The Nuclear Obama

[doeton]

So in the meantime of perfecting alternate energies, why not drill?

i couldn't agree more.

which is why i'll take obama's plan to actually invest in green tech

over the old greezer continuation of bush's failed big money energy.

 

[Andrew2382]

lol failed bush big money energy plan...i see

that same plan OBAMA VOTED FOR IT

MCCAIN VOTED AGAINST!

And Obama has no plan on drilling, and the money he wants to invest in renewable energy is not even close to what is needed to have an effectice program running.

You are clueless

 

[Navy1960]

the 5 billion per nuke plant doesn't include the cost of the rosata stone that makes the waste safe.

I suppose you have not had the chance to take the time to read that there are many ways to reprocess spent nuclear fuel. I suppose my previous post on that issue must have gotten by you.

Rosetta Stone In Japan

In a rather large victory in the battle against global climate change, Japan has produced its first MOX (Mixed Oxide Powder) from spent nuclear fuel. For those who are not familiar with what MOX fuel it is, it is a type of nuclear fuel that contains plutonium produced in commercial nuclear reactors.

Japan has previously recycled its spent nuclear fuel in France's La Hague and at the Sellafield plant in the UK, as part of the Japanese commitment to derive the maximum benefit from it's uranium. (There was a huge stir about forged documents at Sellafield involving Japanese fuel.)

The Japanese plant offers some rather interesting features that have not been commercially practiced before. The most interesting is the recovery of the uranium as well as the plutonium from its spent fuel.

So the technology does not exist I suppose, I'm sure those non existant Japanese would like to know that.

Ground was officially broken in October 2007, and construction is nearing completion as turbine erection winds down on the 7,800 acre site. Cedar Ridge Wind Farm has 41 turbines that will produce approximately 68 MW of electricity, that’s enough to power about 17,000 homes. Along with the turbines, there will be an Operations and Maintenance Building on site that will be staffed by WPL employees and available for student groups, other groups and even the general public to learn more about Cedar Ridge Wind Farm and wind power in general. Cedar Ridge Wind Farm is expected to become commercially operable by the end of 2008. Cost 180 Million

So how much do you suppose this would cost if you made this wind farm capacity equal to Palo Verde, which powers 4 million. Not to mention the sheer size in land mass needed to build such a wind farm.

 

[Navy1960]

Dear Navy1960,

We don't support nuclear power plants.

Yours truly,

The survivors of three mile island and chernobyl

Dear David,

As the number of deaths attributed directly to TMI, must be from the pet's that may have died, I cannot take that as valid. However this is from all those operators that have safely operated US Nuclear power facilites since the 1950's Your welcome.

Your Truly,
Us Nuclear Power Industry and US Navy

 

[Turboswede]

First off, will anyone care about this issue next summer when gas is $1.99 per gallon?

Second, I could care less about the safety of Nuclear power as Per KwH generated, Nuclear is by far the safest from of power generation. The thing is it doesn’t make any sense for the U.S. to go nuclear from a financial perspective. There are countries in Europe that rely on Nuclear power for strategic reasons, i.e. its worth the additional cost to not rely on Russian natural gas or Polish coal to fire industry.

Its all a question of will, access and cost. You are correct that France has a lot of Nuclear power, (as does Sweden) but Great Britain and Norway do not, because they have alternatives. The motivation for Nuclear power in France and Swede stems from the desire for energy independence, France and Sweden lack domestic oil, gas and coal. Sweden does have significant hydro power production but it only supplies about 40% of the power needed.

These two countries are faced with a choice, either import power, or go nuclear. In addition these two countries both heavily subsidize nuclear power as it is in the national interest to produce power domestically and not rely on Polish coal or Russian gas.

Here we are talking about electricity production for industrial and commercial use, not necessarily oil consumption (unless we are driving nuclear cars). The United States imports a tremendous amount of oil for transportation but not for electricity production and where oil is used for electricity; there is excess capacity for coal generated power if oil is reduced.

If France were to power industry through coal, oil or gas. It would be spending a huge number of Euros on (say) Russian gas. The Russians would have a large number of Euros which they could then hold or sell as they liked even if it would destabilize French currency.

I know that’s what’s happened to the dollar because of foreign oil but foreign oil’s market in the US is at the consumer level. OPEC tried an embargo against the US in the early 70’s (October 73’ War) and found that the US recovered relitivly quickly to the oil shock while it ruined the economies of several Middle Eastern States.

Imagine what would have happened if US industry was also dependent on foreign oil. OPECs embargo would have ground US industry to a halt.

That is the choice that France faces with importing gas from Russia, if the US’s only alternatives were to go Nuclear or depend on Russian Gas supplies, I would be first in line to vote Nuclear.

As we all know, unlike France, the US has other alternatives when it comes to domestic energy production.

 

[Navy1960]

Radnor Township in Pennsylvania has announced with great fanfare "that it will purchase 62 percent of its electricity from pollution-free, wind-generated electricity, making it the nations leading wind energy purchaser among municipalities" (PRNewswire, February 26, 2003). The Township will purchase 1,400,000 kilowatt hours per year over three years from a wind farm near Mt. Storm, West Virginia

But according to renewable energy expert Glenn Schleede, the officials of Radnor Township have been hoodwinked. Wind energy entails significant environmental costs, with little environmental gain, and significant economic costs that hurt customers, but serve to line the pockets of wind farm owners.

The amount of electricity that will be purchased by Radnor Township is insignificant. It will represent 1/1000 of 1 percent of the total electricity sold by electric utilities in Pennsylvania in 2001. "Any claim of favorable air quality impact is specious at best," says Schleede. "Wind farms adversely affect a wide variety of environmental, ecological, scenic and property values."

The electricity would come from FPL Energy-owned wind farms that are planned for scenic West Virginia. One proposed wind farm would be located "along 14 miles of the picturesque high mountains near Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge, Canaan Valley State Park, Blackwater Falls State Park, the Monongahela National Forest which includes Dolly Sods and Dolly Sods Wilderness Area." The wind farm would consist of 200 very tall (300 to 400 ft.) wind mills spread over thousands of acres.

The real impetus behind the construction of wind farms is not the environmental or economic benefits to customers, but massive government subsidies. One proposed wind farm in West Virginia, would cost $300,000,000 to build, but would recover those costs and then some through various tax shelters and subsidies equaling $325,434,600. In many cases, the profit from this government largesse exceeds the income generated from electricity sales. Wind farm owners enjoy windfall profits at taxpayer expense.

Schleede makes an interesting comparison and offers some advice to the city of Radnor Township. "If each household substituted two 27-watt energy efficient light bulbs for two 100-watt incandescent bulbs that are used an average of 4 hours per day, the people of Radnor Township would avoid the use of 2,131,600 kWh of electricity each year, or about 50 percent more than the 1,400,000 kWh that is substituted in the electricity-from-wind purchase scheme." The cost? $100,000!

Declines in Population Growth Give Europe a Leg Up on Kyoto

Europe is on an irreversible trajectory of falling population rates, according to a study by Wolfgang Lutz and Sergei Scherbov, with the Austrian Academy of Sciences in Vienna, and Brian ONeill, with the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis in Laxenburg, Austria.

In a report published in Science (March 28, 2003), the authors note that at present only 1.5 babies are borne per woman in the European Union, well below the "replacement rate" of 2.1 births per woman. Even if European women began having more children at younger ages, the population decline would continue for decades because there are too few childbearing-aged women to make a difference. The study does not take into account immigration, but even that may not be large enough to offset population declines.

While the study does not address climate change, this may well explain part of the reason the European Union has readily accepted the Kyoto Protocol and why they are so eager to have the U.S. sign up to similar restrictions. Given their declining population, it will be much easier for European Union countries to reduce emissions to pre-1990 levels than the U.S., which continues to experience robust population growth.

The targets for emissions reductions for the EU and the U.S. are very similar. The EU would have to reduce their emissions to an average of 8 percent below 1990 levels by the 2008-2012 compliance period, the U.S. by 7 percent. But since 1990, the EU economies have grown relatively slowly, meaning that CO2 emissions increased little. The U.S. on the other hand, has experienced tremendous economic growth since 1990, so its Kyoto target is actually more difficult than the EUs.

Europes economic troubles are largely due to heavy economic regulation and taxes, including high energy taxes. As a result, U.S. companies are out-competing EU companies. Rather than deregulate, the EU has sought to level the playing field by saddling U.S. companies with similar restrictions through the Kyoto Protocol.

This became quite clear in March 2001 soon after President Bush announced that his administration would not seek to impose carbon dioxide regulations on utilities. Margot Wallstrom, the European Unions commissioner for the environment, complained that, "This is not a simple environmental issue where you can say it is an issue where the scientists are not unanimous. This is about international relations, this is about economy, about trying to create a level playing field for big businesses throughout the world. You have to understand what is at stake and that is why it is serious." Clearly Europe sees the energy rationing required by the Kyoto Protocol as the means by which it can regain some of its lost competitiveness relative to the U.S.


Anyone can make a case at anytime against energy technologies, for various reasons. The fact is that wind power is just as needed as nuclear power and as much as solar power. To express an opinion that this nation will be energy independant with the exlusion of a major source of energy is not only short sighted, it is without merit. To boast that this country will be energy independant with nothing but green technologies like solar and wind and bio-fuels in 10 years is just that a boast and nothing more.

 

[Navy1960]

First off, will anyone care about this issue next summer when gas is $1.99 per gallon?

Second, I could care less about the safety of Nuclear power as Per KwH generated, Nuclear is by far the safest from of power generation. The thing is it doesn’t make any sense for the U.S. to go nuclear from a financial perspective. There are countries in Europe that rely on Nuclear power for strategic reasons, i.e. its worth the additional cost to not rely on Russian natural gas or Polish coal to fire industry.

Its all a question of will, access and cost. You are correct that France has a lot of Nuclear power, (as does Sweden) but Great Britain and Norway do not, because they have alternatives. The motivation for Nuclear power in France and Swede stems from the desire for energy independence, France and Sweden lack domestic oil, gas and coal. Sweden does have significant hydro power production but it only supplies about 40% of the power needed.

These two countries are faced with a choice, either import power, or go nuclear. In addition these two countries both heavily subsidize nuclear power as it is in the national interest to produce power domestically and not rely on Polish coal or Russian gas.

Here we are talking about electricity production for industrial and commercial use, not necessarily oil consumption (unless we are driving nuclear cars). The United States imports a tremendous amount of oil for transportation but not for electricity production and where oil is used for electricity; there is excess capacity for coal generated power if oil is reduced.

If France were to power industry through coal, oil or gas. It would be spending a huge number of Euros on (say) Russian gas. The Russians would have a large number of Euros which they could then hold or sell as they liked even if it would destabilize French currency.

I know that’s what’s happened to the dollar because of foreign oil but foreign oil’s market in the US is at the consumer level. OPEC tried an embargo against the US in the early 70’s (October 73’ War) and found that the US recovered relitivly quickly to the oil shock while it ruined the economies of several Middle Eastern States.

Imagine what would have happened if US industry was also dependent on foreign oil. OPECs embargo would have ground US industry to a halt.

That is the choice that France faces with importing gas from Russia, if the US’s only alternatives were to go Nuclear or depend on Russian Gas supplies, I would be first in line to vote Nuclear.

As we all know, unlike France, the US has other alternatives when it comes to domestic energy production.

Turbo,

For me it is not a matter of how much gas is, it is also the amount of money this nation transfers to foreign sources that do not have our best interests at heart. Not only that we borrow from one country to pay for our energy needs from another. To become energy independant would be the best thing that could ever happen to this country in terms of the economy, and national security. IMHO if we reduce the amount of energy we purchase from sources that fund nations with a terrorist agenda , then they lost their srouce of funding to run around the world causing havoc and must seek it elsewhere. There are so many benefits it's hard to list them all, however, I happen to think your right about the gas price issue.

 

[doeton]

"the 5 billion per nuke plant doesn't include the cost of the rosata stone that makes the waste safe."

dude i didn't say it didn't exist.

i said the 5 bill doesn't include the cost.

thanks

 

[Turboswede]

Turbo,

For me it is not a matter of how much gas is, it is also the amount of money this nation transfers to foreign sources that do not have our best interests at heart. Not only that we borrow from one country to pay for our energy needs from another. To become energy independant would be the best thing that could ever happen to this country in terms of the economy, and national security. IMHO if we reduce the amount of energy we purchase from sources that fund nations with a terrorist agenda , then they lost their srouce of funding to run around the world causing havoc and must seek it elsewhere. There are so many benefits it's hard to list them all, however, I happen to think your right about the gas price issue.

I agree with you 100% but oil and Nuclear are not “fungible” in that Nuclear power is not a realistic substitute for oil in the areas of manufacturing (plastics) transportation (cars) and industrial lubricants. Nuclear is a substitute for Natural Gas, Coal and Hydro which are all sourced domestically (well in North America at least).

The solution would be more electrically powered transportation infrastructure (Trains, trucks, cars) but we could still power those more efficiently through coal and gas (ok, and solar & wind). The only times nuclear makes sense is when combustion can’t easily occur (SSN, space) or where there is a strategic rationale (CVN, France).

 

[Navy1960]

"the 5 billion per nuke plant doesn't include the cost of the rosata stone that makes the waste safe."

dude i didn't say it didn't exist.

i said the 5 bill doesn't include the cost.

thanks

As I stated earlier, if you were to build a 3.2Gw windfarm that serviced 4 million people and factored in the the cost of the land and the sheer size of land it would take, as well as the on-going costs to keep the wind farm running, in terms of breakdowns in wind generators etc. You will see that from a cost standpoint, simply by saying a reactor costs 5 billion is not a valid enough argument against the construction of a Nuclear facility. It is a matter of how much energy you wish to generate. Any program to get this nation off of sources of foreign energy must include all sectors of energy consumption like transportation, housing, etc. In order to accomplish this goal you do not leave resources on the table, instead you use the ones you have at hand. As I have shown the technology exists, it takes a commitment to use it.

 

[Navy1960]

I agree with you 100% but oil and Nuclear are not “fungible” in that Nuclear power is not a realistic substitute for oil in the areas of manufacturing (plastics) transportation (cars) and industrial lubricants. Nuclear is a substitute for Natural Gas, Coal and Hydro which are all sourced domestically (well in North America at least).

The solution would be more electrically powered transportation infrastructure (Trains, trucks, cars) but we could still power those more efficiently through coal and gas (ok, and solar & wind). The only times nuclear makes sense is when combustion can’t easily occur (SSN, space) or where there is a strategic rationale (CVN, France).

I completely agree,and I hope I am not appearing to advocate Nuclear Power as the solution to every problem. I am aware that all energy solutions must be brought online to address this issue, but to leave Nuclear out of the equasion would be a critical mistake. Aviation and the transportation sector will continue to be run on fossil based fuels for a long time to come unless the government mandates a change in the transportation infrastructure like a CNG conversion like T. Boone Pickens is advocating. IMHO energy should be addressed as a national security matter and instead of talk , which has gone on for 30 years, we finally need to address this issue.

 

[Turboswede]

I completely agree,and I hope I am not appearing to advocate Nuclear Power as the solution to every problem. I am aware that all energy solutions must be brought online to address this issue, but to leave Nuclear out of the equasion would be a critical mistake. Aviation and the transportation sector will continue to be run on fossil based fuels for a long time to come unless the government mandates a change in the transportation infrastructure like a CNG conversion like T. Boone Pickens is advocating. IMHO energy should be addressed as a national security matter and instead of talk , which has gone on for 30 years, we finally need to address this issue.

Exactly, from a stratigic point of view CNG is the way to go in transportation.

 

[DavidS]

Dear David,

As the number of deaths attributed directly to TMI, must be from the pet's that may have died, I cannot take that as valid. However this is from all those operators that have safely operated US Nuclear power facilites since the 1950's Your welcome.

Your Truly,
Us Nuclear Power Industry and US Navy

Dear Navy1960,

We want the United States government to build cheap, cost-effeicent power-plants, but not in our backyards.

Yours truly,
The citizens of the United States of America

 

[Jeepers]

Much of the current technology being used in power plants is old and dated... new plants could be quickly brought online at defunct plant sites as less space is needed for newer reactor types and power distribution could use current though updated infrastructure.. I believe that one nuke plant is currently under construction in the US... If Obama is going to get us off 4-rN oil in ten years he will have an all of the above plan to do so... water, wind, Coal, Fission, Fusion, breeder, and geothermal, etc.. I'd like to see static generators attached to space tethers myself...

 

[Navy1960]

Dear Navy1960,

We want the United States government to build cheap, cost-effeicent power-plants, but not in our backyards.

Yours truly,
The citizens of the United States of America

David,

Do you know how long I have heard this ? I want it I want it I want. but not in my backyard. While it is okay to build it in your neighbors backyard, it's not okay to build it in yours, but you want to have the benefits of it. Let me give you a little story, when they built the Palo Verde Nuclear Plant which has three reactors, which by the way no one has died from yet in it's over 20 years of operation, there was absolutly nothing around that plant. Now with the rapid growth of the city, homes are close enough to cooling towers to pelt them with rocks. These are some of the very same people that complain they don't want a nuclear plant in their backyard, while turning on the computer that gets it's power from that very same plant. We all want energy that is environmentally friendly, safe, and cheap. However if you leave the Nuclear option off the list, you have little choice left with current technology to reach a goal of being off sources of foreign energy while being environmentally safe.

 

[DavidS]

David,

Do you know how long I have heard this ? I want it I want it I want. but not in my backyard. While it is okay to build it in your neighbors backyard, it's not okay to build it in yours, but you want to have the benefits of it. Let me give you a little story, when they built the Palo Verde Nuclear Plant which has three reactors, which by the way no one has died from yet in it's over 20 years of operation, there was absolutly nothing around that plant. Now with the rapid growth of the city, homes are close enough to cooling towers to pelt them with rocks. These are some of the very same people that complain they don't want a nuclear plant in their backyard, while turning on the computer that gets it's power from that very same plant. We all want energy that is environmentally friendly, safe, and cheap. However if you leave the Nuclear option off the list, you have little choice left with current technology to reach a goal of being off sources of foreign energy while being environmentally safe.

Dear Navy,

We'll build a nuclear power plant just for you if you move here.

Signed,
Iran

 

[Navy1960]

Dear Navy,

We'll build a nuclear power plant just for you if you move here.

Signed,
Iran

Laughs, well as I enjoy the benefits of one in my own backyard David and had the priviledge of being transported to many different countries courtsey of the US Navy with Nuclear propulsion , I have no need to travel that far. As I have been to that part of the world more than once, and if the purpose to travel there is to have a cheaply made Russian reactor, I will be content with the US Made one here in my own backyard. Thank you for the offer however.

 

[Andrew2382]

Dear Navy,

We'll build a nuclear power plant just for you if you move here.

Signed,
Iran

Dear David,

We already have one running...Feel free to visit it when Mr. Obama gets elected and meets with us with no preconditions.

Signed,
Ahmadinejad

 

[Jeepers]

Dear David,

We already have one running...Feel free to visit it when Mr. Obama gets elected and meets with us with no preconditions.

Signed,
Ahmadinejad

Is bush going to have preconditions when he negotiates with the taliban as expected in the coming weeks... dumbass...

 

[Andrew2382]

It isn't the United States that is going to initiate the talks dumbass.

The recommendation calls for the talks to be led by the Afghan central government, but with the active participation of the U.S.


Not like Bush is having a sit down in the oval office with the leader of the Taliban

You Douche