McCain for Nuclear Power: Good or Bad?

[sanjuro]

McCain calls for building 45 new nuclear reactors

By DAVID ESPO, AP Special Correspondent1 hour, 55 minutes ago

Sen. John McCain called Wednesday for the construction of 45 new nuclear reactors by 2030 and pledged $2 billion a year in federal funds "to make clean coal a reality," measures designed to reduce dependence on foreign oil.

In a third straight day of campaigning devoted to the energy issue, the Republican presidential nominee-in-waiting also said the only time Democratic rival Barack Obama voted for a tax cut was for a "break for the oil companies."

McCain said the 104 nuclear reactors currently operating around the country produce about 20 percent of the nation's annual electricity needs.

"Every year, these reactors alone spare the atmosphere from the equivalent of nearly all auto emissions in America. Yet for all these benefits, we have not broken ground on a single nuclear plant in over thirty years," he said. "And our manufacturing base to even construct these plants is almost gone."

Even so, he said he would set the country on a course to build 45 new ones by 2030, with a longer-term goal of adding another 55 in the future.

"We will need to recover all the knowledge and skills that have been lost over three stagnant decades in a highly technical field," he conceded.

Later, at a news conference, McCain said he favors steps to reduce the time plant owners need to obtain the necessary permits. He suggested U.S. companies use common technology to shave the time in takes to bring a new nuclear facility on line. He also said a decision by President Carter three decades ago not to pursue fuel reprocessing technology should be reversed.

I think it is a good thing, since we will need alternative fuel sources soon.

I hope safety is still the most important factor in using nuclear power, and possibly his Navy experience will duplicate our Naval safety record (0% accidents).

However, I am sure Obama will probably follow suit with his nuclear/coal plans.

[r464]

Will he follow Bush's lead and mispronounce nuclear?

[Plummit]

However, I am sure Obama will probably follow suit with his nuclear/coal plans.

I can only hope. And hope that we will look at building pebble bed reactors and other forms of nuclear energy generation tech.

[Lowlight7]

Gee, if we'd done this 20 years ago instead of believing what Captain Planet told us, we might not be screwed...

[Westy]

Nuclear reactor technology has come a long way since the last reactor was built in the US. A very long way.

[stevew]

Nuclear reactor technology has come a long way since the last reactor was built in the US. A very long way.
And it will continue to be a very long time before another nuclear reactor is built in the US no matter who is president.

[Silver]

Gee, if we'd done this 20 years ago instead of believing what Captain Planet told us, we might not be screwed...

In 1988 oil was about $15 a barrel and nuclear was entirely uneconomic.

[jimmydean]

The only issue with nuclear energy is we still have to cut consumption WAY down. Otherwise we will generate more waste than we have rockets to use for disposal into space. After we fill Louisiana and Texas, of course.

[BurlyShirley]

The only issue with nuclear energy is we still have to cut consumption WAY down. Otherwise we will generate more waste than we have rockets to use for disposal into space. After we fill Louisiana and Texas, of course.

Dude, to believe that consumption will ever decrease is completely unrealistic. Even if people did use less themselves, the population continues to grow. Consumption is as low right now as it will ever be in the future. Book it.

[Silver]

whatever..

reducing consumption doesnt generate a single milliwatt of energy and it's energy generation that's of vastly greater importance.

That's correct, if you happen to be a retard.

Even most Americans, as stupid, ignorant, and wasteful as they generally are, have figured out that if they don't buy a 6000lb SUV with a 400 horsepower engine, they will use less gas. I think you even managed to figure that out, right?

Markets don't work if you only focus on half of them, you idiot. Demand matters as much as supply does.

[Westy]

That's correct, if you happen to be a retard.

Even most Americans, as stupid, ignorant, and wasteful as they generally are, have figured out that if they don't buy a 6000lb SUV with a 400 horsepower engine, they will use less gas. I think you even managed to figure that out, right?

Markets don't work if you only focus on half of them, you idiot. Demand matters as much as supply does.

The majority of the energy we use goes into heating and cooling buildings. Transportation only accounts for about 1/3 of our consumption. It will take more of an investment to make our homes and buildings more efficient than just buying a smaller one on the next rotation in 5 years like what can be done with cars.

[jimmydean]

The majority of the energy we use goes into heating and cooling buildings. Transportation only accounts for about 1/3 of our consumption. It will take more of an investment to make our homes and buildings more efficient than just buying a smaller one on the next rotation in 5 years like what can be done with cars.

Yes, but as "green" becomes the new black, buildings and systems continue to improve. As energy costs increase, companies will continue to look at places where it can be cut.

Portland has a huge industry evolving around energy efficient retro fitting of old downtown buildings. I know Portland is far more hippie than 90% of the South, but eventually they will have to come around.

Nuke power isn't even a consideration for at least 5 more years. A lot more pain will be felt between now and then and consumption will come down ahead of it. If nuke power cost the same (or more) from a bottom line standpoint, then companies will continue to improve.

Maybe I'm just an optimistic jackass, but it sure beats being n8.

[sanjuro]

The majority of the energy we use goes into heating and cooling buildings. Transportation only accounts for about 1/3 of our consumption. It will take more of an investment to make our homes and buildings more efficient than just buying a smaller one on the next rotation in 5 years like what can be done with cars.

Haha! I have never turned on the heat or the AC in my apartment! Love the SF weather!

[Defenestrated]

whatever..

reducing consumption doesnt generate a single milliwatt of energy and it's energy generation that's of vastly greater importance.

wat


You know how supply and demand works right?

We will get better results if we work to cut energy needs/consumption as well as increase production. After all, every watt you don't need is free to be used somewhere else...

[Defenestrated]

that's funny considering I'm a libertarian

I'll file this under "when blanket statements go wrong"

[jimmydean]

you need to put down your bong and come up for air...


Americans are an innovative folk and if they want to buy and drive 6000 lbs suv's then someone will come up with a way to make them more efficient. It's already starting to happen. So basically, you bitter, tiny brained, liberal types are just gonna have to continue living on a diet of hate for those who dont give a crap about your environmental stoner fantasies. Because they are just that; fantasies.

the rest of us in the meantime will continue to make progress and enjoy the lifestyle that it brings us.

It's official, you are in fact retarded. Unfortunately, there is no medical cure for retardation. Sorry to bring you such bad news, but fortunately you are too retarded to care.

[Defenestrated]

cool, i'm filing this under "who gives flying a sh1t what you claim to be"...

How in the hell do you come straight off of an enraged stereotype bashing tirade claiming you don't care what people claim to be?

It's easier to argue a point when you don't contradict yourself by arguing it.

[jimmydean]

this coming from someone who actually believes you can conserve your way out of an energy shortage..

and u call me retarded??!



:rofl:

When have I EVER said conservation was a cure for the energy shortage?

What I said (and have said MANY times) is that you have to reduce consumption while increasing supply from something other than oil/coal. Demand > Supply = shortage.

Much the way you have to reduce spending while increasing taxes to lower debt. But I guess that isn't covered in the Fox News agenda, so you wouldn't understand.

And yes, I called you retarded.

[Defenestrated]

If McCain says cut taxes and spend makes sense when we are more than 9 trillion dollars in debt it must be a sound policy... despite all logic and contradiction.

Right? Guys...right?

[Defenestrated]

Naw im not a paulsy.

I do not like McCain however. Bush 2.0, toe the party line, contradictions in policy, suck up, etc.

[Westy]

Yes, but as "green" becomes the new black, buildings and systems continue to improve. As energy costs increase, companies will continue to look at places where it can be cut.

Portland has a huge industry evolving around energy efficient retro fitting of old downtown buildings. I know Portland is far more hippie than 90% of the South, but eventually they will have to come around.

Nuke power isn't even a consideration for at least 5 more years. A lot more pain will be felt between now and then and consumption will come down ahead of it. If nuke power cost the same (or more) from a bottom line standpoint, then companies will continue to improve.

Maybe I'm just an optimistic jackass, but it sure beats being n8.


Extra insulation and solar panels, although a good idea, still wont run steel mills and factories. Nuclear is still the best option for a lot of situations.

[jimmydean]

you mean the failed Jimmy Carter policies?

I don't know, I was 6 and didn't pay much attention to it back then. But history hasn't proven his policies were worse than the current ones.

I know he was smart enough to have solar panels installed on the white house grounds (until Regan decided it was too hippie or whatever).

[Defenestrated]

Both parties are big government now days anyway.

[jimmydean]

Extra insulation and solar panels, although a good idea, still wont run steel mills and factories. Nuclear is still the best option for a lot of situations.

Agreed, but it's not the ONLY option, is all I'm saying. People (n8 included) seem to think there is some silver bullet that will make everything OK. "If we could just drill off shore, gas would be a buck 'o five".

Plus, you can't just drop a nuke plant in downtown Manhattan, or any other place where you need power right now. You need to take advantage of all the options and decide what works best for each situation. There isn't even enough space in California to meet current demand if you tried to switch to nuke at current consumption levels.

[BurlyShirley]

Agreed, but it's not the ONLY option, is all I'm saying. People (n8 included) seem to think there is some silver bullet that will make everything OK. "If we could just drill off shore, gas would be a buck 'o five".

Plus, you can't just drop a nuke plant in downtown Manhattan, or any other place where you need power right now. You need to take advantage of all the options and decide what works best for each situation. There isn't even enough space in California to meet current demand if you tried to switch to nuke at current consumption levels.

Well, you can't exactly drop enough wind mills or solar panels in manhattan to power the place at current consumption either. And truth be told, a nuclear plant produces a heck of a lot more power in a lot smaller area than the best solar panel or windmills could ever hope to. As far as Im concerned, outside of the southwest maybe, nuclear is pretty much THE magic bullet if we intend to replace coal.

Edit:
And also, the reality of the situation is that people at large will only cut back on usage when it becomes cost prohibitive to maintain the status quo. If a company sees that it can save a bunch of money by cutting back usage, it may indeed do that, but the savings will be applied to expand the business elsewhere, so just as much energy is going to be used no matter what.

[sanjuro]

you need to put down your bong and come up for air...


Americans are an innovative folk and if they want to buy and drive 6000 lbs suv's then someone will come up with a way to make them more efficient. It's already starting to happen. So basically, you bitter, tiny brained, liberal types are just gonna have to continue living on a diet of hate for those who dont give a crap about your environmental stoner fantasies. Because they are just that; fantasies.

the rest of us in the meantime will continue to make progress and enjoy the lifestyle that it brings us.

GM is certainly being innovative about their SUV's... by halting production.

GM to halt major overhaul of pickups, SUVs

By JEFF KAROUB – 2 hours ago

DETROIT (AP) — General Motors Corp. is indefinitely halting a major overhaul of its full-size pickup trucks and sport utility vehicles as it deals with a drastic drop in sales of those products.

GM spokesman Tom Wilkinson said Thursday the automaker instead will work on more modest updates and enhancements as it shifts resources toward higher-mileage vehicles. The move has been largely spurred by skyrocketing gas prices that have radically changed customers' buying habits, he said.

"We're delaying it — at least until we have a better sense of where the market is going," he said. "There's now so much uncertainty of where the full-size truck market is going, primarily because of the increase in fuel prices."

U.S. pickup sales in May fell more than 38 percent, and the company has said the market declined more rapidly than expected last month. Detroit-based GM announced this month it was closing Oshawa, Ontario, and three other pickup truck and sport utility vehicle factories as $4 per gallon gas has caused sales to tumble.

Wilkinson declined to talk about financial ramifications of the plan, but said it's no secret that pickups and SUVs have been a major center for GM and its rivals and the sales dive in the segment has been acutely felt.

"This allows us to shift resources to other programs that we think can generate more business for GM," he said. "One of the challenges is we need to be able to get a good return for our cars."

He said the strategy has started to pay off with strong sales of cars such as the Saturn Aura and Chevrolet Malibu.

On the truck and SUV front, Wilkinson said GM believes the segment will continue to be competitive even without a major redesign. The company plans updates that includes hybrid versions of its truck lineup this fall, and is looking at new powertrain options, such as diesel.

"Nobody should interpret this as us backing away from a commitment to the full-size truck market," he said. "We're not backing away from an aggressive role, but it will be a smaller market. We'll put the appropriate resources toward it."

Wilkinson said record-high gas prices aren't the only issue. Automakers also are dealing with a new federal corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) law requiring them to raise gas mileage of their vehicles.

"Even if prices hadn't taken a sharp spike ... CAFE was going to force changes in the full-size truck market anyhow," he said.

Aaron Bragman, an auto analyst with Global Insight, calls the shift a "prudent" move that doesn't jeopardize GM's competitive position.

He said Ford's next big pickup development doesn't come for a couple years, when it hopes to launch a smaller, lighter and more fuel-efficient pickup dubbed the F-100.

Bragman said it's particularly wise for GM to wait as lawmakers iron out the CAFE regulations.

"This simply allows GM to delay and ... redirect some money toward development of more fuel-efficient vehicles," he said. "It lets them wait and see a little bit in terms of what they need to do."

Ford President of the Americas Mark Fields said his company continually monitors the marketplace and could adjust its product development plans as well.

The company is rolling out a new F-150 pickup truck in the fall, so it has plenty of time to evaluate work on the next generation pickup, Fields said.

"As we see changes in the marketplace, we'll plan our production plans accordingly," he said Thursday in an interview with The Associated Press.

GM shares fell 18 cents, or 1.3 percent, to $14.71 in afternoon trading, after touching a 52-week low of $14.39 earlier in the session.

[Defenestrated]

lol

http://www.ourclimate.net/images/spending.jpg

[sanjuro]

no one ever said there was a cure all silver bullet, but the process to address increasing consumption levels needs to start now.

Coal is fine, natural gas is fine but nukes can generate far more power and are more efficient (you should cream your jeans on that alone)..

Drilling off the west/east/Fl coast should be on the table for discussion right now. Hell, even the Chinese are slant drilling just outside our waters in the Gulf right now...

I agree there is no silver bullet.

Increasing drilling, nuclear, coal, alternative fuel sources, and conservation should all be done.

[jimmydean]

Hell, even the Chinese are slant drilling just outside our waters in the Gulf right now...

we also need to see why our oil companies are exporting oil at a rate of 1.048 million bbl/day (2004)...

Because we ALL know that following the Chinese will get us into heaven.

[jimmydean]

Dumping money into Iraq wont pay-off in the long run.

Agreed.

[BurlyShirley]

Hell, even the Chinese are slant drilling just outside our waters in the Gulf right now...


:rofl:

[jimmydean]

i hope you spend eternity in a Super WalMart.

If I ever step foot in one, may God strike me down.

[Defenestrated]

damn i was gonna respond with a comment about it being the government's responsibility to dump money into nation building abroad.

[jimmydean]

Mm.. even more yummy when there is oil... lots and lots of oil involved and bonus points for it also bordering on one of the most confrontational countries in the region placing it well within invasion distance.

But we will NEVER get 3T worth of oil out of Iraq, even at todays prices. Not to mention we won't have the troops or the vehicles to even cross the boarder into Iran if/when we finish whatever the hell it is that we are doing in Iraq in the first place.

Iraq = slow boat to failure.

[Defenestrated]

preemptive war with Iran, that whole notion does violence to my brain.

[sanjuro]

government's responsibility is not to dump money into renewable energy, that's the free market place's job. Dumping money into Iraq either will or wont pay-off in the long run, but that remains to be seen. Bottom line is that we are there and need to be for the time being.
Why is it that anything conservatives think is a good idea, it is ok for the gov't to spend plenty of money, but anything they think it is a bad idea, then "it is the free market's job"?

Why not give subsidies to solar power? Reduce gasoline taxes on biodiesel? Or raise taxes on gas-guzzlers?

I know we are going to be Iraq for many years. But let's try to get out of one quagmire before it pulls our entire energy plan into the pit?

[Defenestrated]

Why is it that anything conservatives think is a good idea, it is ok for the gov't to spend plenty of money, but anything they think it is a bad idea, then "it is the free market's job"?

Why not give subsidies to solar power? Reduce gasoline taxes on biodiesel? Or raise taxes on gas-guzzlers?

I know we are going to be Iraq for many years. But let's try to get out of one quagmire before it pulls our entire energy plan into the pit?

Sanj, your hitting on the great paradox of neo conservatism...

They are all about small government, then they take away Constitutional rights, expand the power of the executive branch, and spend all they money they DONT have (cuz they cut taxes ya know) on wars (drugs, terror, same **** different name).

In the end you get what is effectively an authoritarian big government that runs on the platform of small government.

makes no sense

EDIT: now don't get me wrong, I'm conservative too, and there are plenty of Republicans that don't buy into the bs, but all of this crap kind of damages true conservatism. Like a step forward and two back.

[jimmydean]

having a huge military presence of combat veterns in the SW Asia = Priceless!!!

It's not nearly as intimidating when they are all missing limbs and/or suffering from depression, though.

[Defenestrated]

Yes and the fact that McCain had the nerve to play the "I was in the military so I by default make good decisions about it and you don't." card pissed me off.

That attitude pretty much embodies his authoritarian ideals as well as takes a massive dump on democracy.

[jimmydean]

yeah thats the situation

I'm so glad you are finally paying attention.

Injured troops shipped back into battle (http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/04/09/injured_soldiers/)

Salon has uncovered further evidence that the military sent soldiers with acute post-traumatic stress disorder, severe back injuries and other serious war wounds back to Iraq.

On March 9, Army Spc. Thomas Smith was ordered to board a plane from Fort Benning, Ga., to deploy back to Iraq, even though he was known to be suffering from chronic post-traumatic stress disorder from a previous tour there. Only weeks prior, military doctors determined that Smith should not be allowed around weapons because of his PTSD symptoms, which included bouts of sudden, extreme anger.

[Defenestrated]

dont fret, obama will just wave his magic 'wand' over you and all will be ok.

if I had it my way (http://youtube.com/watch?v=X1gw6HG8F28)? no.

[Changleen]

Invest in Fusion.

ITER. Google it.

[Toshi]

Edit:
And also, the reality of the situation is that people at large will only cut back on usage when it becomes cost prohibitive to maintain the status quo. If a company sees that it can save a bunch of money by cutting back usage, it may indeed do that, but the savings will be applied to expand the business elsewhere, so just as much energy is going to be used no matter what.

you've nailed the concept of my (prescient? :D) $20/gal gas thread (http://www.ridemonkey.com/forums/showthread.php?t=192601) with this statement.

[ohio]

government's responsibility is not to dump money into renewable energy, that's the free market place's job.

Why didn't we let the free market decide whether or not we should invade iraq or invent a technology to cure terrorism?

[ohio]

well, the gov has been dumping money into alternative energy for years and what do we have to show?

It will take the free market (demand) to bring it to the main stream.. without demand, no amount of gov $'s is going to advance anything

Jesus christ, being a self-proclaimed libertarian sure doesn't make you an economist or a technologist.

First, the government has been trickling money into alternative energy, and there is a shocking amount to show for it. Wind and solar efficiencies have increased by magnitudes. Fuel cell technologies are becoming viable. Tidal is becoming a possibility. Geothermal can be more broadly applied. It is government and academia's job to develop critical technologies to the stage where they are technically viable and present a reasonable opportunity of profitability, then let industry take over. The mistake we usually make is to subsidize technologies into market viability (see ethanol) which ****s up market forces, but that comes chronologically after the role they absolutely should be playing and are playing right now, albeit not enough.

Government's role is ALSO to prevent monopolistic practices that prevent ne market entrants (alternatives) which is exactly what they have not done with oil.

Finally, governments role is to make sure market prices reflect true prices to society of a good, through appropriate taxation, i.e. if coal requires ripping the tops off of mountains and polluting waterways that extend far beyond the property rights owned by power companies and impacting whole wildlife ecosystems that "belong" to all americans, the cost of that should be reflected either through heavy land-use costs, taxes on the resultant good, or penalties for the violations.

[blue]

you need to put down your bong and come up for air...


Americans are an innovative folk and if they want to buy and drive 6000 lbs suv's then someone will come up with a way to make them more efficient. It's already starting to happen. So basically, you bitter, tiny brained, liberal types are just gonna have to continue living on a diet of hate for those who dont give a crap about your environmental stoner fantasies. Because they are just that; fantasies.

the rest of us in the meantime will continue to make progress and enjoy the lifestyle that it brings us.

IP ban.

NOW.

[Silver]

Finally, governments role is to make sure market prices reflect true prices to society of a good, through appropriate taxation, i.e. if coal requires ripping the tops off of mountains and polluting waterways that extend far beyond the property rights owned by power companies and impacting whole wildlife ecosystems that "belong" to all americans, the cost of that should be reflected either through heavy land-use costs, taxes on the resultant good, or penalties for the violations.

You really think you can explain externalities to that abortion?

If you manage to do that, you should probably lay your hands on the next handicapped person you come across...I bet they'd get right up out of the wheelchair and walk.

[sanjuro]

Sanj, your hitting on the great paradox of neo conservatism...

They are all about small government, then they take away Constitutional rights, expand the power of the executive branch, and spend all they money they DONT have (cuz they cut taxes ya know) on wars (drugs, terror, same **** different name).

In the end you get what is effectively an authoritarian big government that runs on the platform of small government.

makes no sense

EDIT: now don't get me wrong, I'm conservative too, and there are plenty of Republicans that don't buy into the bs, but all of this crap kind of damages true conservatism. Like a step forward and two back.

While I disagree with most conservative ideas, I dislike hypocrisy. I think big government does have some problems, but if you are to spend money on "security" then none on "education" or other social issues, that's bad.

[jimmydean]

since the time of the ancient Egyptians there's nothing like a good military campaign to make a few bucks.

So the few bucks made by industries raping the American taxpayer is well worth the death and dismemberment of our military in the end.

Awesome. I feel safer already.

[Silver]

So the few bucks made by industries raping the American taxpayer is well worth the death and dismemberment of our military in the end.

Awesome. I feel safer already.

They volunteered, you bleeding heart commie pinko. **** em'...

[skinny mike]

Americans are an innovative folk and if they want to buy and drive 6000 lbs suv's then someone will come up with a way to make them more efficient. It's already starting to happen.
being efficient is generally using only what you need to get something done, no excess. so please tell me what is so ****ing efficient about hauling your little lap dog to the vet in an escalade when it gets a splinter in its paw...

[H8R]

the rest of us in the meantime will continue to make progress and enjoy the lifestyle that it brings us.

Welcome to Planet n8.

[Defenestrated]

since the time of the ancient Egyptians there's nothing like a good military campaign to make a few bucks.
there's nothing like a good military campaign to make a few bucks.
make a few bucks.
http://www.boot.com/image002edit.gif

[ohio]

your self-righteousness makes me giggle

:)

Glad I could help.

First line is self-righteousness. Everything else is an honest effort to get you to think before you type. I think I liked cut-and-paste Neight better.

Faith in the free market without understanding it is just wishful thinking that makes it harder for the rest of us to get anything actually productive or useful done. Like a furious creationist railing against science on his box-o'-quantum computer, you remain blissfully unaware that the goods (e.g. airplanes) you benefit from and that generate billions in economic growth wouldn't exist had they not been kickstarted by government "subsidies." That you can at the same time argue for nuclear power and against government involvement in technology development makes my brain hurt.

[jimmydean]

Glad I could help.

First line is self-righteousness. Everything else is an honest effort to get you to think before you type.

No really, he's actually retarded.

[jimmydean]

They volunteered, you bleeding heart commie pinko. **** em'...

Must spread rep, dammit. :clapping:

[sanjuro]

well, the gov has been dumping money into alternative energy for years and what do we have to show?

It will take the free market (demand) to bring it to the main stream.. without demand, no amount of gov $'s is going to advance anything

Dumping money?

Here is a simple graph about money spent on alternative fuel sources vs our expenditure in Iraq:

http://www.solarpowerrocks.com/fun/suckfiles/image006.gif

[Changleen]

Fusion.

[blue]

Fusion.

Imagine if the Shrub had dumped a trillion dollars into the development of fusion technology.

I mean, even if it'd failed, at least it would have been a noble goal, right? And if he'd succeeded, he'd be on par with Jesus...

[jimmydean]

Dumping money?

Here is a simple graph about money spent on alternative fuel sources vs our expenditure in Iraq:

graph of awesomeness

I think GWB classifies Iraqi oil as "alternative fuel" as it's not from Texas.

[SPINTECK]

You guys are so close to putting it together.

JP Morgan bought Edison and GE. Bought Carnegie, US steel. Probably still owns all the nukes GE runs (limerick by my house). Morgans, Rockefellars and Rothchilds - all which own the majority of the FED (which can not be audited). So you have electricity, oil and war finance barons all owning the fed. They also now own most of the major media (GE owns ABC I think and you can put the rest together). The owners of the FED all make money by financing our wars because we borrow from them or have them print out money.

Now could you imagine if BUSH had to implement a war tax to fight IRaq?? We pay it in the back end by depreciating our money and paying more interest of our fed tax to the FED. SO big gov't spending is good for conservatives (or any alley of the FED) if it makes those dynasties richer. So WAR, Power, energy has all been connected since the first international bank (rothchilds) and later integrated into our society with the formation of the FED.

With respect to nukes- no matter what, the guy who said reduce usage made a point which is the biggest single problem w/nukes: WHAT DO WE DO WITH THE WASTE??? Yuca mountain has yet to be used and right now they actually want to store the crap in cement casts outside my local nuke plant (yes, I may be fleaing before that happens).

So to tie back into the thread, a properly run plant(no experiments, good training, well staffed, well inspected, properly handled waste) is an answer to our energy.

[sanjuro]

With respect to nukes- no matter what, the guy who said reduce usage made a point which is the biggest single problem w/nukes: WHAT DO WE DO WITH THE WASTE??? Yuca mountain has yet to be used and right now they actually want to store the crap in cement casts outside my local nuke plant (yes, I may be fleaing before that happens).


Find another desert to dig a deep enough hole?

What do you think happens to all our trash? Magically becomes soil?

[SPINTECK]

I assume you are attacking my statement about keeping the waste at Yucca mountain.

What was the solution for waste storage you proposed or supported??

[Changleen]

Imagine if the Shrub had dumped a trillion dollars into the development of fusion technology.

I mean, even if it'd failed, at least it would have been a noble goal, right? And if he'd succeeded, he'd be on par with Jesus...A trillion bux into fusion research would have paid for several ITERs. Fusion is all about efficient containment. In theory fusion can happen in a tiny space. In 20-30 years you might have fusion batteries. How cool would that be? Flying skateboards, MTBs with hub motors as powerful as an R6, laptops that last forever - that's the dream niggah!

[sanjuro]

I assume you are attacking my statement about keeping the waste at Yucca mountain.

What was the solution for waste storage you proposed or supported??

Find another desert and dig a big hole. Also spend billions on nuclear waste disposal technology.

[SPINTECK]

Find another desert and dig a big hole. Also spend billions on nuclear waste disposal technology.

So you agree centralizing all the waste is better than storing it at all the reactor sites?? What specifically is wroing w/Yucca and what other desert do you reccoment?? If so, the only problem is transportation of waste to the site.

What type of nuclear waste disposal technology do you feel can effectively be developed?? AS far as I know, there is no way to decrease the half life of waste, unless you process it further in another nuclear power plant. The problem with that is at some point you get plutonium, which the gov't does not want to float around.

[jimmydean]

Also spend billions on nuclear waste disposal technology.

To Mars, bitches! Or at least the moon. If terrorists what to make the trip to dumpster dive, have at it.

[sanjuro]

So you agree centralizing all the waste is better than storing it at all the reactor sites?? What specifically is wroing w/Yucca and what other desert do you reccoment?? If so, the only problem is transportation of waste to the site.

What type of nuclear waste disposal technology do you feel can effectively be developed?? AS far as I know, there is no way to decrease the half life of waste, unless you process it further in another nuclear power plant. The problem with that is at some point you get plutonium, which the gov't does not want to float around.

While I am expert on many topics, I am not a nuclear physicist, and my knowledge of reducing half-lives is limited. As is yours.

Actually, checking my info, I did not realize that Yucca Mountain is not officially open. I thought it was going to close, not struggling to open.

Yucca seems like a great place to dump our waste.

[Defenestrated]

I don't understand the people who are scared of nuclear power tbh.

If subject to competent safety regulation and precautions, fission is relatively safe.

[sanjuro]

I don't understand the people who are scared of nuclear power tbh.

If subject to competent safety regulation and precautions, fission is relatively safe.

Just ask the Nuclear Navy....

[SPINTECK]

I don't understand the people who are scared of nuclear power tbh.

If subject to competent safety regulation and precautions, fission is relatively safe.

Here's the problem, I live/grew up in PA, the home of the Peach Bottom nuclear disaster of the 70's. The fact it didn't totally melt down is considered a miracle. There are many that feel the company and gov't didn't tell us until it was too late. So it is a very big deal.

The other problem is there is only so much room under a plant to store waste. The companies got around this by saying "we can store it for 20 years of generation and then we'll just shut it down." Guess what, Exelon is not shutting down Limerick nuclear and has sought extensions. Not only do I worry about the maintenance of the equipment, but the waste is now going to be stored outside in giant cement caskets!! The township can't stop it.

So to answer your question, previous disasters and lack of waste planning combined with a huge eye sore and cooling stacks are reasons people view nuclear. My personal concern is only the waste, so I was hoping some engineer, hobbyist, physicist or just a smart monkey knew of any other possible waste solutions.

[Defenestrated]

shoot it into the sun

solves the waste problem and give NASA some meaningful goal/reason to be innovative

on a more serious note.

under a mountain/desolate area tbh

[BurlyShirley]

Nevada/Utah/New Mexico are pretty big places.

[Samirol]

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/readings/french.html

Bataille went and spoke to the people who were protesting and soon realized that the engineers and bureaucrats had greatly misunderstood the psychology of the French people. The technocrats had seen the problem in technical terms. To them, the cheapest and safest solution was to permanently bury the waste underground. But for the rural French says Bataille, "the idea of burying the waste awoke the most profound human myths. In France we bury the dead, we don't bury nuclear waste...there was an idea of profanation of the soil, desecration of the Earth."

Bataille discovered that the rural populations had an idea of "Parisians, the consumers of electricity, coming to the countryside, going to the bottom of your garden with a spade, digging a hole and burying nuclear waste, permanently." Using the word permanently was especially clumsy says Bataille because it left the impression that the authorities were abandoning the waste forever and would never come back to take care of it.

Fighting the objections of technical experts who argued it would increase costs, Bataille introduced the notions of reversibility and stocking. Waste should not be buried permanently but rather stocked in a way that made it accessible at some time in the future. People felt much happier with the idea of a "stocking center" than a "nuclear graveyard". Was this just a semantic difference? No, says Bataille. Stocking waste and watching it involves a commitment to the future. It implies that the waste will not be forgotten. It implies that the authorities will continue to be responsible. And, says Bataille, it offers some possibility of future advances. "Today we stock containers of waste because currently scientists don't know how to reduce or eliminate the toxicity, but maybe in 100 years perhaps scientists will."

[SPINTECK]

hummmmm

Where did you find that- source??

[ohio]

I'm diggin' the new guy.

He's like the smart, well-read cut-and-paster N* should have been.

[jimmydean]

Nevada/Utah/New Mexico are pretty big places.

I say Texas an Louisiana. They have NOTHING else to offer but places to store trash (just keep it above New Orleans for flood sake).

[sanjuro]

i was thinking Oregon.. no one cares about hippies

and the hipsters.

[Defenestrated]

no we need lumber from oregon