Obama Pushes for Nuclear Power

Discussion in 'Politics' started by faceking, Feb 16, 2010.

  1. faceking

    faceking Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2004
    Messages:
    7,535
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    110
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Mavs, NOR * CAL
    Reuters AlertNet - INTERVIEW-Nuclear power aids White House climate push

    Wow... I'm glad he did it. It's a start. Such a smart decision. When Bush brought this notion up, he'd get lambasted. Don't care that Obama is getting a semi-free ride.... just want to see nuclear power come back. Funny, as Americun libtards love to espouse how well everything else is done in other countries, but they make that exception with Western Europe's high percentage of power from nuclear power.

    Alright Hanoi Jane... start your protesting against Obama on this... I'll help heave the cumpie in your face as your blather at the podium... I only need to be in the 3rd row...too.
     
  2. justasimpleguy

    justasimpleguy Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2009
    Messages:
    425
    Albums:
    4
    Likes Received:
    131
    Gender:
    Male
    I doubt you'll have any takers. I think everyone agrees we need diverse sources of energy and to end our dependence on fossil fuels and other non-renewable energy. That's not to say I'm too excited about it. But at least he can pronounce nuclear.
     
  3. B_nyvin

    B_nyvin New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2009
    Messages:
    412
    Likes Received:
    3
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Pensacola FL
    It's only France and Belgium that get a high percentage of electricity from Nuclear energy. Italy, Portugal, Ireland, Poland, Denmark, and eastern Germany have no nuclear reactors at all. Around the EU as a whole nuclear accounts for about 15% of electricity production, compared to USA's 20.5%
     
  4. faceking

    faceking Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2004
    Messages:
    7,535
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    110
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Mavs, NOR * CAL
    Eastern Germany?

    Besides your math is COMPLETELY WRONG. But I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt in that you are mixing up ELECTRICITY PRODUCTION vs. ENERGY CONSUMPTION. Obviously, we don't have nuclear powered cars... so mixing energy vs electricity is an acceptable mistake.

    The UE's electricity production comes from nuclear power at ~30%, not 15%. France's electricity production is around 75-80%.

    No offense, but I could care less that Cyrpus, the Slovak Republic or Estonia don't have a nuclear plant. Neither does San Francisco bay area metro... and it's bigger (and more relevant) than those 3 combined.


    Regardless... we need more. Three Mile Island... laughable. There's a 25 yr stat floating about, that shows thousands who've died from coal and natural gas plants (both employees and innocent citizens) while nuclear power is below 100 deaths.
     
  5. maxcok

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2009
    Messages:
    7,392
    Likes Received:
    12
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Elsewhere
    I have mixed feelings about this, and you actually make a valid point for a change, regarding the coal industry in particular. We still have not addressed the problem of nuclear waste disposal. If this is an interim measure to lessen our dependence on fossil fuels, fine. However, I still favor a Manhattan Project style approach to developing clean alternatives ASAP.

    Unfortunately, you discredit yourself and weaken your argument considerably with your usual malice and by including the following. It seems you have some issues, further evidenced by your gallery. I wonder what your opinion is of women in general. Not really.
    Ooooh! whatta stud!!
     
    #5 maxcok, Feb 17, 2010
    Last edited: Feb 17, 2010
  6. D_Fiona_Farvel

    D_Fiona_Farvel Account Disabled

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2007
    Messages:
    3,790
    Likes Received:
    17
    Which is it - a "semi-free ride" or lefties up in arms?
     
  7. SilverTrain

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2008
    Messages:
    4,582
    Albums:
    8
    Likes Received:
    404
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    USA
    Depends on which paragraph you're in.

    Duh!
     
  8. D_Kaye Throttlebottom

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2008
    Messages:
    1,543
    Likes Received:
    0

    Uhm. GW Bush did bring this "notion" up. Actually it was more of a notion. GW Bush supported the construction of 4 new nuclear power plants and agreed to subsidize a portion of the construction with the commercial sector.

    They sited more "safety" of nuclear power plants (vice the argument against Nuclear power in 70 and 80's for political reasons). Diversification is key and nuclear power does not burn anything.

    Bush also supported burying wasted fuel in Yucca mountain (the most geologically stable surface). That is still tied up in lawsuits and will likely be so for another 10 years.

    It's not truly a Right vs Left issue any longer. In the 70/80's there was criticism because of the "safety" of nuclear power plants and "hysteria." Not the same arguments are used.

    Here's a good read that explains the pros of nuclear energy as a solution to joe reader:

    Amazon.com: Power to Save the World: The Truth About Nuclear Energy (9780307266569): Gwyneth Cravens, Richard Rhodes: Books
     
  9. maxcok

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2009
    Messages:
    7,392
    Likes Received:
    12
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Elsewhere
    . . . at least. Yes, well the people in Nevada aren't too keen on the idea. Neither are the people who will have trucks and trains running through their backyards transporting nuclear waste. I'd suggest everybody consider whether they're on the route, accidents do happen.

    Furthermore, brilliant as GWB was, it wasn't exactly his idea. Just thought I'd point that out.
     
  10. mako shark

    Verified Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2009
    Messages:
    3,298
    Albums:
    6
    Likes Received:
    1,211
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Out West
    Verified:
    Photo
    Take this from a former Nuclear Plant Operator/Machinist, it is about time we look into that science again...
     
  11. maxcok

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2009
    Messages:
    7,392
    Likes Received:
    12
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Elsewhere
    um . . . when did we stop? As far as I know we have nuclear power plants operating right now.
    I used to live down the road from one. I hope we haven't stop looking into the science.
     
  12. tomthelad91

    tomthelad91 New Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2008
    Messages:
    122
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Birmingham, UK
    I think everyone should be really stoked about this.
    For the more 'Liberal' side; Nuclear Power emits almost zero carbon. Aka, good for the environment compared to more traditional Coal & Oil sources.

    As for the more 'Conservatives' amongst you, Nuclear power reduces reliance on Foreign Oil & Gas, meaning the 'Evil Islamic World' that you all fear so much has less control over your economy.

    The chances of an accident are minute.
    More people die in other power plant accidents than Nuclear ones.
    Take that Coal power station in Connecticut that killed all those people for example.

    Nuclear is win win win.

    And as for the 11 people who live in Northern Nevada, I'm sure they can move their trailer a few feet away from the tracks if they're that concerned about derailments.
     
  13. B_starinvestor

    B_starinvestor New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2006
    Messages:
    4,409
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Midwest
    Check with Midlifebear on this one. He has a trailer/primary residence there - I believe it is mobile but he would probably want gov't to pay to move the trailer to another section of the state.
     
  14. B_Mister Buildington

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2009
    Messages:
    592
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Yay Obama! Why haven't we done this sooner?
     
  15. mako shark

    Verified Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2009
    Messages:
    3,298
    Albums:
    6
    Likes Received:
    1,211
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Out West
    Verified:
    Photo
    We stop building nuclear plants a good 20 years ago in the US (for many silly reasons). Funny how economic conditions have now forced us to take another look at this source of energy... Yes, there are some plants that are still running today (like where you used to live) and some that are currently being shut down as well. You probably can't even tell me when the last one was built stateside. As we used to say in the nuclear field, "I could tell you but then I would have to _ _ _ _ you." :smile:

     
  16. maxcok

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2009
    Messages:
    7,392
    Likes Received:
    12
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Elsewhere
    I've condensed your post, deleting the portions I actually agree with. Allow me to point out, if there is an accident, however 'minute' the chances, it can be particularly nasty - affecting a wide area and huge population centers. Just because it hasn't happened, doesn't mean it won't. That's why they're called 'accidents'.

    Let me also point out, you still have not addressed the problem of waste disposal. In order for waste to be buried in Nevada, if that is indeed where it ends up, it has to first be transported from stations all over the country. It could literally move past your backyard, if not yours, somebody else's. Then there's the whole groundwater seepage issue. So it's not entirely a 'win win win', now is it? Not yet.

    I for one, though not entirely opposed, am far from being 'stoked'.

     
  17. midlifebear

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2007
    Messages:
    5,908
    Likes Received:
    11
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Nevada, Buenos Aires, and Barçelona
    Starpooper -- dull child -- sorry to break your bubble about me owning "a trailer" in Nevada. Unlike your mother's basement, I now own ten "connected" sections and am in the process of acquiring another one (uh, so you don't have to look it up, a section is 640 acres). And the word "connected" is important, because most of the west is a checkerboard of sections alternately owned by private citizens (I'm a private citizen) and the US Government. The sections owned by the US Government are managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). Most of my neighbors hate the BLM. However, I don't. I find them to be the best neighbors one could possibly have. But more importantly than just owning a bunch of dirt, I also own all the surface water and underground mineral rights to those sections. And all that dirt is fenced in with what we call "wild life fencing." It keeps free-ranging cattle out (usually) while not impeding the migratory patterns of mule deer, elk, antelope and the occasional moose. It also prevents overgrazing. This is something my free-ranging cattle neighbors really dislike. If you want to graze on the land I control (for none of us really "owns" property), you have to pay me.

    My home is rather nice,too. It was designed by Rocio Romero, a Chilean immigrant to the USA who owns her own architectural firm in Perryville, MO. And even though I'm forced to be connected to "the grid" by Wells Rural Electric (WREC) 99% of all electricity used to keep everyone warm, cook food, run the washers, dryers, well pumps, etc., is solar and wind generated. The out buildings are original wooden structures kept in excellent repair, some more than 100 years old. And I've built a couple of modern log cabins in which the ranch hands live who take care of the place for me. But my spread is in the north eastern sagebrush steppe. I'm closer to Twin Falls, Idaho, than Elko, Nevada, the county seat. Yucca Mountain is slightly north of Las Vegas and right next to California in Nye County -- 4 or 5 hundred miles south west of me.

    The problems with Yucca Mountain (and I personally don't have a dog in this fight) are basically three:
    1. The project has been built as cheaply as possible. After all, that's the 'Mericuhn way. And despite this, it's WAY over budget and the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) cannot guarantee that it is safe. They "say" they can, but words are cheap.
    2.The Atomic Energy Commission does not have a tried and true system to stabilize nuclear waste, although they won't admit it. The reason they haven't adopted a tried and true means of dealing with nuclear waste is again because of money (and government and military stupidity). The French developed a system that recycles all atomic waste than can be recycled. The waste that cannot be recycled is encased in molten glass so that it cannot "accidentally escape" -- even if the glass breaks. Glass is a super cooled liquid and moves at a very slow rate. Therefore clean up within the human time-frame of any storage accidents that might occur can easily be dealt with. Best of all, no leaking of radioactive materials into soil or ground water. But it's an expensive process. And nuclear energy is supposed to be cheap, right?
    3. Turns out that Yucca Mountain (as well as Yucca Flats) is not so remote and stable that it is the "cheap" solution for safely storing nuclear waste for several thousand years. During the last 10 years (and especially in the last 4) it has been discovered that Yucca Mountain is not dug out of a mountain range that is in an inactive earthquake zone. They've actually been having some cautionary earthquakes. Small temblors, but proof that -- as usual -- the AEC lies. This in itself is not so bad, but even in the arid deserts of Nevada the current (and poorly designed) concrete/steel means of containment of radioactive waste is guaranteed to corrode within 100 years (unlike the slowly moving glass method used by the French). And lo and behold, there is a valuable aquifer that would be damaged if a radioactive leak were to occur. Before, during, and until recently the "smart people" who pushed through the Yucca Mountain project insisted there was no significant aquifer to worry about. Whoops!

    God forbid the AEC and the USA should ever adopt a smarter way of doing things, especially if the French thought of it first!

    As for the current reactors on-line pumping the juice to light up 'Mericuh? Maxcox mentioned that he lived near one (most likely San Onofre) north of Sandy Eggo. You can actually take tours of this facility with a bunch of senior citizens one day a month. It sits directly on the sand and waters edge of the Pacific Ocean. Happy Californian hodads hang ten from early morning to late afternoon in front of the place when the "curls are way tubular!" My favorite is the Model-T of reactors at Moro Bay north of San Luis Obisbo -- right where Big Sur begins. If you ever get the chance, visit this relic of the cold war. It's hard to miss. Although the reactor, itself, and dangerous naughty bits are clad in 1950's "lowest bidder" concrete that was eventually poured in the late 1970's. The entire facility is clad in corrugated steel/zinc siding. It's a lovely rusting monolith, a testament to what happens when sea water corrodes cheap materials. But, according to the AEC . . . well, you get the idea. It's due to go off-line, permanently, in 2024. Anyone of you have an idea of what it takes to mothball a nuclear power plant? There's more to it than turning off a switch. And it's almost as expensive as building one in the first place (a nuclear power plant, not a switch).

    Oh, and I'm given to understand that my "new" neighbor out in the sagebrush steppe is T. Boone Pickins! Boy howdy! Seems he's negotiating to buy what is left of the Winecup/Gambels ranches and put in a giant wind turbine farm. And I mention all of this "extra" information about me, not living in a trailer, wildlife fences and other stuff because I know it especially pisses off Facequeen.

    And when any of you LPSG-ers happen to drive along I-80 from the west to the east or the east to the west, be sure to stop at Elko, do some gambling, and check out the local bars. We really like the money you'all leave in The Silver State. And according to the ladies who run my bar/restaurant, lemon drops are the most popular cocktail with the "after 5:00 PM" crowd. But we still serve lots of carbonated piss known as 'Mericuhn beer. We sell Labatts, too. :smile:
     
    #17 midlifebear, Feb 18, 2010
    Last edited: Feb 18, 2010
  18. Qua

    Qua
    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2007
    Messages:
    1,507
    Albums:
    2
    Likes Received:
    153
    Gender:
    Male


    Actually, we could address the problem to a large degree by repealing some of the unnecessary fuel regulations anti-nuclear fear mongers put in place decades ago due to unwarranted safety concerns.

    I believe the figure is some 90-95% of what is currently disposed of as waste is perfectly reusable as fuel, but Three Mile Island scared the bejeezus out of everyone, so any byproduct of the reaction must be dumped, where much of it is isotopes that can be used again.

    It should be noted that Chernobyl was a backwards, poorly designed plant, with a weak reactor shield design that was never used in American plants.


    Ultimately though, to meet the needs of projected US power consumption over the coming decades we would need thousands upon thousands of new reactors, and we haven't built a new one in a long time. Public opinion would need a major major sway for nuclear power to become the US's backbone.

    Unless fusion power has a breakthrough I'm of the opinion high effeciency solar thermal paneling is the way to go
     
  19. maxcok

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2009
    Messages:
    7,392
    Likes Received:
    12
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Elsewhere
    If you're gonna quote me, please don't misquote or edit to make it appear as if I responded to a different statement. I get really pissed off when people do that. The correct sequence appears above.

    Please don't make presumptions that everyone is less informed than you either. I get really pissed off when people are condescending too. FYI, it just so happens that my brother is a very high muckity-muck at the NRC, so if you're not careful, we might have to - - - - you! :smile:

    The answer to your question is: Last built (starting from groundbreaking) - the River Bend plant in Louisiana. Construction began in 1977, and it went online in 1986. The last plant to begin commercial operation is the Watts Bar plant here in Tennessee. Construction began in 1973, and it went online in 1996. Betcha thought you had me with a trick question, eh?

    I hope this has been informative. BTW, ain't it cute how they give them such environmentally friendly names? Kinda sound like State Parks, don't they? Actually, Watts Bar is a resort area. Y'all come!
     
    #19 maxcok, Feb 18, 2010
    Last edited: Feb 18, 2010
  20. FuzzyKen

    FuzzyKen New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2006
    Messages:
    2,116
    Likes Received:
    6
    Gender:
    Male
    A great deal of the problems of nuclear power come from two things. The first is idiotic site choices and the second is the disposal of the spent fuel rods. I have a friend who is an Engineer in this field and his job is that he "fixes" the safety issues. As a whole the plants when built on stable ground (not all of them are) under U.S. guidelines are safe and the safety has only gotten better. The spent fuel issues can be overcome by changing the type of reactor. Up to this point the plants being designed and used do not totally use up the fuel. There is now a type of reactor I understand that does.

    If we can utilize a fuel rod completely to where the spent fuel itself does not constitute a hazard, then we have won a major battle. This has been the complaint of the "tree huggers" from the beginning. We fix one problem and create another.

    We need to explore all kinds of energy production and have a mix of sources that are not based on fossil fuels.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted