Obama Pushes for Nuclear Power

[dandelion]

I have heard it said recently that one problem with nuclear reactors is that if any one started to get serious about building them, there would be a shortage of fuel. Probably not a n issue for the odd one or two, but it is if anyone is proposing them as an alternative to fossil fuels.


It is also amusing to note experts going round trying to allay the publics safety fears by explaining that modern designs are much safer than old ones. This does not encourage faith in the old ones, which were declared totally safe at the time. I think there was also some question as to how many people were killed or injured digging uranium out of the ground.

 

[D_Sir Fitzwilly Wankheimer III]

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.

Actualy bub this is nothing new. Obama wanted solar during the campaign and had no interest in nuclear. Mccain wanted nuclear power, and more offshore drilling seeing as China is stealing it our off our coast as we speak. As far as the spent rods go drop them from a plane over Iran.

I'm with ya but I think a little more research need done. If this is so good why does the government have to subsidize new plants?

 

[123scotty]

well i hope obama will do what is needed. invest invest invest in the generation four reactors. the nuclear answer. sodium / metal cooled reactors that can generate electricity and also produce hydrogen for use in transport which cannot be run on electric power. this is the way forwards.

 

[Rikter8]

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.

Are you going to pull it with your van down by the river?


(I cant believe nobody took that one already)

 

[vince]

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

I agree. But I am really hoping for a "Mr. Fusion" powered DeLorean.

All my hot water is from solar. I'd guess that 99 percent of the hot water in this city comes from roof top panels and storage tanks. They are surprisingly efficient. 1 or 2 hours of sunshine in the winter is all that is needed to heat the tank and it holds the heat very well overnight.

In relation to Obama's support for nuclear power.. I read a story that the new trend will be smaller 150 mw reactors, which will be manufactured in a factory and delivered by rail to the site. This has multiple advantages. The capital costs are much less, in the neighborhood of 750 million, or one tenth that of a big plant. The utility companies can build up nuclear capacity gradually adding reactors as needed, without the "risking the whole company" financing schemes involved with the big plants. Also, these new plants can be air-cooled. Therefore they don't need to be near a water source which will allow for installation in arid areas.

Nuclear is only one of the technologies that will be needed to reduce the use of fossil fuels. We need to do this for the environment and oil is too valuable and useful to waste just heating stuff up.