DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
(D) J. Hickenlooper*
(R) Somebody
80%
20%
(D) M. Dougherty
(D) Jena Griswold
(D) Brian Mason
60%↑
30%↑
20%↓
(D) Brianna Titone
(R) Kevin Grantham
(D) Jerry DiTullio
60%↑
30%
20%↓
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
(R) Jeff Hurd*
(D) Somebody
80%
40%
(R) Lauren Boebert*
(D) Somebody
90%
10%
(R) Jeff Crank*
(D) Somebody
80%
20%
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
(D) B. Pettersen*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
(R) Gabe Evans*
(D) Manny Rutinel
(D) Yadira Caraveo
45%↓
40%↑
30%
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
(D) J. Hickenlooper*
(R) Somebody
80%
20%
(D) M. Dougherty
(D) Jena Griswold
(D) Brian Mason
60%↑
30%↑
20%↓
(D) Brianna Titone
(R) Kevin Grantham
(D) Jerry DiTullio
60%↑
30%
20%↓
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
(R) Jeff Hurd*
(D) Somebody
80%
40%
(R) Lauren Boebert*
(D) Somebody
90%
10%
(R) Jeff Crank*
(D) Somebody
80%
20%
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
(D) B. Pettersen*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
(R) Gabe Evans*
(D) Manny Rutinel
(D) Yadira Caraveo
45%↓
40%↑
30%
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
March 14, 2025 08:31 AM UTC
25 Comments
We are dealing with what appears to be a bot attack on the site. If you're seeing this, it means we're making progress.
I guess NazitechBro got mad at all the bad comments (and the hackz on his site) and decided to take it out on CoPols….
If someone is going to that effort it means you're having an impact. So congrats!
I wondered if someone was making mischief on the site.
Yes…Friday the site appeared to be unreachable. Congrats on fending off the DOGEbags .
Nuclear vs. Solar – CAPEX & OPEX
A comparison of using nuclear vs. solar to deliver 1.4GW of baseload power
TL:DR; Solar is cheaper. Solar plus the necessary backup is a lot more expensive.
Placement is clearly the key and nuclear power is a tremendous solution to our planet’s energy needs . . .
. . . as long as the reactor is located at least ninety million miles from the nearest playgound.
Nuclear proponents like to say things like, "oh, the waste disposal is not that bad a problem, and anyway, it's solved." But they almost never acknowledge the *source* side of the equation – mining, extraction, and processing. See for example https://www.hcn.org/articles/contamination-threatens-the-last-source-of-clean-groundwater-in-west-new-mexico/
Provably worse than fracking for oil and gas. I'm not going to take any pro-nuclear arguments seriously unless the supply side environmental damage is addressed.
I haven't had any luck in getting David to acknowledge the supply side environmental issues. Maybe you'll have better luck.
David will not look at the supply side environmental issues because he can't really keep this distraction going if he resolves everyones' questions. The world is about to explode, and David wants to keep the conversation about nuclear power? Really, David?
Do you have a uranium lease out in Nevada or something?
So, what's a uranium mining project look like today versus one that was built in the mid-20th century with an unlined tailings pond built under the purveyance of the Atomic Energy Comission to build a nuclear arsenal as quickly as possible with no environmental concerns?
I mean, an IBM 7000 series was something in the 1960's but I'm not going give it as an example of modern computers capabilties.
With Trump's EPA I think you could not tell the difference.
Fortunately, tailings from uranium processing are regulated by the NRC.
There is a lot of toxic waste from uranium as well as pretty much every other type of mining in the past. And we're going to be dealing with these super fund sites for decades and possibly centuries.
The question is what's going on today. I've looked and can't find any major issues with mining in the U.S. today. There's issues with fracking and run-off from oil wells. But everything else seems to be handled a lot better now.
If there are examples of problems today, please do share.
It often takes decades for those problems and their full extent to come to light. Certainly usually not until after the mining concern has issued dividends on executive options, paid bonuses, gone bankrupt, and folded up the corporation.
This administration’s gutting of environmental regulation and driving a stake through any regulatory authority will only incentivize irresponsible industry behavior and birth inevitable problems.
Check back here in another thirty years, huh? There will undoubtedly be examples aplenty of what we have foolishly failed to learn (over and over and over again) from past experience.
All fair points. But it's not unique to Uranium.
True, but the radioactive half-life of uranium (and all its byproduct) is.
So, being the fair minded snd entirely objective person you are, you should add that problem and all its unique start to finish costs, to the environmental problems of extraction in general when balancing sides in your nuclear vs. solar vs. wind vs. fossil fuels calculations.
Trace amounts of uranium in the soil occurs naturally in lots of places. Boulder Valley has a level of uranium that would get a nuclear plant shut down.
The truly dangerous stuff could all be stacked in 2 football fields. And can be stored safely in Yucca Mountain.
Probably a lot more environmental degradation for solar & batteries due to the quantity of minerals needed for those.
Sorry, but you're still side-stepping on the issue of the hazards created by the actual mining of uranium while focusing on the waste/end product. Did you ever drive into Moab from the north back in the day? Ever drive through the Paradox Valley, Naturita, the old town site of Uravan, on the Western Slope? Or read up on the history?
"examples of problems today…." Geez, David. You are aware, I hope, that hardrock mining in the US is still governed by the General Mining Act of 1872? Prospectors, many of them fortune hunters, can stake a claim for a pittance on any land that isn't already designated. And minimal, if any, royalties get paid to the taxpayers. If that's not a problem or major issue with mining today, I don't know what is.
I hope enough Senators hold the line and vote no on cloture today. Yes both options suck. But voting no means the Democrats in the Senate will stand up to Trump. Voting yes means they will accept whatever he tries. They may tell themselves they'll vote no next time. But each subsequent time it actually becomes harder to vote no after the previous yes votes.
I read that last sentence as "each subservient time".
Yes. Boil the frog now, or later.
Public opinion is like surfing: You need to time your stroked to catch the wave.
Well…we finally agree on something, but it looks like the Democrats are intent on handing the country over to the fascists. Crap!!
Søren
learn to spell properly