman
11-04-2008, 02:41 PM
Yep, pelosi (DELIBERATELY lower case, which is what I reserve for all radical left-leaners) is not a senator, but we still have to deal with boxer (egads) out of that same left-coast, anything that is morally bankrupt is okay as long as it purports to help the environment or a hippie, state.
pelosi not only is unfortunately the speaker of the house, she is also seems to support the most radical garbage spewed forth by left-wing KOOKS !

JRThro
11-04-2008, 04:14 PM
Yep, pelosi (DELIBERATELY lower case, which is what I reserve for all radical left-leaners) is not a senator, but we still have to deal with boxer (egads) out of that same left-coast, anything that is morally bankrupt is okay as long as it purports to help the environment or a hippie, state.
pelosi not only is unfortunately the speaker of the house, she is also seems to support the most radical garbage spewed forth by left-wing KOOKS !
What's your point?

Bazookadale
11-04-2008, 08:03 PM
Just in - Arizona, with 0% of the vote in - is too close to call! NBC News

How do I a job with the networks?

Bazookadale
11-04-2008, 08:22 PM
Mike Enzi - friend of rocketry - projected winner in Wyoming - with 0% of the vote in! NBC NEWS

tbzep
11-04-2008, 08:22 PM
Just in - Arizona, with 0% of the vote in - is too close to call! NBC News

How do I a job with the networks?

On the opposite extreme, CNN, FOX, CBS, and MSNBC websites were already giving states to both candidates with 0% precincts returned. :rolleyes:

barone
11-04-2008, 10:45 PM
Well, I was thinking after the next four years, the dems will finally get all the blame (which they've been able to deflect to republicans) for royally screwing things. But then I realized, they'll blame Bush for leaving to Obama to inherit :mad: Guess it'll be 25 years before they stop blaming Bush......

johnnwwa
11-04-2008, 10:45 PM
Yep, pelosi (DELIBERATELY lower case, which is what I reserve for all radical left-leaners) is not a senator, but we still have to deal with boxer (egads) out of that same left-coast, anything that is morally bankrupt is okay as long as it purports to help the environment or a hippie, state.
pelosi not only is unfortunately the speaker of the house, she is also seems to support the most radical garbage spewed forth by left-wing KOOKS !

I agree with you on all points made, except one . Left Coast hello! Not all left coast folks are not radical left leaners, tree huggers, hippies or kooks.

There are alot of things that are Right on the left coast, me being one . :)

BAR
John

NJNike
11-04-2008, 10:53 PM
Guess it'll be 25 years before they stop blaming Bush......

Well yeah. But that's what happens when you screw up. People remind you over and over and over.

JRThro
11-05-2008, 08:49 AM
Well, I was thinking after the next four years, the dems will finally get all the blame (which they've been able to deflect to republicans) for royally screwing things. But then I realized, they'll blame Bush for leaving to Obama to inherit :mad: Guess it'll be 25 years before they stop blaming Bush......
Wasn't it well into President Bush's second term before they stopped blaming President Clinton for everything?

tbzep
11-05-2008, 09:22 AM
Wasn't it well into President Bush's second term before they stopped blaming President Clinton for everything?

Clinton lucked out and rode the huge internet "dot.com" wave during his presidency, so he didn't get much in the way of economic blame. Most of the blaming that he got was his decisions in Somalia, not getting Osama and other terrorists, partnering with Brady and Reno to kill off the 2nd amendment, and with Waco.

I think the economy would have been about the same the last 16 years, regardless of presidents. Neither Clinton nor Bush did anything radical to change the economy. Neither did anything much to control the economy either. If their terms had been reversed, it would be interesting to see how things would have been. Economically, I think things would have stayed the same.

Peartree
11-05-2008, 09:55 AM
have they stopped blaming Bill already?

Just week or two ago it was this:


Fannie Mae and Freddiie Mac were Bill's idea.


You see how well that turned out.

Carl@Semroc
11-05-2008, 10:36 AM
have they stopped blaming Bill already?

Who's Bill???

ghrocketman
11-05-2008, 10:49 AM
I know not all those that are from the Left-coast or choose to live on the Left-coast are left-wing kooks, but there sure is a a much higher percentage of them in general out there than here in the Mid-West. Many of the nutty causes supported out there could actually get you lodged in a free comfy 6'x8' "County Hotel" around here ! :p :D

I definitely would prefer free product from Lynchburg, TN (especially if the product is contained in a square bottle with a black label with old-tyme white font containing the words "sour mash") over any PA chocolate on election day.

Jeff Walther
11-05-2008, 11:39 AM
I definitely would prefer free product from Lynchburg, TN (especially if the product is contained in a square bottle with a black label with old-tyme white font containing the words "sour mash") over any PA chocolate on election day.

There used to be (might still be) a sort of Jack Daniels club or society or some such that you could join. I think maybe you had to visit the company and take a tour. I'm very hazy on the details. Anyway, they would occasionally send out gifts and promotional items to members. I think one year my Mom received a set of JD highball glasses on her birthday.

It was a really neat thing for the company to do. I don't know how much it cost them though.

tbzep
11-05-2008, 11:47 AM
There used to be (might still be) a sort of Jack Daniels club or society or some such that you could join. I think maybe you had to visit the company and take a tour. I'm very hazy on the details. Anyway, they would occasionally send out gifts and promotional items to members. I think one year my Mom received a set of JD highball glasses on her birthday.

It was a really neat thing for the company to do. I don't know how much it cost them though.

On tours, you get to stick your finger in the sour mash and taste it. Not much alcohol there, and even kids get to do it. As far as I know, the only real product that's given away is one pint per month to employees. I don't know if they still do any promotional stuff. I don't recall being asked to give a name or address when I toured it (while on a high school student council convention).

Royatl
11-05-2008, 12:13 PM
Mike Enzi - friend of rocketry - projected winner in Wyoming - with 0% of the vote in! NBC NEWS

They based it on exit polling. Just as they have in years past. Though this time they all agreed not to use exit polling results until the polls closed in that state. Exit polling is pretty accurate if it is properly weighted. Last time you may recall they published un-weighted exit polling during the afternoon which indicated Kerry would win in a landslide (democrats tend to be more open to exit polling than republican voters, so you have to adjust the results). They fixed it by 5:30pm, but it fueled a lot of the vote-fraud speculation.

dr_wogz
11-05-2008, 02:59 PM
I was told Lynchburg is a dry county..

So, you'd get the 'lite' version.. :D


I must admit, I'm surprised by the results of this poll, that they don't seem to match other polls out there.. I guess the "uniquness" of us 'rocketeers'

Bazookadale
11-05-2008, 08:28 PM
They based it on exit polling. Just as they have in years past. Though this time they all agreed not to use exit polling results until the polls closed in that state. Exit polling is pretty accurate if it is properly weighted. Last time you may recall they published un-weighted exit polling during the afternoon which indicated Kerry would win in a landslide (democrats tend to be more open to exit polling than republican voters, so you have to adjust the results). They fixed it by 5:30pm, but it fueled a lot of the vote-fraud speculation.

I agree that exit polls should be the most accurate but it still isn't the real count and you're right that it must be properly weighted - it just rubs me wrong that they "call" an election based on this. In PA the polls close their doors at 8 Pm , if you in line at that time you stay until you can vote. There were several areas in PA were the lines were so long that there were 1 and 2 hour waits. The local NBC affiliate did a live segment predicting a 10PM finish at certain places, then cut to the national feed where Obama was declared the winner in PA. To me that is a slap in the face to those who hadn't voted yet, even if it was a scientifically weighted decision

tbzep
11-05-2008, 08:40 PM
I was told Lynchburg is a dry county..

So, you'd get the 'lite' version.. :D


I must admit, I'm surprised by the results of this poll, that they don't seem to match other polls out there.. I guess the "uniquness" of us 'rocketeers'

Yep. It's a dry county. That's why they give a pint to their employees every month. Otherwise, they'd have to drive somewhere else to buy their own products.

As for the YORF poll....we are mostly middle aged and older white males, which leaned toward McCain except in the ultra blue NE states. I went to bed and never got around to looking at stats for the west coast last night.

tbzep
11-05-2008, 08:55 PM
BTW, our cat is/was a Palin supporter...probably due to the Alaskan fishing industry or something. As you can see from this photo taken last night, she wasn't pleased with the election returns that were coming in. :p

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y283/tbzep/DSC_0004-1.jpg

JRThro
11-05-2008, 10:18 PM
I was told Lynchburg is a dry county..

So, you'd get the 'lite' version.. :D


I must admit, I'm surprised by the results of this poll, that they don't seem to match other polls out there.. I guess the "uniquness" of us 'rocketeers'
Members of this forum are absolutely not a representative cross-section of the American population. We're very predominantly male, predominantly white, predominantly over 30 for sure.

Nuke Rocketeer
11-06-2008, 06:56 AM
BTW, our cat is/was a Palin supporter...probably due to the Alaskan fishing industry or something. As you can see from this photo taken last night, she wasn't pleased with the election returns that were coming in. :p

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y283/tbzep/DSC_0004-1.jpg

That photo has "I can haz a cheezeburger" all over it!!!! :chuckle:

Nuke Rocketeer
11-06-2008, 07:17 AM
Members of this forum are absolutely not a representative cross-section of the American population. We're very predominantly male, predominantly white, predominantly over 30 for sure.

I know many conservatives who stayed at home Tuesday. It is their opinion that the Republican party got what was coming to them for abandoning conservatism, the last 6 years especially. Despite all the media crowing about record turnout, there were ~2,000,000 fewer votes cast this time than in 2004. I would bet virtually all of those mssing voters were conservatives.

Now it is time to rebuild and take it back from the counrty-club types who made it over into democrat lite, and yes, I include Pres. Bush in that crowd. The party did not stay true to the philosophy of limting government and were spending tax money like democrats. They also P.O.'ed the evangelical crowd over the last 3 or 4 years by systematically excluding them from participation in the party. Big mistake, as it was the evangelicals and social conservatives who gave Bush his margin of victory in Ohio especially.

We'll see what happens, I think a lot of the under 30 crowd who came out strong for Obama will start to feel like they were conned, just like a lot of our age did after Carter was elected ( I did not vote for him in '76).

Nuke Rocketeer
11-06-2008, 07:19 AM
I know many conservatives who stayed at home Tuesday. It is their opinion that the Republican party got what was coming to them for abandoning conservatism, the last 6 years especially. Despite all the media crowing about record turnout, there were ~2,000,000 fewer votes cast this time than in 2004. I would bet virtually all of those mssing voters were conservatives.

Now it is time to rebuild and take it back from the counrty-club types who made it over into democrat lite, and yes, I include Pres. Bush in that crowd. The party did not stay true to the philosophy of limting government and were spending tax money like democrats. They also P.O.'ed the evangelical crowd over the last 3 or 4 years by systematically excluding them from participation in the party. Big mistake, as it was the evangelicals and social conservatives who gave Bush his margin of victory in Ohio especially.

We'll see what happens, I think a lot of the under 30 crowd who came out strong for Obama will start to feel like they were conned, just like a lot of our age did after Carter was elected ( I did not vote for him in '76).

Also, on the bright side, the media cast off their camoflage this time for everyone to see. I bet even more people abandon them. It will be interesting to see how many newspapers go under over the next 2 years.

tbzep
11-06-2008, 07:23 AM
Also, on the bright side, the media cast off their camoflage this time for everyone to see. I bet even more people abandon them. It will be interesting to see how many newspapers go under over the next 2 years.

I found it funny that MSNBC, CNN, PBS, etc. were occasionally pointing fingers at each other for giving unfair pro Obama coverage, while they continued to do so themselves. :rolleyes:

Peartree
11-06-2008, 08:57 AM
I know many conservatives who stayed at home Tuesday. It is their opinion that the Republican party got what was coming to them for abandoning conservatism, the last 6 years especially. Despite all the media crowing about record turnout, there were ~2,000,000 fewer votes cast this time than in 2004. I would bet virtually all of those mssing voters were conservatives.

Now it is time to rebuild and take it back from the counrty-club types who made it over into democrat lite, and yes, I include Pres. Bush in that crowd. The party did not stay true to the philosophy of limting government and were spending tax money like democrats. They also P.O.'ed the evangelical crowd over the last 3 or 4 years by systematically excluding them from participation in the party. Big mistake, as it was the evangelicals and social conservatives who gave Bush his margin of victory in Ohio especially.

We'll see what happens, I think a lot of the under 30 crowd who came out strong for Obama will start to feel like they were conned, just like a lot of our age did after Carter was elected ( I did not vote for him in '76).

I was frankly surprised that the Republican party expended zero effort to campaign on a platform of values, when it was values that played a major part in their previous victory and where they clearly had high ground in this election.

BTW, speaking of disgruntled conservatives, does anyone know how many votes Bob Barr got? His platform was closer to true conservatism than McCain's and I wonder how many conservative voters cast a Libertarian vote just to protest and send a message.

tbzep
11-06-2008, 09:11 AM
BTW, speaking of disgruntled conservatives, does anyone know how many votes Bob Barr got? His platform was closer to true conservatism than McCain's and I wonder how many conservative voters cast a Libertarian vote just to protest and send a message.


Found this:

Jeff Walther
11-06-2008, 10:56 AM
They also P.O.'ed the evangelical crowd over the last 3 or 4 years by systematically excluding them from participation in the party.

That's an interesting statement.

From the outside, it looked like the Republican party catered so exclusively to the religious theocracy crowd that they alienated all the independent voters.

I was strongly considering voting for McCain right up to the moment when he chose Palin as his running mate. At that moment I knew that no matter how sort-of moderate his past record, he was totally embracing the religious right and I could not support that.

Of course, I live in Texas so my tiny little vote for Obama really didn't have much effect. It was totally washed out by the McCain voters in this state.

Doug Sams
11-06-2008, 11:26 AM
From the outside, it looked like the Republican party catered so exclusively to the religious theocracy crowd that they alienated all the independent voters.If you assimilate the message from the mainstream media, you will think that. They seem to instill into many a great fear of some extreme, right-wing, zealotry that is in fact more imagined than real. When it comes to evidence of Christians actually usurping the rights of others in the name of God/Jesus, I've never seen more than a handful of anecdotal accounts. Yet the fear persists, largely perpetuated by the media.

There's always gonna be some nut on the street corner calling everyone sinners and whores, but the bulk of Christians no more identify with that person than we do the mullahs. It's frustrating we can't be more open-minded. And I don't mean tolerant, but willing to learn for ourselves rather than taking Katie Couric's word for it unchallenged. I know it's human nature - I see it even within Christian ranks. Married to a Catholic, I've come to realize many Catholics' perceptions of Protestants are largely based on televangelists. It comes as a great surprise for many of them to find that the Sunday morning service at the Methodist Church looks a lot more like Mass than it does Jimmy Swaggart.

The great challenge, then, for all of us, is to take what we get from the news, and double check it to see if the facts support the message. And only then do we draw a conclusion.

Doug


.

JRThro
11-06-2008, 11:26 AM
Of course, I live in Texas so my tiny little vote for Obama really didn't have much effect. It was totally washed out by the McCain voters in this state.
Could be worse. I couldn't bring myself to vote for either of the major candidates, so I wrote in my wife's name and voted for her.

Peartree
11-06-2008, 11:34 AM
Found this:

Interesting. Which, of course leads to this:

133 million votes cast
62.5% of registered voters

I couldn't find how many people are of voting age but not registered.

In any case, as much as the press played this up as absolutely huge (and it was) apathy seems to be alive and well in the USA.

JRThro
11-06-2008, 11:37 AM
Married to a Catholic, I've come to realize many Catholics' perceptions of Protestants are largely based on televangelists. It comes as a great surprise for many of them to find that the Sunday morning service at the Methodist Church looks a lot more like Mass than it does Jimmy Swaggart.
It only makes sense that Protestant churches that were founded during or relatively soon after the Reformation would be more traditional than churches that were founded in the last 50 years.

And I think I'd have to say that many non-Catholic Christians have quite unrealistic views of the Cathlic church as well.

gpoehlein
11-06-2008, 11:52 AM
Interesting. Which, of course leads to this:

133 million votes cast
62.5% of registered voters

I couldn't find how many people are of voting age but not registered.

In any case, as much as the press played this up as absolutely huge (and it was) apathy seems to be alive and well in the USA.

Actually, 62.5% is pretty good compared to what it has been (some elections down in the 30s, if I recall). The news coverage I heard actually said that the record turn-out was NOT in the percentage, but in the overall number of voters. There were so many more voters registered this year that even at 62.5% it was a huge increase. Pity so many of them probably will never vote again! (I should point out that I have never missed a major election in the 34 years I've been able to vote - regardless of your position and party, I still feel it is the duty of every citizen to vote.)

Greg

Ltvscout
11-06-2008, 11:57 AM
(I should point out that I have never missed a major election in the 54 years I've been able to vote - regardless of your position and party, I still feel it is the duty of every citizen to vote.)
You're 72 years old?

Jeff Walther
11-06-2008, 12:11 PM
You're 72 years old?

I think that would make him 75. 54 years ago the voting age started at 21, IIRC.

Jeff Walther
11-06-2008, 12:18 PM
If you assimilate the message from the mainstream media, you will think that.
.

The religious right actively opposes not just abortion, but more and more contraception. They oppose equal rights for gay people. I don't need media biased in either direction to tell me that. And the latter is simple bigotry based on an "ick" factor that many folks seem to feel for some reason. The former is subject to lengthy debate, but to me it boils down to another case of telling other folks how to live. And when they start opposing contraception, which then have actively done, they what I see is the next worse thing to trying to put women in purdah.

I'm not sure if the attempt to preach creation mythology in science class is the act of a few fringe members or an active party plank, but it certainly raises a red flag. Creation is not science. If they want it taught in mythology class or comparative religion class, have at it, but it has no place whatsoever in science class.

I'm not an overgullible person falling for the media bias. It is clear to me that there is a large segment of the religious in this country who actively try to force their way of life on others and I for one feel quite threatened by them. They are un-American in any sense that our founding fathers would have understood the term.

gpoehlein
11-06-2008, 12:23 PM
You're 72 years old?

Oops - typo - meant 34 years. (Yes, I'm 52)

Greg

Jeff Walther
11-06-2008, 01:39 PM
Could be worse. I couldn't bring myself to vote for either of the major candidates, so I wrote in my wife's name and voted for her.

It was tough for me. Three things worry me about Obama. First, I cannot tell what his position is on gun control. I oppose it, so McCain was a better choice for me on that issue.

Second, I'm afraid he may embrace the Al Gore energy fantasy rather than just paying lip service to the extremists in the environmental lobby. The realities of power production and distribution mean we're never going to get all of our power from their idea of "renewable" sources. Trying to force that in ten years would be a disaster on a scale with Lysenko'ism in the USSR.

Third, the kind of change that national health care coverage would require is frightening, no matter what they propose. To achieve that stated goal would require huge change and that kind of change scares me.

But there's enough uncertainty in those three things wrt Obama, that I was willing to vote for him. Notice that on items one and two McCain pretty solidly agrees with my position. If he had not embraced the religious right, he could have had my vote. But liberty trumps economic security and all other forms of security, in my book.

Actually, McCain was a little weak on item 2. We should be going full steam ahead on nuclear power, no holds barred. If the environmental lobby sincerely believes that carbon emission is such a problem, then there is no rational excuse for their opposition to nuclear power.

Consider this. If the anti-nuclear lobby had not killed off nuclear power in the late 70s and the USA had built ten nuclear power plants per year, we would now have 300 more nuclear power plants. That would mean that *all* of the USA's electricity would come from non-carbon producing sources. Transportation would still burn oil, but electricity production would use no coal (less pollution/carbon) no natural gas (less carbon, lower prices for household consumers), and no fuel oil (less pollution/carbon, and lower prices for notherners who use FO for heat). I propose that the anti-nuclear activists caused global warming for no good benefit.

Doug Sams
11-06-2008, 02:05 PM
The religious right actively opposes not just abortion, but more and more contraception. They oppose equal rights for gay people. I don't need media biased in either direction to tell me that. And the latter is simple bigotry based on an "ick" factor that many folks seem to feel for some reason. The former is subject to lengthy debate, but to me it boils down to another case of telling other folks how to live. And when they start opposing contraception, which then have actively done, they what I see is the next worse thing to trying to put women in purdah.

I'm not sure if the attempt to preach creation mythology in science class is the act of a few fringe members or an active party plank, but it certainly raises a red flag. Creation is not science. If they want it taught in mythology class or comparative religion class, have at it, but it has no place whatsoever in science class.

I'm not an overgullible person falling for the media bias. It is clear to me that there is a large segment of the religious in this country who actively try to force their way of life on others and I for one feel quite threatened by them. They are un-American in any sense that our founding fathers would have understood the term.Jeff,

You make a good point about teaching creationism, in that I too have difficulty with the taking it literally. OTOH, I agree with the right that evolution, when taught, must be presented as a theory. It has some holes in it, and, while it seems logical, there's some room for doubt and thus it cannot be presented as absolute fact. Similarly, if creationism is taught, it can be presented as a belief. But to call it mythology, well, that's not very tactful :)


Your case for contraception is a perfect example of what I was talking about. There have been a handful of pharmacists and pharmacies across the country that refuse to dispense them, but the media plays it up like like a crisis. The reality is that there are few cases, and for those situations, surely there are other outlets for the consumer. It's a perfect example of tempest in a teapot.

Doug

.

tbzep
11-06-2008, 02:37 PM
And the latter is simple bigotry based on an "ick" factor that many folks seem to feel for some reason.

Although most would consider it "icky", it is also in the Bible, therefore it's part of a set of Jewish and Christian (and most likely Islamic) rules to go by. With that in mind, calling it bigotry would be like being called a bigot because you obey speed limits and have issues with speeders because they don't follow the rules.

This is just for discussion. I am in no way publicly endorsing one thing or another here.


Ok, now where's the popcorn? :p

Jeff Walther
11-06-2008, 02:50 PM
OTOH, I agree with the right that evolution, when taught, must be presented as a theory.

All explanations in science are either hypotheses or theories. Facts are the evidence we try to fit into hypotheses to make a decent theory. There is no graduation from theory to fact. The folks who try to imply otherwise do not understand the burdens of proof inherent in science. You can never prove that a theory is absolutely true. Theories can only be disproven. Therefore, every explanation which is accepted in the body of knowledge sometimes called science is at most a theory. Anyone, on either side of this issue who says otherwise does not understand how science works.

So on the one hand, proponents of evolution should not claim that it is a "fact". On the other hand, opponents are not detracting anything from the validity of evolution when they say it is "only a theory".

Now one could argue that creationism is another theory, but at most it is a hypothesis. And it is a useless hypothesis and so is immediately discarded by the scientific method. You cannot make any predictions about future behaviour of the world around us using creation hypothesis. Hence, it has no place in science, nor in a science class room. Evolution, on the other hand, provides a great many accurate and useful predictions.

But to call it mythology, well, that's not very tactful
Yes, well, <sheepish grin> my apologies if I offended. But to be fair, why is it that in social situations agnostics and atheists must be careful about believer's ideas, but it's okay for believers to loudly proclaim the existence of their diety? Or is it not okay, and there are just a lot of rude believers out there? And how does that square with the tenets of religions which compel their followers to go out and proclaim their faith to everyone? But that's another topic...

Your case for contraception is a perfect example of what I was talking about. There have been a handful of pharmacists and pharmacies across the country that refuse to dispense them, but the media plays it up like like a crisis.

Aside from that, what I was really thinking of is the fact that the Bush administration repeatedly, with the support of the religious right, opposed efforts to make contraceptions a covered prescription under health insurance. Now you can make an economic argument here if you want to, but male potency drugs such as viagra and cialis are covered. How are these medically more helpful and economically sound than contraception? The religious right can try to hide behind economics arguments, but the fact is this is a religiously motivated opposition to helping women choose their own reproductive future and it goes way beyond any ethical issues having to do with abortion. Their policies are consistent with people who want women repressed and inconsistent with individual liberties.

If anything the media has failed to fully cover this issue, as evidenced by the fact that you were unaware of this particular aspect.

Jeff Walther
11-06-2008, 03:00 PM
Although most would consider it "icky", it is also in the Bible, therefore it's part of a set of Jewish and Christian (and most likely Islamic) rules to go by. With that in mind, calling it bigotry would be like being called a bigot because you obey speed limits and have issues with speeders because they don't follow the rules.

But it is religious-based law oppressing those who are doing no harm. So it was a good supporting argument for my assertion that yes, indeed, the religious right is a threat to liberty in this country, and it is not just the exaggerations of the media, as had been asserted by an earlier poster.

And I would argue that when you seek to oppress a group because your religion tells you to, that's a pretty good example of bigotry, no matter how old and traditional the religion may be.

The analogy between speeding and being gay fails in many ways, which I doubt that I need to explain.

Doug Sams
11-06-2008, 03:26 PM
Aside from that, what I was really thinking of is the fact that the Bush administration repeatedly, with the support of the religious right, opposed efforts to make contraceptions a covered prescription under health insurance. Now you can make an economic argument here if you want to, but male potency drugs such as viagra and cialis are covered. How are these medically more helpful and economically sound than contraception? The religious right can try to hide behind economics arguments, but the fact is this is a religiously motivated opposition to helping women choose their own reproductive future and it goes way beyond any ethical issues having to do with abortion. Their policies are consistent with people who want women repressed and inconsistent with individual liberties.

If anything the media has failed to fully cover this issue, as evidenced by the fact that you were unaware of this particular aspect.No, I've heard it before. It doesn't strike me as important. Whether insurance covers contraception or not falls down in the noise in my mind. –80dB or so. As far as it being the religious right, keep in mind that opposition to birth control is largely a Catholic thing. The Protestants don't necessarily share that belief and thus won't be so inclined to oppose its use. So now we're dealing with a much smaller number of people. I don't see that smaller group having nearly so much clout. At that point, I'm inclined to see it as the media stirring the pot in pointing fingers at the "religious right". I think most of those Protestants on the right - the Baptists, the Methodists, the Presbyterians, etc - would rather see little Suzy on the pill than on welfare taking care of an unplanned child.

Is there perhaps an inequity in coverage for impotency medicine versus birth control? From your statement, it appears so. But there are all kinds of inequities out there, and this one is way down my list. For example, the penalty for possession of 5 grams of rock cocaine is much more severe than for 5 grams of powder. Seems racist to me (since blacks will more likely be using crack than powder). For that matter, the law does not take into account purity. 0.5g of coke mixed with 4.5g of talcum is deemed 5g of coke in court. Quantitative analysis appears to have no bearing with the law. How many folks are sitting in prison, at the taxpayer's expense, because of these kinds of inequities?

Yet we don't hear about this much. Why? Because the media can't attract viewers with this like they can when they talk about the religious right, knowing that it will stir strong emotions. They're about stirring the stink, not about telling the whole truth. They've conditioned many to be afraid of people of faith when in fact there's little threat.

Doug

.

Jeff Walther
11-06-2008, 03:37 PM
I think most of those Protestants on the right - the Baptists, the Methodists, the Presbyterians, etc - would rather see little Suzy on the pill than on welfare taking care of an unplanned child.

I hope that you are correct about that. The amount of opposition to contraception education in school would seem to argue against it. But perhaps those opponents are a disproportionately loud minority.

They've conditioned many to be afraid of people of faith when in fact there's little threat.

And I hope you are correct about that too. :-) I would be very happy to find my fears unfounded.

Yet I see legislation pushed and passed which is consistent with them. But there could be other causes behind such legislation.

JRThro
11-06-2008, 04:24 PM
I think most of those Protestants on the right - the Baptists, the Methodists, the Presbyterians, etc - would rather see little Suzy on the pill than on welfare taking care of an unplanned child.
This might surprise you, but there are also many Catholics who would rather see little Suzy on the pill than on welfare taking care of an unplanned child. Or who would rather use contraception within their marriages than have more children than they want or can afford.

JRThro
11-06-2008, 04:29 PM
All explanations in science are either hypotheses or theories. Facts are the evidence we try to fit into hypotheses to make a decent theory. There is no graduation from theory to fact. The folks who try to imply otherwise do not understand the burdens of proof inherent in science. You can never prove that a theory is absolutely true. Theories can only be disproven. Therefore, every explanation which is accepted in the body of knowledge sometimes called science is at most a theory. Anyone, on either side of this issue who says otherwise does not understand how science works.

So on the one hand, proponents of evolution should not claim that it is a "fact". On the other hand, opponents are not detracting anything from the validity of evolution when they say it is "only a theory".
Exactly!

Theories such as the theory of universal gravitation, or Einstein's theories of general and special relativity, are treated as fact when they too are "only theories." As time goes on and more facts are uncovered, the theory of evolution, just like Einstein's theories, is refined and can become more detailed.

Doug Sams
11-06-2008, 05:27 PM
This might surprise you, but there are also many Catholics who would rather see little Suzy on the pill than on welfare taking care of an unplanned child. Or who would rather use contraception within their marriages than have more children than they want or can afford. :) I'm feeling too politcally correct for that today, John :)

Seriously, it's no surprise. Yes, there are those who don't adhere strictly to the doctrine, and I have no problem with that. I've never bought into it myself. <ducking for fear of lightning> But large families are still much more common in the Catholic Church because of this policy. And hence it's still a differentiator.

Doug

.

tbzep
11-06-2008, 06:22 PM
But it is religious-based law oppressing those who are doing no harm. So it was a good supporting argument for my assertion that yes, indeed, the religious right is a threat to liberty in this country, and it is not just the exaggerations of the media, as had been asserted by an earlier poster.

And I would argue that when you seek to oppress a group because your religion tells you to, that's a pretty good example of bigotry, no matter how old and traditional the religion may be.

The analogy between speeding and being gay fails in many ways, which I doubt that I need to explain.

I never intended being gay and speeding to be compared, rather that a set of rules can be considered stupid by one group, yet vital to another. It's pretty much that way for every set of rules, or else no rules would ever need to be made in the first place.

Whichever side of the fence one sits, there is plenty of bigotry toward the other. There is just as much bigotry toward religious people as toward those who aren't.

Skipping to another post, I wish we had kept building nuclear power plants also. Without getting some background, I don't know about the rate of expansion. I'd have to read up on the ability of fuel in the U.S., the fighting over where to store spent fuel, etc. I know that there are several power plants in my general region that were started, then abandoned after billions had already been put into them. It's ashame that they didn't get finished and begin providing power to pay down that debt.

tbzep
11-06-2008, 06:24 PM
Exactly!

Theories such as the theory of universal gravitation, or Einstein's theories of general and special relativity, are treated as fact when they too are "only theories." As time goes on and more facts are uncovered, the theory of evolution, just like Einstein's theories, is refined and can become more detailed.

However, buttered toast on a cat's back isn't theory. I've been powering my time machine with it for quite some time now. :cool:

LeeR
11-06-2008, 08:08 PM
It was tough for me. Three things worry me about Obama. First, I cannot tell what his position is on gun control. I oppose it, so McCain was a better choice for me on that issue.

Obama's website called out his plan to impose a permanent ban on assault weapons. And if anyone says "you do not need an assault weapon", consider that anything with a large or removeable magazine might be considered one. Do not be so naive to assume that the 2nd Amendment is not facing serious threat.

That was all it took for me -- I went out Wednesday and "earned a lot of miles on my credit card". Our local gun shop had 25-30 people in the store at noon, usually you might see 1-2 people. When I went back at 6pm, lines were long, and still that many people were packed in. Background checks were running 3 hours.

Next attack: Ammo will probably see huge tax increases (500%). No bans, perhaps, you just won't be able to afford it.

If there is anything you want, you better buy it soon. While a ban might take some effort, prices will go crazy when the runs on guns and supplies start.

Jeff Walther
11-06-2008, 10:16 PM
Next attack: Ammo will probably see huge tax increases (500%). No bans, perhaps, you just won't be able to afford it.

Heh. I still have thousands of rounds from the Clinton administration...

tbzep
11-06-2008, 10:20 PM
Heh. I still have thousands of rounds from the Clinton administration...

I have a few stored rounds from back then myself. I even bought an AK before the ban went into effect just to spite them. :cool:

kurtschachner
11-07-2008, 08:11 AM
I know that there are several power plants in my general region that were started, then abandoned after billions had already been put into them. It's a shame that they didn't get finished and begin providing power to pay down that debt.

When I was in college back in the late 70's and early 80's, I worked during the summers for Commonwealth Edison. I worked in one of their largest coal fired plants but at the time Commonwealth was the largest operator of nuclear power plants in the world. I was able to tour two nuclear plants while they were under construction, as this is the only time you would be allowed inside the containment vessel.

Anyway, one of the plants (Braidwood) had been started several years earlier and at the beginning of construction the estimated completion cost was $750 million dollars. The way it worked then was that if the regulations changed during construction then the plant would have to be retrofitted to conform to the latest laws (no grandfathering). How this played out was that huge, brand new systems that had been installed (and of course never used) were being ripped out and replaced. Sitting out on the grass in front of the plant were miles and miles of piping, pumps and assorted machinery that had been installed but subsequently removed. When we toured - and I would say this was about 1981 - Commonwealth Edison had spent about $3.5 billion on the plant and it was about 70% complete. Due to other issues the construction on the plant was delayed but eventually finished and both reactors were brought on line in the 1980s. IIRC the final cost exceeded $5 billion dollars.

JRThro
11-07-2008, 08:50 AM
Skipping to another post, I wish we had kept building nuclear power plants also. Without getting some background, I don't know about the rate of expansion. I'd have to read up on the ability of fuel in the U.S., the fighting over where to store spent fuel, etc. I know that there are several power plants in my general region that were started, then abandoned after billions had already been put into them. It's ashame that they didn't get finished and begin providing power to pay down that debt.
I wish we had, too, since I got a bachelor's degree in Nuclear Engineering in December of 1978 and I've never used it.

JRThro
11-07-2008, 08:52 AM
:) I'm feeling too politcally correct for that today, John :)

Seriously, it's no surprise. Yes, there are those who don't adhere strictly to the doctrine, and I have no problem with that. I've never bought into it myself. <ducking for fear of lightning> But large families are still much more common in the Catholic Church because of this policy. And hence it's still a differentiator.

Doug

.
Hey, if you bought into Catholic doctrine, you'd probably be Catholic, wouldn't you?

And yes, I agree that's larger families are still more common among Catholics than among most Protestants. I have 3 kids, and that's considered a fairly large family these days. Even in our parish and school, a lot of families only have one or two kids. One of the teachers at our kids' (Catholic) school has 7 kids, and my wife and I think she and her husband, who is a doctor, are insane!

Doug Sams
11-07-2008, 09:52 AM
...at the beginning of construction the estimated completion cost was $750 million dollars. (snip) Due to other issues the construction on the plant was delayed but eventually finished and both reactors were brought on line in the 1980s. IIRC the final cost exceeded $5 billion dollars.Sounds like a defense program, eh? <vbg>

Doug

.

Doug Sams
11-07-2008, 10:52 AM
Hey, if you bought into Catholic doctrine, you'd probably be Catholic, wouldn't you?Actually, I'm thinking about joining - I've only been going to mass for 20+ years :)

Seriously, I have a hard time buying into any church's doctrine 100% <ducking lightning> and I think most folks are in that boat, but tend to not talk about it.

<<<
A man arrives at the gates of heaven. St. Peter asks, "Religion?" The man says, "Methodist." St. Peter looks down his list, and says, "Go to room 24, but be very quiet as you pass room 8." Another man arrives at the gates of heaven. "Religion?" "Baptist." "Go to room 18, but be very quiet as you pass room 8." A third man arrives at the gates. "Religion?" "Jewish." "Go to room 11, but be very quiet as you pass room 8." The man says, "I can understand there being different rooms for different religions, but why must I be quiet when I pass room 8?" St. Peter tells him, "Well the Jehovah's Witnesses are in room 8, and they think they're the only ones here.
>>> ( joke #5 from http://poop.mobi/jokes/jokes.php?start=12&id=Heaven%20and%20hell%20jokes )

It's one of those jokes where you change the last group to whoever you're picking on that day :)

Doug

.

kurtschachner
11-07-2008, 10:52 AM
Sounds like a defense program, eh? <vbg>

Doug

.

The $750 million quoted cost was real. Remember, up until this time Commonwealth Edison had built lots of other nuclear plants and this one wasn't unusual. They knew what it cost to build a plant. It was the legislation that changed, during the late '70s and early '80s there was a tremendous amount of re-writing of the NRC regulations regarding nuclear generating facilities. Even though the original designs were approved as meeting the then-current regulations, this meant nothing. If regulations changed during the construction (and they did) then you had to modify or replace affected systems before an operational license would be granted. This, obviously, was extremely expensive. Braidwood had a sister plant (Byron) that was affected in a similar fashion.

The "other delays" I mentioned were due to what was called excessive baseline capacity in the Edison system. Most utility companies have two types of generating capacity - baseline and peak. Peaking power is produced using gas and oil generators and specialized coal fired plants. Baseline capacity is generated by nuclear plants and large coal plants. Peaking power is produced in the daytime (especially when the steel mills are operating) and baseline is usually the average nighttime level. Back in the mid '70s when you plotted the demand curves for electricity, it showed a certain required baseline capacity that Commonwealth Edison was gearing up to provide to their customers. But with the economic slowdown that came in the Carter administration, the demand for electricity flattened out sharply. Commonwealth Edison was caught with a huge oversupply of baseline capacity and as a result they slowed the completion of several nuclear power plants. This slowdown only exacerbated the potential for changing regulations to adversely affect the completion of those plants.

The problem with excess baseline capacity is that you can't throttle up or throttle down the plants to meet daily demands. That was one of the reasons I was hired as a summer engineer. The coal plant I worked at was a very large (1800+ MW) plant and they were cycling it down to approximately 500 MW at night. This was destroying what was a relatively new facility. You see, peaking plants are made to withstand the stresses of repeated thermal cycling but baseline facilities are not. When you cycle a baseline coal plant you get tube leaks and cracks in various gas path parts that cause a shutdown. It was extremely destructive and expensive. It is physically impossible to throttle a nuclear plant like this, so Commonwealth Edison had no choice but to attempt it with these large fossil plants. But it was ugly.

Anyway, we've drifted and that's probably know more than you wanted to know.

Doug Sams
11-07-2008, 11:07 AM
Anyway, we've drifted and that's probably know more than you wanted to know.No, your posts, along with Jeff's, on energy are very informative and I welcome them.

When I got out of school (1983) I received an offer from TVA (?, somebody in the Tennessee Valley). Most all the power companies hiring then were indoctrinating the new guys in nukes, and that just wasn't appealing to me. So I went to work for a defense contractor making radars and image processors. It was much more exciting for me. But over the years I've learned to appreciate power generation and distribution. Taking the tour at Hoover Dam really opens ones eyes :)

Doug

.

stefanj
11-07-2008, 11:50 AM
Chart excerpted from http://www.change.gov, the presidential transition website:

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/images/bochart.jpg

* The Office of the Vice President is back in the Executive Branch, not some mythical fourth branch of government that Dick Cheney and David Addington made up.

* Notice what is on TOP of the Executive Branch.

tbzep
11-07-2008, 11:55 AM
No, your posts, along with Jeff's, on energy are very informative and I welcome them.

When I got out of school (1983) I received an offer from TVA (?, somebody in the Tennessee Valley). Most all the power companies hiring then were indoctrinating the new guys in nukes, and that just wasn't appealing to me. So I went to work for a defense contractor making radars and image processors. It was much more exciting for me. But over the years I've learned to appreciate power generation and distribution. Taking the tour at Hoover Dam really opens ones eyes :)

Doug

.

Yes, that would be TVA. Their plants are the ones I was talking about that never went online. We also had a hydroelectric dam get canceled after construction started because somebody found a variety of snail darter fish in the river near that location.

That's one of the problems the ultra-green folks don't understand. No matter what kind of energy we use, some living organism's habitat is going to be compromised in some way or other. Wind might have the least impact, but most places just aren't windy enough to use it.

MKP
11-07-2008, 12:06 PM
Ah, but birds like to smack into wind generators. :chuckle:

Everything we do will have some impact it's just a fact of life. If we found a good solution for the waste, nuclear would have the least impact, but what do you do with the waste?

(From a guy in Utah, a state that many feel should be the world's radioactive garbage dump)

ghrocketman
11-07-2008, 12:44 PM
I kinda LIKED Dick Cheney's fourth (butt-kikkin') branch.
Not mythical if YOU get to define your position. :D

kurtschachner
11-07-2008, 01:13 PM
Oh, and I forgot the most important thing! The Braidwood nuclear power plant - located in Braidwood, IL - is (er, was) the ever-so-famous location of the real life Braidwood Inn.

Those of you who get it, get it :D

Rocketflyer
11-07-2008, 01:27 PM
Yes, [snip],but most places just aren't windy enough to use it.


Geeeeeze, if we could harness the "wind" and "gas" in DC, we'd be energy suffiecient for quite some time! :rolleyes:

Doug Sams
11-07-2008, 01:47 PM
Oh, and I forgot the most important thing! The Braidwood nuclear power plant - located in Braidwood, IL - is (er, was) the ever-so-famous location of the real life Braidwood Inn.

Those of you who get it, get it :DYou're going the wrong way!

Doug

.

tbzep
11-07-2008, 02:49 PM
Geeeeeze, if we could harness the "wind" and "gas" in DC, we'd be energy suffiecient for quite some time! :rolleyes:

I don't know if the wind turbines can handle such high sustained hot winds. :eek:

Jeff Walther
11-07-2008, 02:55 PM
Everything we do will have some impact it's just a fact of life. If we found a good solution for the waste, nuclear would have the least impact, but what do you do with the waste?

Waste disposal is a solved problem. The environmental lobby just doesn't want to admit it. It doesn't take that long for power plant waste to be no more radioactive than the pitchblend which was originally taken from the ground. And processes are available for making it chemically stable.

But we really should be reprocessing the fuel. That would reduce the volume of waste by more than 90%.

Radioactive waste isn't really waste. Not in the sense of coal cinders, or wood ash. Radioactive waste is really nuclear fuel with slightly too much impurity, caused by the fissioning of fuel into byproducts. If you remove the impurities and re-enrich (add a smidgen (< 2%) of U235) the fuel is totally reusable. Unfortunately, Carter shut down our reprocessing capacity because he felt it was going to somehow lead to nuclear weapons proliferation--a strange causal chain, IMNSHO.

Anyway, dump that anti-nuclear propaganda out of your head. The nuclear waste "problem" is a political problem, not a technological problem. Are the solutions 100% safe and reliable? No. No industrial process can meet that criteria. Is storing and/or reprocessing nuclear waste safer than producing mountains of coal cinder and belching radioactive carbon into the air? No doubt about it. Is it better than windmills?...

It's cheaper. It has a vastly smaller geographical footprint. Even if birds aren't flying into wind turbines, is it really better to cover the landscape in towers (and reflectors, if solar is implemented) and roads to service all those towers, than it is to build some relatively compact nuclear power plants?

Jeff Walther
11-07-2008, 02:56 PM
Geeeeeze, if we could harness the "wind" and "gas" in DC, we'd be energy suffiecient for quite some time! :rolleyes:

Nah. Conservation of energy applies. They get all that wind and gas by sucking it out of us in one form or another.

tbzep
11-07-2008, 03:03 PM
Waste disposal is a solved problem. The environmental lobby just doesn't want to admit it. It doesn't take that long for power plant waste to be no more radioactive than the pitchblend which was originally taken from the ground. And processes are available for making it chemically stable.

But we really should be reprocessing the fuel. That would reduce the volume of waste by more than 90%.

Radioactive waste isn't really waste. Not in the sense of coal cinders, or wood ash. Radioactive waste is really nuclear fuel with slightly too much impurity, caused by the fissioning of fuel into byproducts. If you remove the impurities and re-enrich (add a smidgen (< 2%) of U235) the fuel is totally reusable. Unfortunately, Carter shut down our reprocessing capacity because he felt it was going to somehow lead to nuclear weapons proliferation--a strange causal chain, IMNSHO.

Anyway, dump that anti-nuclear propaganda out of your head. The nuclear waste "problem" is a political problem, not a technological problem. Are the solutions 100% safe and reliable? No. No industrial process can meet that criteria. Is storing and/or reprocessing nuclear waste safer than producing mountains of coal cinder and belching radioactive carbon into the air? No doubt about it. Is it better than windmills?...

It's cheaper. It has a vastly smaller geographical footprint. Even if birds aren't flying into wind turbines, is it really better to cover the landscape in towers (and reflectors, if solar is implemented) and roads to service all those towers, than it is to build some relatively compact nuclear power plants?

We may have different political viewpoints, but I'm with you on energy. I think Obama needs to appoint you as Secretary of Energy (if that's what it's called). :cool:

Doug Sams
11-07-2008, 03:32 PM
We may have different political viewpoints, but I'm with you on energy. I think Obama needs to appoint you as Secretary of Energy (if that's what it's called). :cool:What I find interesting here is that it almost appears that forces are anticipating our moves and cutting us off at the pass. In the 70's, it took years for Detroit to adjust to the mindset of fuel efficiency. This time around, they were in good shape for the increase in fuel prices and had lots of smaller models in the queue, ready to go. (Although even that has not been enough to overcome the economic downturn.)

Similarly, in the 70's, we built a pipeline and started building lots of nuke power plants before fuel prices finally bottomed along about 1986. This time around, we're all ready to re-think off-shore drilling and nukes, yet gas prices have fallen nearly 50% since last summer. Suddenly, we can't make such a compelling argument for alternative sources. I'm sure there are lots of car owners re-thinking their cars again, wondering if maybe they can go ahead and keep the Suburban. And I'll bet lots of utility companies are already re-shelving some of the plans they just got dusted off.

Nobody will move without something to compel them, and currently, gas is as cheap now, allowing for inflation, as it's been in years.

I still think using nukes for electricity is a good idea. I see both enviromental benefits and economic stability. But utilities won't be wanting to fight the regulatory hurdles if they can't see a faster turn around on their investment, and right now, natural gas isn't looking too shabby.

It's tough being a policy maker when you can't prove savings. That is, if nuke plants are built, it will drive down the cost of alternatives (natural gas, coal) thereby making the nukes seem less of a savings. It will make electricity rates more competitive and thus less suscpetible to the effects of speculation. Thus, price spikes like we've seen the past two years will be averted. But if they don't happen, policy makers can't boast that they saved us anything. And thus they could get drilled for having spent the money on alternatives when it (seemingly) turns out they didn't need to.

They're sorta danged if they do, danged if they don't.

Doug



.

kurtschachner
11-07-2008, 07:03 PM
Waste disposal is a solved problem. The environmental lobby just doesn't want to admit it. It doesn't take that long for power plant waste to be no more radioactive than the pitchblend which was originally taken from the ground. And processes are available for making it chemically stable.

But we really should be reprocessing the fuel. That would reduce the volume of waste by more than 90%.

Radioactive waste isn't really waste. Not in the sense of coal cinders, or wood ash. Radioactive waste is really nuclear fuel with slightly too much impurity, caused by the fissioning of fuel into byproducts. If you remove the impurities and re-enrich (add a smidgen (< 2%) of U235) the fuel is totally reusable. Unfortunately, Carter shut down our reprocessing capacity because he felt it was going to somehow lead to nuclear weapons proliferation--a strange causal chain, IMNSHO.

Anyway, dump that anti-nuclear propaganda out of your head. The nuclear waste "problem" is a political problem, not a technological problem. Are the solutions 100% safe and reliable? No. No industrial process can meet that criteria. Is storing and/or reprocessing nuclear waste safer than producing mountains of coal cinder and belching radioactive carbon into the air? No doubt about it. Is it better than windmills?...

It's cheaper. It has a vastly smaller geographical footprint. Even if birds aren't flying into wind turbines, is it really better to cover the landscape in towers (and reflectors, if solar is implemented) and roads to service all those towers, than it is to build some relatively compact nuclear power plants?

You are correct, I also agree. But as an aside, a modern coal plant (and really that's all that is left these days) is also clean. The whole media hype over coal and how dirty it is, is just a hoax. Nothing is 100% "clean".

This country has VAST reserves of coal. More than enough to supply our electricty needs for a very long time. And although we aren't in the top 5 for uranium we also have a lot of that - as does our politically stable neighbor to the north.

Don't get me wrong, I'm very pro-nuclear too but all the Bad Things you hear about coal are largely unwarranted.

Bazookadale
11-07-2008, 07:17 PM
We may have different political viewpoints, but I'm with you on energy. I think Obama needs to appoint you as Secretary of Energy (if that's what it's called). :cool:

I wonder if Elaine Sadowski is available? She was energy Czar of Pittsburgh for many years and is model rocket friendly!

Gus
11-07-2008, 07:34 PM
Waste disposal is a solved problem. The environmental lobby just doesn't want to admit it. It doesn't take that long for power plant waste to be no more radioactive than the pitchblend which was originally taken from the ground. And processes are available for making it chemically stable.

But we really should be reprocessing the fuel. That would reduce the volume of waste by more than 90%.
Jeff,

I have to admit I haven't been following nuclear developments closely but I was quite surprised to read the problem had been solved. Seems like there are still an awful lot of trains headed to Yucca Flats.

Wikipedia gives the following description of the reprocesing option:

Economics of reprocessing nuclear fuel

The relative economics of reprocessing-waste disposal and interim storage-direct disposal has been the focus of much debate over the past ten years. Studies have modelled the total fuel cycle costs of a reprocessing-recycling system based on one-time recycling of plutonium in existing thermal reactors (as opposed to the proposed fast breeder reactor cycle) and compare this to the total costs of an open fuel cycle with direct disposal. The range of results produced by these studies is very wide, but all are agreed that under current (2005) economic conditions the reprocessing-recycle option is the more costly.

If reprocessing is undertaken only to reduce the radioactivity level of spent fuel it should be taken into account that spent nuclear fuel becomes less radioactive over time. After 40 years its radioactivity drops by 99.9%,[23] though it still takes over a thousand years for the level of radioactivity to approach that of natural uranium.[24] However the level of transuranic elements, including plutonium-239, remains high for over 100,000 years, so if not reused as nuclear fuel, then those elements need secure disposal because of nuclear proliferation reasons as well as radiation hazard.

kurtschachner
11-07-2008, 07:45 PM
Jeff,

I have to admit I haven't been following nuclear developments closely but I was quite surprised to read the problem had been solved. Seems like there are still an awful lot of trains headed to Yucca Flats.

Did you mean Yucca Mountain? I don't believe there is any waste stored at Yucca Flats. Also, the storage program (IIRC) hasn't started at Yucca Mountain either. I think all spent rods are still in temporary storage - mostly through programs operated by the utilities.

Here you go:

http://www.nrc.gov/waste/spent-fuel-storage.html

There's quite a story behind spent fuel pools too.

LeeR
11-07-2008, 08:09 PM
Heh. I still have thousands of rounds from the Clinton administration...

Man, you are getting dangerously low -- stock up soon!

:)

Nuke Rocketeer
11-07-2008, 09:04 PM
Jeff,

I have to admit I haven't been following nuclear developments closely but I was quite surprised to read the problem had been solved. Seems like there are still an awful lot of trains headed to Yucca Flats.

Wikipedia gives the following description of the reprocesing option:

Economics of reprocessing nuclear fuel

The relative economics of reprocessing-waste disposal and interim storage-direct disposal has been the focus of much debate over the past ten years. Studies have modelled the total fuel cycle costs of a reprocessing-recycling system based on one-time recycling of plutonium in existing thermal reactors (as opposed to the proposed fast breeder reactor cycle) and compare this to the total costs of an open fuel cycle with direct disposal. The range of results produced by these studies is very wide, but all are agreed that under current (2005) economic conditions the reprocessing-recycle option is the more costly.

If reprocessing is undertaken only to reduce the radioactivity level of spent fuel it should be taken into account that spent nuclear fuel becomes less radioactive over time. After 40 years its radioactivity drops by 99.9%,[23] though it still takes over a thousand years for the level of radioactivity to approach that of natural uranium.[24] However the level of transuranic elements, including plutonium-239, remains high for over 100,000 years, so if not reused as nuclear fuel, then those elements need secure disposal because of nuclear proliferation reasons as well as radiation hazard.

Before I write any more let me state I work in the nuke plant biz........

The whole re-processing cycle right now is a lot more expensive than the once through method currently being used, and that is entirely due to the fact that there is a LOT of easily mined uranium around. Hell, there are mines in Wyoming that have been shut down for years because it was cheaper to get it elsewhere. IMHO, the best bet for used fuel bundles is to store them in the pool for a few years to let them cool off (thermally and radiologically), then put them in Yucca Mt, in retrievable containers for re-use in 50-100 years when the economics of re-processing become favorable. THose things will be a goldmine for the government.

BTW....there are no trains headed for Yucca mt. at all from anywhere. The place is not ready and is over 10 years behind schedule due to excessive political interference, mainly from Harry Reid. There is not one bundle stored there yet.

The regulatory hurdle to new plants is not as bad as it used to be. Despite intense opposition from an almost impotent anti-nuke lobby, a new liscensing bill passed the Republican controlled congress in the late 1990's that made liscensing a one step process. A utility applies for a combined Construction Operating Liscense (COL) and all hearings are held BEFORE one shovel of dirt is turned over. The company HAS to build one of the standardized plant designs already certified by the NRC, AP1000, ABWR, ESBWR, or EER. There is also a maximum time limit for the hearings for the COL with no appeals or extensions.

We have sold 4 of our new plants to China, and have 2 US utilities sign on to buy 4 here. We are expecting them to sign a contract sometime next year.

All of you wind proponents need to remember that the capacity factor for a wind turbine is about 25%. What that means is that it can produce it's full output only 25% of the time, and that is usually not when the power is needed the most. To replace a 500 MW coal plant, you have to build 2000 MW of wind turbines, and since each wind machine averages about 2 MW in size, you have to build ~1000 wind turbines to replace one small coal plant, using much much more in iron, copper, concrete, and energy than it takes to build a coal plant. Solar is even worse. Neither can compete with coal nuclear or gas generated electricity on an even basis.

Nuke Rocketeer
11-07-2008, 09:16 PM
The $750 million quoted cost was real. Remember, up until this time Commonwealth Edison had built lots of other nuclear plants and this one wasn't unusual. They knew what it cost to build a plant. It was the legislation that changed, during the late '70s and early '80s there was a tremendous amount of re-writing of the NRC regulations regarding nuclear generating facilities. Even though the original designs were approved as meeting the then-current regulations, this meant nothing. If regulations changed during the construction (and they did) then you had to modify or replace affected systems before an operational license would be granted. This, obviously, was extremely expensive. Braidwood had a sister plant (Byron) that was affected in a similar fashion.

The "other delays" I mentioned were due to what was called excessive baseline capacity in the Edison system. Most utility companies have two types of generating capacity - baseline and peak. Peaking power is produced using gas and oil generators and specialized coal fired plants. Baseline capacity is generated by nuclear plants and large coal plants. Peaking power is produced in the daytime (especially when the steel mills are operating) and baseline is usually the average nighttime level. Back in the mid '70s when you plotted the demand curves for electricity, it showed a certain required baseline capacity that Commonwealth Edison was gearing up to provide to their customers. But with the economic slowdown that came in the Carter administration, the demand for electricity flattened out sharply. Commonwealth Edison was caught with a huge oversupply of baseline capacity and as a result they slowed the completion of several nuclear power plants. This slowdown only exacerbated the potential for changing regulations to adversely affect the completion of those plants.

The problem with excess baseline capacity is that you can't throttle up or throttle down the plants to meet daily demands. That was one of the reasons I was hired as a summer engineer. The coal plant I worked at was a very large (1800+ MW) plant and they were cycling it down to approximately 500 MW at night. This was destroying what was a relatively new facility. You see, peaking plants are made to withstand the stresses of repeated thermal cycling but baseline facilities are not. When you cycle a baseline coal plant you get tube leaks and cracks in various gas path parts that cause a shutdown. It was extremely destructive and expensive. It is physically impossible to throttle a nuclear plant like this, so Commonwealth Edison had no choice but to attempt it with these large fossil plants. But it was ugly.

Anyway, we've drifted and that's probably know more than you wanted to know.

You can cycle a nuke plant, but with a ramp rate limited to about 5% an hour for a PWR and only slightly higher than that for a BWR, they are just to slow for cycling duty. Besides, in the power production block (AKA BOP Balance of Plant), the steam produced is wet saturated steam, and the condensed steam in the drains lines is just very slightly subcooled, ramping up and down all the time causes the water to flash to steam producing transients that damage equipment and sometimes produces plant trips.

OMG, I'm such an engineering geek!

Nuke Rocketeer
11-07-2008, 09:20 PM
When I was in college back in the late 70's and early 80's, I worked during the summers for Commonwealth Edison. I worked in one of their largest coal fired plants but at the time Commonwealth was the largest operator of nuclear power plants in the world. I was able to tour two nuclear plants while they were under construction, as this is the only time you would be allowed inside the containment vessel.

Anyway, one of the plants (Braidwood) had been started several years earlier and at the beginning of construction the estimated completion cost was $750 million dollars. The way it worked then was that if the regulations changed during construction then the plant would have to be retrofitted to conform to the latest laws (no grandfathering). How this played out was that huge, brand new systems that had been installed (and of course never used) were being ripped out and replaced. Sitting out on the grass in front of the plant were miles and miles of piping, pumps and assorted machinery that had been installed but subsequently removed. When we toured - and I would say this was about 1981 - Commonwealth Edison had spent about $3.5 billion on the plant and it was about 70% complete. Due to other issues the construction on the plant was delayed but eventually finished and both reactors were brought on line in the 1980s. IIRC the final cost exceeded $5 billion dollars.

I went to work for Texas Utilities at Comanche Peak when it was under construction. SUpposed to cost $800 million, ended up costing TXU over $12 billion.

kurtschachner
11-07-2008, 09:26 PM
Yeah, I was being a bit imprecise in my statement. When I said it was physically impossible, I didn't mean as in "physics". I meant that (at least at the time I worked for Commonwealth Edison) it took more time than you had in a 24-hour demand cycle. We can agree that they certainly aren't made for it.

It wasn't much better for the coal plant though either. We had other problems at that plant as well, also due to environmental regulations that were enacted after the plant was built. But that's a whole nuther story for some other day.

You can cycle a nuke plant, but with a ramp rate limited to about 5% an hour for a PWR and only slightly higher than that for a BWR, they are just to slow for cycling duty. Besides, in the power production block (AKA BOP Balance of Plant), the steam produced is wet saturated steam, and the condensed steam in the drains lines is just very slightly subcooled, ramping up and down all the time causes the water to flash to steam producing transients that damage equipment and sometimes produces plant trips.

OMG, I'm such an engineering geek!

Nuke Rocketeer
11-07-2008, 09:32 PM
It was tough for me. Three things worry me about Obama. First, I cannot tell what his position is on gun control. I oppose it, so McCain was a better choice for me on that issue.

Second, I'm afraid he may embrace the Al Gore energy fantasy rather than just paying lip service to the extremists in the environmental lobby. The realities of power production and distribution mean we're never going to get all of our power from their idea of "renewable" sources. Trying to force that in ten years would be a disaster on a scale with Lysenko'ism in the USSR.

Third, the kind of change that national health care coverage would require is frightening, no matter what they propose. To achieve that stated goal would require huge change and that kind of change scares me.

But there's enough uncertainty in those three things wrt Obama, that I was willing to vote for him. Notice that on items one and two McCain pretty solidly agrees with my position. If he had not embraced the religious right, he could have had my vote. But liberty trumps economic security and all other forms of security, in my book.

Actually, McCain was a little weak on item 2. We should be going full steam ahead on nuclear power, no holds barred. If the environmental lobby sincerely believes that carbon emission is such a problem, then there is no rational excuse for their opposition to nuclear power.

Consider this. If the anti-nuclear lobby had not killed off nuclear power in the late 70s and the USA had built ten nuclear power plants per year, we would now have 300 more nuclear power plants. That would mean that *all* of the USA's electricity would come from non-carbon producing sources. Transportation would still burn oil, but electricity production would use no coal (less pollution/carbon) no natural gas (less carbon, lower prices for household consumers), and no fuel oil (less pollution/carbon, and lower prices for notherners who use FO for heat). I propose that the anti-nuclear activists caused global warming for no good benefit.

Looks like you have drank the lib koolaid on the "religious right". Their positions on abortion have not changed in over 50 years, but 50 years ago they were mainstream. The Catholic church is about the only one of the major sects that officially opposes contraception totally. The others only oppose their children getting it from the government without their consent. The whole gay marriage crock is another way the left is using to destroy the traditional family and replace it with a not-so-benevolent government nannie.

The "religious right" is a hateful spiteful moniker given to those who uphold traditional values/morals. Sarah Palin is what gave McCain a fighting chance to win and made the election closer than it should have been. She resonates with a very large percentage of the American voting population. Many of which stayed home last Tuesday because they just got tired of getting kicked on by the old Republican Establishment who were never comfortable with them. If they had come out and voted like they did in 2004, McCain probably would have won. She and Bobby Jindal scare the democrats which is why they are still doing major character assassinations on her and will start in on Jindal very soon.

BTW.....most of us in the "religious right" are definitely not single issue voters.

Solomoriah
11-07-2008, 11:10 PM
Ah, but birds like to smack into wind generators. :chuckle:
I really want to smack everyone I hear say that. (But not you, MKP, I can see your smiley.) How stupid. Birds aren't the smartest animals on Earth, but they have really good vision and aren't stupid enough to land on something that spins. Those few that do, won't reproduce.

I've noticed in this area, the very numerous whitetail deer are hit on the roads in smaller numbers just about every year. The ones who run in front of cars and get killed don't reproduce any more, so each generation contains fewer animals prone to that behavior and more who just stand on the side of the road and look as you pass by. Natural selection does work.

Actually, I'm suspicious that's our plan in Iraq... since they seem set on blowing up their young men, and now even young women, if we simply arrange that they suffer more deaths than we do (and they do), slowly the ones who are extremists will die out, while those who don't care to blow themselves up will reproduce. I'm not saying I support this policy (or that I am against it)... it just seems to be what we are doing.

A commentator on TV a while back made a comment about France not being terribly friendly with us. You know what? I like France as an "enemy." They can call us all the bad names they want to, and we can do the same to them. Nobody bleeds, nobody dies. Much better than an enemy that will kill himself just to take some of us with him.

Well, I've wandered far from the topic...

JRThro
11-08-2008, 10:08 AM
You can cycle a nuke plant, but with a ramp rate limited to about 5% an hour for a PWR and only slightly higher than that for a BWR, they are just to slow for cycling duty. Besides, in the power production block (AKA BOP Balance of Plant), the steam produced is wet saturated steam, and the condensed steam in the drains lines is just very slightly subcooled, ramping up and down all the time causes the water to flash to steam producing transients that damage equipment and sometimes produces plant trips.

OMG, I'm such an engineering geek!
Maybe you are, but it's great stuff! As I mentioned upthread, I have a NucE degree, so this stuff is still fascination to me even though I've never worked in the industry.

Bob Kaplow
12-05-2008, 04:53 PM
So, does any one know the latest weather forecast for Mars?














:)

Jeff Walther
12-05-2008, 05:02 PM
So, does any one know the latest weather forecast for Mars? :)

Dry. Cold. Breezy. Clear skies with no cloud cover. Seven day forcast contains no chance for rain.

Jeff Walther
12-05-2008, 05:22 PM
I didn't realize this thread had moved along.

First, I agree with Nuke Rocketeer that the actual intelligent thing to do is to store spent fuel in a recoverable form, for now, until reprocessing starts to make more sense economically.

However, when trying to counter the lies and misinformation of the anti-nuclear lobby, I find the recycling argument about more than 90% of spent fuel being reusable *right now* to be much more effective. Yes, it glosses over the reality of the details, but it doesn't bend them over backwards and break them the way the environmental lobby does.

Regarding Gus's quote of the wiki article, 1000 years is still the relatively "short" time I mentioned for waste to be no more radioactive than pitch blend given that the anti-nuke folks usually claim we must store it safely forever, or millions of years, or 100s of thousands. Chemical processes are available which will prevent the plutonium from migrating, so the issues mentioned in the Wiki article don't really have any weight in that respect. The idea that a tiny fractional percentage of plutonium scattered evenly throughout a huge mass of radioactive waste somehow represents a a nuclear weapons proliferation danger continues to amaze me.

***HOw in the world are they going to steal the mass of waste needed and extract the plutonium at some usable purity without anyone noticing??*** This is the same argument Carter made which continues to boggle me.

I don't really see the cycling issues as a problem. We can either keep some natural gas plants around and live with the much reduced carbon emissions, or we can build over capacity of nukes and sink the excess during low demand periods--for example to distill seawater on the coasts or to crack hydrogen out of water or carbohydrates where seawater is not avaiable.

The real problem is that it takes time and industrial capacity to build the plants. We've squandered the opportunity we had to convert our electrical infrastructure largely because of the lies of the environmentalists. And it's creating (at least according to environmentalists) an environmental problem (too much carbon).

What really galls me is that I keep hearing news programs taking statements from the "Union of Concerned Scientists" as if they're a neutral authority. They have been opposing nuclear power fanatically since the 70s and as far as I can tell that is what they organized in order to do. Why would a news organization interview them for anything except a nuclear opposing POV?

Ltvscout
12-05-2008, 08:59 PM
So, does any one know the latest weather forecast for Mars?
:chuckle:

That's the spirit, Bob!