McCain Backs Nuclear Power 1563
bagsc writes "Senator John McCain set out another branch of his energy policy agenda today, with a key point: 45 new nuclear power plants by 2030." So it finally appears that this discussion is back on the table. I'm curious how Nevada feels about this, as well as the Obama campaign. All it took was $4/gallon gas I guess. When it hits $5, I figure one of the campaigns will start to promote Perpetual Motion.
Seriously, WTF? (Score:5, Insightful)
no American power plants burn Oil (Score:3, Insightful)
Oil burning plants were eliminated after Carter's oil crisis.
If we want cheap gas we need to do what Mexico does (for their $2 gas). Regulation and forbid speculation on a "critical" national resource.
(Or just get an ebike!)
Now all we need... (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously, the NIMBY (not in my nackyard) and BANANA (build absolutely nothing anywhere near anything) mentalities have held back nuclear power as much as anything else, especially after TMI. Getting local communities to agree to construction will be no small task.
$4 for gas, come on (Score:3, Insightful)
Come live in the UK for a while.
Wha-huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
Wind and solar are great, and I support them also. But, $4 gas or not, all energy options should be on the table. And they should've been for about the last 30 years.
McCain making steps in the right direction lately (Score:3, Insightful)
We need to be drilling in Anwar, we need to be drilling offshore, and we need more nuclear energy. These factors will help us last until something like Fusion power is ready.
Global Warming (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Seriously, WTF? (Score:5, Insightful)
But i agree with you, it didn't really have the effect he was thinking.
However, i would go so far as to say while nuclear is an very important piece of the domestic energy puzzle and needs to be brought back on track, its just one piece.
McCain is ancient and he'll be dead in a few years (Score:4, Insightful)
It is just more obvious because of McCain's age. Don't get me wrong, nuclear is currently the safest, greenest option that is economically viable, but promising things 20+ years into the future is pretty bad.
Re:McCain making steps in the right direction late (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Obama better support this too (Score:1, Insightful)
Every time I see your name attached to a post I know it's going to be the intellectual equivalent of a rice-cake.
Re:And it's only taken 2.9 decades (Score:5, Insightful)
The 70's were a different world. Nuclear power meant nuclear weapons, and the public opposition then to nuclear power is hard to even imagine today. Don't blame Carter for the hysteria of the day.
And it's only taken 2.9 decades (Score:5, Insightful)
You know - the guy who thought that if the US didn't RECYCLE nuclear waste back into fuel (which would SOLVE the "nuclear waste storage" issue) it would be an "example" to tin-pot dictatorships and insane genocidal religious nations like North Korea, Pakistan, India, Iran, Syria, China... and they wouldn't try to get nuclear weapons. Yeah, how'd that work out for us?
The guy who coddled so-called "environmentalists" to the point where we haven't built SAFE, CLEAN electrical power generation anywhere because nobody can get past the permits process and NIMBY enviro-wacko whining.
Think about it - even the founder of Greenpeace [wikinews.org] (who long ago left the organization when it became obvious the commies and inmates were running the asylum and not interested in real, rational discussion) says we need nuclear energy because so-called "renewable" sources are inherently (a) unreliable and (b) limited in the scope of what we can do with them.
Re:Nuclear is a great idea. (Score:3, Insightful)
That said, I too agree that we need to find viable renewable energy resources. Some combination of wind, solar, and geothermal is my current favorite. Barring those, aren't there enough Scientologists we can put on the pyre? (yes that was a troll/gaff, no I don't apologize
Re:$4 for gas, come on (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Obama better support this too (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Seriously, WTF? (Score:5, Insightful)
Solar and Wind are nice and all, but it's Nuclear power that's going to pull our eco-bacon out of the fire; it is the cleanest source of power per kwh that we've got. Once we start reprocessing the waste, we'll be able to sustain output for a long time.
Re:Really? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:And it's only taken 2.9 decades (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not surprised... (Score:2, Insightful)
Computer control and monitoring has got to be vastly improved since then. I'd also imagine we have learned much about containment and recovery from the aforementioned accidents that would help prevent anything similar in the future. Again, I haven't got enough personal basis to make any claims, but these thoughts have occurred to me.
Add to that a story I recall about someone coming up with a direct nuclear-to-energy conversion material, (line the walls of the core and of high-level storage facilities to generate additional power from previously untapped/unused radiation/byproducts), and I figure nuclear could really give us a decent chance at meeting our energy needs while reducing greenhouse gasses and dependency on foreign oil.
With enough cheap, clean power, plug-in electric and hydrogen fuel cell vehicles might actually make sense (since those technologies may eliminate emissions at the car, but still require the generation of power elsewhere
Anyhow, IANANS (I am not a Nuclear Scientist), so I really can't offer any facts, and IANASP (I am not a stinking politician) so I can't really offer any FUD, but I believe we should give nuclear power a chance, and it appears that a lot of other geeks (for their own varying reasons) seem to believe the same.
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Seriously, WTF? (Score:4, Insightful)
And recoverable at what cost (money and/or energy)?
it doesn't help much if we have a 1000 years worth of fissionable material if the cost of mining a large chunk of it is so high it's not cost effective for most uses.
Not saying nuclear isn't an option, but while a number like "1,000 years worth" might sound high, it might also be very low if it's a measure of how long the materials will last at current usage levels.
nuclear power is fine (Score:3, Insightful)
The second issue is that we have to get a nuclear depository up and running. Every year the treasury is paying huge amounts of taxpayer money to the nuclear power plants for storage of waste. Who knows how many of those of payments are fraudulent. Until we get a national nuclear waste dump up and running, nuclear power is going to a magnet for corruption of the public purse.
Re:Obama better support this too (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Seriously, WTF? (Score:3, Insightful)
I think we need to work more on adopting alternatives than trying to keep the oil rush going. An increase in efficiency (with attendant drop in demand) will keep the prices down even if the supply doesn't significantly expand.
Re:Seriously, WTF? (Score:4, Insightful)
However, the greatest untapped energy source is, and always will be the sun. Things like using solar panels at your house and being more energy efficient will be our greatest step towards solving our energy problems. People themselves need to start taking their energy use into their own hands. Their are entire neighborhoods in the US who are self sufficient and actually give energy back. There is no reason why this idea cannot spread to more of the US. So rather than relying on 3rd party for all your needs, start thinking of how you can help at home.
What? What kind of nonsense is this? (Score:2, Insightful)
So we'll have it when we need it? Drilling is not as instantaneous process.
"Let's use up the oil resources of the people who hate us while it's still relatively cheap, then tap our own resources at $300 a barrel and make them come crawling."
Or, we could drill for it now so we'd have it when it reached 300 a barrel, instead of needing 5 years to get at it after it reaches 300 a barrel.
If that is the sum of your objections to drilling, then you have no legitimate objections.
Re:Obama better support this too (Score:5, Insightful)
s/crawling/attacking/
Re:Seriously, WTF? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Seriously, WTF? (Score:5, Insightful)
If it were economical to harness energy from all those sources, don't you think the greedy capitalists would've been all over it?
The reason nobody wants to harness those sources is because they are inefficient compared to coal and oil. Spending money to get energy from inefficient sources only makes mankind poorer.
Re:$4 for gas, come on (Score:1, Insightful)
Everything you buy has to be transported (pretty much), and many of them are made from petroleum. You may never pay more than $9 a gallon for gas (assuming your country reduces taxes to alleviate the price increase at the pump), but you'll end up paying more for everything else.
My heart bleeds.
yeah, but (Score:4, Insightful)
2) you've had the benefit of years of rational development and land use planning, and
3) you've got extensive and well funded public transportation systems. (yeah, I know NS has been having issues in the last few years - it's light years ahead of the way things are in the US. Most cities here have nothing nearly as good as the trams, busses, and metros of various European cities).
We built up our country stupidly, particularly after WWII. We put extensive, relatively sparse tracts of housing far outside of places where people work and provide only highways for transportation. And we're going to pay the price for that, but we're still in the kicking and screaming tantrum stage, and won't start to deal realistically with the issues till the situation is far worse. Expect our politicians to do nothing to get us to grow the fuck up, either.
Re:Oil not equal to nuclear (Score:4, Insightful)
Back to my point. Pushing nuclear energy has relatively very little do with our dependence on gasoline via crude oil. Please lets not confuse the two. There is no chance that there will be cars powered by "under the hood" nuclear reactors in the near future. Wind power will also do nothing for our dependence on oil for gasoline.
Another case of policitians using unrelated events to push policy. Albiet, in poor taste, he is at least using this opportunity to point us to a real solution. I hate to say it, but Wind, Solar, Geothermal, etc. are not ready for deployment today. They eventually will be, but by that time (10+ years), it will take another 20+ years before they even make up a few % of global energy production. By that time Nuclear plants can be rolled out en mass and go a long way to reduce our carbon footprint (but not demand on foreign oil, sorry, thats just a different topic).
No Silver Bullet (Score:5, Insightful)
Look, we (US) have enjoyed our luxury of cheap single source energy. Now it is time to get with the program. We need ALL options for energy started now. Think of it as a diversified portfolio. So, I say the following:
YES! Drill for more oil and make some more darn refineries
YES! Build some nuclear power plants.
YES! Explore better ways to use coal in existing power plants.
YES! Build huge solar arrays and start larger solar power plants
YES! Build wave generated power plants
YES! Build wind generated power plants
YES! Build electric-based "commuter" vehicles
YES! Explore better ways to make bio-fuel
The government needs to subsidize some of the projects and needs to throw some money at these problems. If we deploy all of these strategies we may not get cheaper energy but we will get stable energy and maybe, just maybe avert major crisis as population and demand increases exponentially over the next 10 years.
Re:Seriously, WTF? (Score:3, Insightful)
We need to factor the environmental impact into the price. Let's tax pollutants heavily and spend the income on energy efficiency research, energy source research, pollution cleanup and research. I'm thinking fuel prices like in Europe (so around double of the current US price), but the tax content spent like above.
So the two parties' basic energy policies ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Democrats: nationalize the oil industry, price controls on gas.
I'm not going to post which I think is which, but one seems rational and reasonable, the other is pandering to the masses with a policy that is not only short sighted, but dangerous.
Here they go again (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm all about SENSIBLE environmental policy. That means we have to balance OUR needs for resources with RESPONSIBLE environmentalism, not turn the entire fucking planet into an off-limits nature preserve.
And yes, it means that there just may need to be a power plant, or a chemical refinery, or any other of a large number of the usual items that trigger "OMGWTFNIMBYAAUGH" reactions from the enviro-nutjobs, NEAR to population centers so that we RESPONSIBLY reduce the transportation and delivery costs (not just monetary but WASTED FUEL ENERGY).
Think about it. It costs us at LEAST 25% more fossil fuel energy [cbsnews.com] to turn OUR FOOD SUPPLY into ethanol fuel and deliver it where it needs to go, than we get back. Ethanol has been one of the biggest energy disasters we've ever gotten into. And at the same time we WASTE petroleum trying to do this, the price of food for starving countries is going through the roof because the US, an exporter of corn, is BURNING THE FOOD SUPPLY - LITERALLY.
Think of it this way: would you dump a gallon jug of Jack Daniels in your gas tank? Guess what - YOU JUST DID. Oh, and the reason you constantly have to get your injectors cleaned and serviced and buy injector cleaner to put in your tank? That's right - ethanol is incredibly corrosive to your rubber fuel line!
And yet the enviro-nutjobs keep screaming for ethanol production and refuse to consider how wasteful it is. They refuse to consider the fact that the "renewable" energy sources all have problems too: in order to make an order of solar panels from polysilicon, you create an immense amount of TOXIC WASTE [cnet.com] that has to be dealt with. If you run a mirror-based solar farm, you've got to keep the mirrors polished (congratulations, keep a lot of toxic chemicals handy and be prepared to toxify the hell out of the soil) just as a start. And all it takes to lower or cut entirely your generating capacity is a nice cloud or two. Earth seems to be fairly old hat at generating those, somehow. Walk outside and take a quick peek at the sky, chances are there's one around.
Wind farms are INCREDIBLY noisy and disruptive, the power is intermittent at best with very minimal generating capacity for the land area used, and a major killer of endangered birds already.
Geothermal has limited areas in which it can be placed, areas which are invariably tectonically unstable (or worse yet: the "best" places are usually right in the expected lava flow/blast zone of a volcano).
Tidal power has the same problem, you can only do it on a shoreline, and a rise/fall in the shoreline (not due to "global warming" but simply tectonic activity or seasonal changes in large lakes) can kill it quite easily, since the turbines have to be set at the right place to match the incoming/outgoing tides... and even then, they ONLY generate power during the tidal shift.
Biomass is a nice thought, but you get back to the food supply and other effects. Wood chips? Watch the price of particulate board matter of all sorts (the sort likely most of your furniture is made of, especially if it came from Ikea) jack through the roof. Much of the rest is fed to animals or composted to create fertilizer in order to grow more food, which means you'll decrease crop yields and jack food prices up again.
Do I say we shouldn't use these? No. But if we had a SENSIBLE and RESPONSIBLE nuclear policy, including recycling "spent" fuel and refining it back for reuse rather than trying to stash it under a mountain, we could eliminate a LOT more of the oil/natural gas/coal portion of our energy than these sources are ever likely to manage.
Re:$5 a gallon? (Score:3, Insightful)
That makes ZERO sense and is a tired, lame argument. We of course want to better our situation, and if others dont follow suit and roll over, that is their problem.
Besides, our nation is far more spread out then yours, and we rely on private transportation. ( for both daily life and food manufacture, which we export a lot that food )
Re:Seriously, WTF? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:And it's only taken 2.9 decades (Score:4, Insightful)
Flamebait? More like painful honesty. Carter was a nice guy and obviously very smart, but his energy policies are crippling us. Think of where we might be today if we had 30 years of experience running breeder reactors on a wide-scale basis.
Re:$5 a gallon? (Score:3, Insightful)
Most European countries can easily be crossed by road in an hour or two, and they have extensive rail service besides. America runs on trucks that deliver goods from one coast to the other and back again. Not to mention that we have commuters who live 1-2 hours away from their jobs. Imagine living in Paris and commuting every day to Amsterdam, by car. That's what a lot of Americans depend upon.
To adapt to $9/gallon gas, we will need extensive changes to our way of life. That's why people are complaining. Change isn't easy.
Re:Seriously, WTF? (Score:3, Insightful)
I live in the Southeast US and I get to listen to the politicians and power company execs tell me that our area "isn't good for solar power" when I have to take my tapes and CDs inside in the summer so they don't melt in my car.
Adding a few middling well placed solar panels to your roof to offset your power usage isn't that expensive, and there are companies that will do it in exchange for you paying them an amount of money equal to the difference between your average electric bill (pre-panels) and post-panels for a decade or so.
Energy efficient appliances; why does your stereo use almost as much power when it's off? Actual awareness of the amount of power your appliances are using is a very simple way of reducing your power consumption.
If enough people took modest steps like that, the need for coal and oil power plants could be dramatically reduced, and yes, big business is very much against that, because they're in the business of selling you electricity, and the less you buy from them, the less money they make.
Re:Seriously, WTF? (Score:5, Insightful)
Or with breeder reactors you basically have unlimited fuel. They're more complex to design perhaps but are certainly a solution to your claimed "problem".
Also - you probably read a few of the same articles i did about there not being enough fissile uranium around. The catch is it assumes a fixed (and rather low) cost as the ceiling. Once you increase that it becomes a non-issue even without breeder reactors. And before you compare tripling the price of uranium fuel to oil at $140 a barrel - the fuel cost for a nuclear plant is a rather small % of it's operating cost. It's not like they burn a trainload of uranium every few days like a coal plant.
I don't know the details of McCain's "backing" but if it results in more ecconomical and plentiful nuclear plants i'm all for it.
actually, most studies show 35% gain from ethanol (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:$5 a gallon? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm always amazed to hear Europeans try and compare Europe to the United States. Do you have any idea of the scale of the United States? Mass transit simply isn't an option for a vast majority of this country. Most Americans (particularly those in rural areas) have to commute to work, to buy groceries, etc, etc.
Nice way to stereotype but at least half of this country doesn't have ANYTHING within a mile of where they live. Where I grew up it was a four mile drive into town.
2 other things to consider (Score:4, Insightful)
Look how long it has taken for any state to accept the toxic nuclear waste. How long before we have to start looking for more dumping grounds for these new active power plants?
One of our biggest poblems, particularly in the US, is the lack of long-range planning when it comes to energy policy. Our entire society has been built on the presumption that oil is and will always be cheap, which considering Hubbert's peak oil predictions in the 50's is remarkably foolish and short-sighted. We really need to look at the long-term implications of nuclear or any other energy source, and start planning now instead of waiting for another crisis to develop.
2. Where there's vast amounts of money, there is fraud.
Near my home in the 1980's a nuclear plant began construction, and it turned out that the contractor was skimming money off the top and not building the plant to spec. When the state finally inspected it, the walls were honeycombed because the contractor was skimping on the concrete! Imagine if that plant had gone online.
It's not so much the technology I'm worried about - it's the greedy motherfuckers who are willing to cut corners for a profit that concern me. I have no interest in helping some CEO finally get that island in the Pacific while my state turns into a Chernobyl site.
Re:Seriously, WTF? (Score:1, Insightful)
Seriously, on the west coast, geothermal power is terribly under-exploited, it doesn't consume any fuel or take up the thousands of acres that solar and wind do.
Re:$4 for gas, come on (Score:2, Insightful)
By the way, it's for a large part because of that taxation European governments do that European gas prices haven't risen as much as they did in the US.
You people get to feel the economy's hiccups raw and unfiltered. That's raw free market for you, something some slashdotters seem to take as the pinnacle of economic development or something...
Re:Oil not equal to nuclear (Score:5, Insightful)
Ideally, I'd like to put up enough solar panels and wind turbines to power my house, charge my car, and sell back to the utilities.
Re:Oil not equal to nuclear (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes actually, and I WILL blame him (Score:2, Insightful)
When viewed in retrospect, yes, that is exactly how it appears things have shaken out.
Your post is just a reworded argument form authority.
"Don't blame Carter for the hysteria of the day."
Why the fuck not? He, according to YOU, was trained better and more informed, yet he ALLOWED the hysteria, even kowtowing to it in some cases. Why shouldn't I blame him for allowing irrational fear to dominate the discussion, when according to YOU he should have had the information necessary to defuse the hysteria?
History proved his positions wrong. If he was as informed as you think, how did he ALLOW that to happen? And why do you think he gets a pass for it?
Re:Nukes could solve a lot of issues (Score:2, Insightful)
How about doing it with solar desalinators, which cost almost nothing to operate?
Why on earth would you do this any way other than solar? We're talking about the desert, where you can pump water with basically long glass tubes which are operated by solar. They use them to pump water in the sahara now. Look it up. You are so far behind the state of the art it's not even funny.
Actually, it makes FAR more sense to simply combine solar desalination with algae production. The US DOE said this (just the algae part, let alone producing fresh water which you get to do for the price of tenting your algae ponds with clear plastic, basically) would be profitable by the time petrodiesel hit $3/gallon. It's over five now.
We lose a total of 5% in the US due to transmission. I CALL SHENANIGANS. You are either promoting an agenda or simply do not know what you are talking about.
Re:$4 for gas, come on (Score:2, Insightful)
This isn't to say that the US couldn't benefit from some adjustments in the way we commute, but for now the reality is that although in many places in the world a car is a luxury, in most parts of the US it's a necessity.
So please get off your high horse and realize that the situation is different over here and we are much more affected by the price of gas than you are.
Re:$5 a gallon? (Score:1, Insightful)
There are two things to understand about the cyclic pattern:
1) this one is a little different because of the phenominal growth in demand in the developing world. Even if the industrialized world's economies suffer a bit, overall global demand may still go up, and, in the last decade, the growth has been 2-4% per year. Do the math. That growth is real, strongly driven, and it will be hard to reduce it to zero.
2) even if prices go down significantly (something I doubt will happen for very long -- see #1) they'll be back up again eventually. Prices will cycle back and forth on an overall upward curve, even on constant-dollar prices adjusted for inflation. The reason is simple: it is a limited resource and it is getting more expensive in real terms to find it and produce it (e.g., the Canadian tar sands have ample, but more expensive, oil). That reality will not change fundamentally unless demand declines enormously (as in: global economic collapse, not merely a recession, or some magical new energy source).
You're right that it's a cycle, but people are blaming the producer rather than themselves for most the problem. The main reason for the recent price spike is more than a decade of increasing *demand*, not decreasing supply.
If you model the whole thing as a drug [wikipedia.org] to which the world economy is severely addicted perhaps it will make more sense. The only way the price will truly and permanently go down is if people lose interest and swear off it forever, or they switch en masse to something else to get their energy hit. That ain't happening much so far, so pay the pusher and get used to varying but on average rising prices, junkie, and hope that you don't have to also finance another drug war to ensure you get your next fix when you visit the pump. Maybe if people hadn't binged so much with their SUVs for so long and depleted their domestic stash the withdrawal wouldn't hurt so much now.
Blame it on the pushers all you like, but that's only half the story.
Re:Now all we need... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Oil not equal to nuclear (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Oil not equal to nuclear (Score:4, Insightful)
That's dumb. As dirty as coal plants are, they are far cleaner than the equivalent power output from internal combustion engines. If it takes n joules to get you from place to place, you're better off using the more efficient method of getting those joules.
Re:$4 for gas, come on (Score:2, Insightful)
DISCLAIMER: I live in Canada, which is arguably worse when it comes to "urban sprawl" and poorly designed cities, but I am one of the few that doesn't whine about fuel.
Re:Seriously, WTF? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:And it's only taken 2.9 decades (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Oil not equal to nuclear (Score:5, Insightful)
Ahh...perhaps it's that little thing called "cost?" Independence from the power grid really sounds like a neat idea until you consider how much it costs to do it. Sort of like electric cars, which sound neat until you consider the cost to acquire one versus the utility and flexibility you can extract from it vis-as-vis a gasoline-powered vehicle of similar cost.
I'm not trying to be a downer on such ideas, though. I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy of so many of the wealthy "treehuggers" out there who have the means to do something about their energy consumption yet continue to shuttle around in limos, private jets, and occupy 15,000 sq. ft. mansions with an energy consumption the size of a small town. Environmentalism seems great to folks until you ask them to put their money where their mouth is.
Re:$5 a gallon? (Score:5, Insightful)
What you may not realize is that America is, in general, much more spread out and less densely populated than Europe.
There literally isn't a single business within a mile of my house. I purposely chose my home location to minimize my distance to shopping/work, and we're still talking multiple miles to get to any of the above in different directions. 20-30 mile commutes each way are typical in my area, not exceptional, and I know more than a few people with much longer commutes. Public transportation is poor at best. (It's better in some cities.)
I'm not saying any of this isn't our fault as a country, but the situation in general is a lot different than yours with respect to driving.
Re:Nukes could solve a lot of issues (Score:4, Insightful)
I call ignorance. The reason we have relatively low losses is because we tend not to move power very far. Once you start trying to ship power from the spot in the country that happens to be sunny or windy, losses will go up and by quite a bit. Having power being produced where you want it, and when you want it, has enormous advantages and, up until quite recently, is what separated the industrial world from the third world. Now we'll all be praying to the Wind Gods to come... humanity renders itself helpless again. Hell of a future you got there for us.
Re:Seriously, WTF? (Score:2, Insightful)
It is not really your fault. It is the fault of the hysteria-spreading, anti-nuclear, tree-huggers. They spent years spreading anti-nuclear disinformation and succeeded in stopping the building of nuclear reactors. More money was poured into coal and petroleum for energy production.
Re:yeah, but (Score:5, Insightful)
...and the other two points. Sure, those are true but they didn't just magically happen either. It wasn't just because these countries are 'small' - much as Americans are so very fond of thinking of Europe (while they themselves tend to move very small distances from where they were born, as a statistic) - it's because the governments of Europe imposed tax penalties on fuel.
This was done to hit demand and create a market for fuel efficient vehicles and other practises that curb demand. It's worked too, oil burned per capita of people in Europe is a fraction of what Americans use and the CO2 output per capita is even more stark.
America retained the love of huge fuel inefficient cars, SUVs etc while the lobby-driven politics ensured it was political suicide for anyone to grow a spin and impose fuel taxation or indeed any other significant measures to break the American love affair with burning oil.
Most cars people drive in Europe are smaller, designed primarily for running costs and not the sound that a large capacity engine makes (you've got to listen to the round-tabel panel on Ward's Top Ten engines for a clue as to just how important they believe this junk to be), but instead the engines are more expensive and technically advanced to improve economy.
So baring this in mind, it's pretty unfair to suggest that Europe just got handed all of these advantages. They were hard fought and hard won. We've been paying decades of tax on fuel.
While you're whining about $4 a gallon, we're paying $5 a gallon JUST IN TAX. We're already driving around fuel efficient vehicles and paying through the nose with road/green taxes, CO2-based taxes, expensive emissions standards driving up costs of vehicles and servicing costs and have been for YEARS. So you'll have to excuse us if we don't have vast amounts of sympathy for the complaints coming from the other side of the Atlantic right now.
Nuclear very expensive (Score:3, Insightful)
Inevitable accidents have world wide affects. To make it worse, nuclear power plants are not the most productive.
I can't recall the study, but the cost benefits of nuclear energy that are quoted never factor in disposal (storage actually) of the spent rods or cleanup of accidents.
Do we need a reminder of 3 mile island or chernobyl?
Re:Seriously, WTF? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Seriously, WTF? (Score:5, Insightful)
http://hardware.slashdot.org/hardware/08/03/14/1238233.shtml [slashdot.org]
As for McCain...
Call me a cynic, but I can't imagine a nuclear plan is going to survive across multiple administrations without getting seriously screwed up. The only way it'd work is if hypothetical President McCain finds *all the money* for his program *now* and throws it in Al Gore's hypothetical lockbox.
Re:Obama better support this too (Score:2, Insightful)
Seems like a reasonable position to me, growth is possible if there is sufficient oversight.
Nevadans for Nukes (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Seriously, WTF? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Seriously, WTF? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Seriously, WTF? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Oil not equal to nuclear (Score:3, Insightful)
When the real cost of coal in considered, and nuclear scales with more regular plant production, I think the prices will be more equitable.
(My home is powered from wind and hydro. http://www.greenmountainenergy.com/ [greenmountainenergy.com])
Re:McCain making steps in the right direction late (Score:3, Insightful)
A real leader would have seen it 10 years ago.
I'm not impressed. Building new power plants is a proposition that a 6th grader could write. These politicians act like their geniuses when their train of thought appears to be "If people scream about problem X, then we fix problem X.". It should be "X will become a problem in 5 years. Better start fixing it now."
Re:Seriously, WTF? (Score:2, Insightful)
Bush, McCain 2005 Energy Act and PUCHA (Score:4, Insightful)
Because the companies ideally placed to take advantage of these changes and really get a strangle hold on the American economy are Oil Companies. The only way for them to really pillage the American Taxpayer is to be able to speculate on building reactors that are of the "approved design" into the future. The only approved designs are all 'once through' fuel cycle so any discussion about breeder reactors ends here and the discussion about the lack of net energy returns from the nuclear fuel cycle begin.
You have to be pragmatic about this, P.U.C.H.A was put in place to stop America going back into a economic depression. Greed is greed, supporting this will enable the legislative framework to gut the American economy and taxpayer of remaining assets for the next 20 to 30 years.
Please America, you are a technological nation, you can solve your energy needs without nuclear power.
Re:Seriously, WTF? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Seriously, WTF? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Not just that (Score:2, Insightful)
There are only a few plants like 3-Mile island, and the issue was fixed. Including in other plant designs, where they added a detector on pipe by the block valve out of the pressurizer, to verify that the valve is shut. Further, there has been huge amounts of advances in emergency procedure and trainings since then.
Also, all of the new designs that are just now being completed (and built in China) fail safe as well, even though they too are light water reactors.
Re:Seriously, WTF? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes there's a risk but there are other needs as well. Like stop pumping carbon into the atmosphere by the megaton.
Re:Seriously, WTF? (Score:5, Insightful)
And why not? We found a trillion+ for a pointless war in Iraq.
Re:Oil not equal to nuclear (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Distributed Generation and Conservation (Score:3, Insightful)
Um, no. We have these things called "high voltage transmission lines", and while they are not 100% efficient, the economies of scale achieved by placing a larger plant further away mean that it just isn't that simple. Not to mention that you also have to consider the issue of providing the plant with the fuel.
Yeah, that'll do a lot of good in Seattle. Not to mention the cost of _producing_ all those photovoltaics, in both money and energy.
Another one who hasn't looked at the numbers. All these "alternatives" (unless you count nuclear) can barely make a _dent_ in fossil fuel use. They're boutique sources, good for environmentalists and politicians to point to justify not finding more oil or using more coal, but they just can't cut the mustard.
Re:Here they go again (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:yeah, but (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh, I agree, these things didn't crop up magically.
But when I say America is bigger, I mean, our cities are more spread out and our suburbs (and exurbs, and beyond) are further from population centers; and whereas you have a way of doing a 50 mile commute via public transportation in most of Europe, that's not the case for most of the US. And a lot of us commute from suburb to suburb, which presents a problem since most of the public transit we do have is of a wheel-spoke design. Just in terms of convenience and practicality, a lot of Americans are in a living situation where driving is their best option. I'm not endorsing this, but it is the way things are.
I completely agree. Americans love cars that are unnecessarily large, and have myriad justifications for why they're better (leg room, lots of children, safety, etc.). And it's a combination of that love and the fact that our development has been such that it encourages dependence on cars that's led to the pain we're having now WRT oil prices. You do have to keep in mind the double whammy we have here - it's not just we have a love of SUVs, it's that we love them and we also have gotten our society into the position of "having" do drive a lot.
I didn't say that, and if it seemed that I did, that certainly wasn't what I meant. I know you guys worked at it - you had the minor advantage of a smaller and more established population setup, but you didn't go hog wild for driving and you controlled the situation very well through gas taxes. Kudos, believe me - we didn't have the discipline to enforce sane development practices or gas efficiency, and we are and will continue to pay the price for that.
And, for what it's worth, I don't own a car. I live two miles from where I work, and I walk there, or take a bus if it's raining. I chose this living situation, and rearranged my life around it. You'll hear Americans bitching that they can't do that - it's a lie. They can. It might be expensive, or inconvenient, or different - a lot of them don't want to live in cities because of crime or whatever. But a lot of Americans are living an unsustainable lifestyle, and that's going to have to change, whether or not they like it. If nothing else, the cost of maintaining that will shoot up dramatically for the foreseeable future.
Re:WRONG (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Here they go again (Score:3, Insightful)
Switchgrass and bio-diesel are a different story; they can be more efficient without decreasing food production.
Re:Seriously, WTF? (Score:2, Insightful)
Oh, is the "Environmentalist Movement" the new "Democrat Party" now?
The truth is that the environmental movement is made up of all kinds of people, some of whom are of course luddites, some of whom are extremely technical, but get their techie jollies from things like energy saving technologies and alternative energy.
The problem is people who think they can solve the world's problems by selecting a label, applying it to people as a way of saying everything is their fault. This works when Mom and Dad are around to clean up the mess, but in the grown up world, you quickly find out that blaming somebody else doesn't get anything useful done.
The problem is too many people depending on somebody else to be the responsible adult.
The truth is that petroleum is a commodity that is, as far as we know, limited. Too many of us, however, acted like cheap oil was a permanent feature of the world. And now they're looking for somebody to gripe about.
So now it's the fault of the people who chose to drive the smallest car they could to cut down on pollution, or to live close to where they work, or to find a job where they could telecommute or take public transportation. Worse yet are the people who chose careers in things like alternative energy technologies and conservation. Nobody liked those people anyway, so it must be their fault we don't have fusion powered SUVs.
Re:Seriously, WTF? (Score:4, Insightful)
Should you sell enriched plutonium samples to guests after the group tour of your breeder reactor plant? Probably not. Should you not build something that produces a net gain in available fuel while also producing a shit load of power and potentially solves the looming energy crisis because someone, somewhere, somehow might do something bad?
That sounds like paranoia to me.
Build some breeders in a safe location and the use the fuel to build those 'tennis ball' reactors that use a bit of fuel in a graphite ball and helium coolant.
Re:Seriously, WTF? (Score:2, Insightful)
And carbon based energy sources are financially sustainable when you factor in the costs of global warming, food shortages, sea-level rise and increased disease?
We used to have a name for this kind of policy (Score:3, Insightful)
Not coincidentally corporate welfare is exactly the same thing, only you don't tell people they aren't allowed to build steel mills. Instead, you just take money away from everyone, and give it to the aluminum producers. As a result fewer of everything else gets built, including steel mills. What we have here is a proposal to have the government guarantee to the nuclear industry that at least two nuclear plants per year will be built on average, every year for the next twenty years.
Speaking as a free-spending political liberal, that's too much even for me. I'd be all for giving some government grants and regulatory relief to enable several pilot plants for new technologies to be built, to help the industry get back on its feet. But after that, they're on their own. I'm for technology research (which conservatives view as interfering with the market), but at least I don't think the government should be in the business of putting nuclear power's competitors out of business.
Re:Seriously, WTF? (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm sure the former residents of Pripyat, Ukraine would be relieved to hear that.
Re:Seriously, WTF? (Score:2, Insightful)
Or, another way, the founder of Greenpeace is now a strong proponent of nuclear energy because it's safer, cleaner, more plentiful, and cheaper (in that order) than any other energy source we have available for the next few decades. Even he has rescinded his view [washingtonpost.com]. He has also made the comment that Greenpeace has largely been taken away from true environmentalist and taken over by anti-capitalists that use the environment as a weapon.
So in this case, we can very clearly "blame" environmentalists for shouting loudly and obnoxiously for decades...and being flat-out WRONG. They are -responsible-, directly, for the predicament we're in now. Any moron with a cause can get TV airtime, but everybody has to deal with the fallout.
It's important to place blame, in this case, widely, loudly, and prominently so that, hopefully, future generations won't be suckered in by charlatans with a "cause." If we give previous generations of "environmentalists" a pass on this one, and on "climate change", and on DDT, and on... you start to see the pattern developing here.
Re:Seriously, WTF? (Score:2, Insightful)
No form of energy production is financially sustainable on its own. That's partly the point. You're just substituting one set of problems for another, and in the end you're back in the same boat. Only you realize it *after* having spent $40 billion or whatever on building all these reactors. (And I suspect the costs would be much higher, because nobody wants to live within 20 miles of a nuclear plant... and that drives property values down, which in turn affects property tax revenues. These hidden costs are ongoing, and over the life of a reactor probably add up to an enormous amount that's far greater than the initial outlay to build the reactor.)
Nobody would argue that the solution to our energy problems is to do nothing. But nuclear power is no cheaper than coal or oil when all of its costs are factored in, and it has a lot of other problems that sources like solar and wind don't. (Of course, they have problems that nuclear doesn't too, but I'd still rather have a bunch of ugly windmills on a hill nearby than a nuclear power plant or a nuclear waste site.)
And it's funny to see people say things like "oh, Chernobyl wasn't that bad... it's only been 20 years and it's almost inhabitable again!" Great. Tell that to New York City when Indian Point blows a proverbial gasket and spews radioactivity all over the area. What do you think would happen to our economy in the case of a single accident that affects a large metropolitan area? Indian Point is notorious for safety lapses and poor maintenance (including radiation leaks) and I see no reason to expect that any new nuclear reactors would fare any better.
Re:2 other things to consider (Score:3, Insightful)
#2 The same is true of ANY big money operation. Go watch Erin Brockovich. That was a coal fired power plant. In your power plant example, there is actually no reason to expect that a honeycombed wall would compromise safety. So long as the reactor was built well the other walls of the building don't matter much, it's not GOOD but it's not more likely to irradiate you. Also note that the inspections process worked...
uranium price (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Seriously, WTF? (Score:5, Insightful)
I just have a hard time accepting this "no we can't" mentality. Your whole argument boils down to what might happen, even though it never has in any Western nuclear power plant.
And how much more expensive is coal and oil when you factor in all of the aforementioned environmental impacts?
And how many of those windmills do you need to produce the same amount of power that you can obtain from one nuclear power plant? What will the environmental impact be of removing that much energy from the atmosphere? How many migratory birds does the typical nuclear power plant kill?
What do you think would happen to our economy in the case of a single accident in any industry that affects a large metropolitan area? Why are you singling out nuclear power but ignoring the chemical industry? It's not like their disasters [wikipedia.org] are any better.
Re:Seriously, WTF? (Score:5, Insightful)
Are you sure about that? I suspect even if the cockpit was locked they would have still had a good chance to carry out their plan. What got everyone on 9/11 was the surprise. The flight crew may well have opened the door when the terrorists demanded. The flight crew would have reacted to way they were trained, which is to do what they say(this is because before 9/11 all terrorist hijackings were usually not nearly as destructive). What has changed it the perception to hijacked amongst the population. In the past if a plane I was one was hijacked I probably would have done what they said and hope to get out of it. Now a would be hijacked would be torn to pieces by the passengers and crew... even if he had a gun. Notice that no other terror groups are hijacking planes these days. There is a reason for that.
Waste disposal (Score:5, Insightful)
Power plant equality, now!
Why not hold all power plants to the same standard?
The mercury from a coal plant doesn't decay. It stays toxic forever.
Vitrifying nuclear waste is already a better solution than the one used for coal plants, which is to dispose of the waste in the downwinders's lungs.
Re:Nuclear very expensive (Score:3, Insightful)
There is no evidence to support that statement.
Inevitable accidents? Interesting way of phrasing it
Please tell me of one human run technology that has never had an accident.
PBRs are interesting in their "fail safe" design, but there are airplanes in the sky, earth quakes, hurricanes, tornadoes and so on.
Nuclear power is unlike other technologies in that an error can have world wide catastrophes that result in generations of injury.
I'll trade that risk to eliminate emissions from coal, oil, and gas fired plants.
Its funny, the idea of "risk" doesn't trouble me. The idea of a "for profit" company running nuclear power plants does. If you want a good analogy, look at private health insurance. People are dying because their health insurance companies will find any way they can to keep from paying out what they are supposed to pay. Now, a private company running a nuclear power plant, weighing risks against a corporate bottom line scares the hell out of me.
The safest technology in the hands of corporations isn't. Remember Bhopal India?
Re:Seriously, WTF? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Seriously, WTF? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Seriously, WTF? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Seriously, WTF? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Seriously, WTF? (Score:4, Insightful)
1. Contaminates in the water can be irradiated and become mildly radioactive. This can be mediated by using a pure form of water or heavy water.
2. The water is pumped directly past the radioactive materials. Some of the material erodes and is carried by the water. This can be mediated by physically separating the water from the actual materials, and actually using the "spent" materials rather than leaving them to sit in a cooling pool.
Re:Seriously, WTF? (Score:4, Insightful)
Nuke-plant? No one has their life impacted short of a leak, or catastrophic meltdown. Which by the way, how long ago was the last time a nuke-plant injured anyone? Oh yeah...Chernobyl. The last actual meltdown was the 3-mile incident which no casualties occurred. Those were also when the technology was still largely misunderstood. Proper precautionary measures have since been adapted that far exceed any possible future meltdowns. Reactors have had their problems since, but have shown themselves quite safe. But by all means! Don't let logic & reason sway you. You have principles!
Re:Seriously, WTF? (Score:5, Insightful)
you know, the radium could be used in breeder reactors, and the thorium in thorium reactors
the problem is that coal companies just dump the stuff in mines and landfills, we could be using the results of burning coal for electricity to make important nuclear fuel, cheaply, that would allow more and more safe, practical nuclear energy, perhaps to create the 'hydrogen' economy to switch vehicles from burning oil, to either burning hydrogen, or to use fuel cells to produce electricity from hydrogen.
too bad we're putting radioactive materials into the soil and water, instead of using it to make more fuel, that would make nuclear power even more attractive. (imo, nuclear is the only attractive fuel source that isn't base on renewable green energy)
Re:Seriously, WTF? (Score:2, Insightful)
But no I appriciate hearing that, it reminds me of republicans blasting the supreme court ruling on Guantanamo detainies, one said it will cost us a city.
Well that may be true, probably not... But still isn't that the whole point? To live free? I'll gladly accept the risk someone with bad intentions might 'get me' if that means I and my fellow citizens can enjoy my freedom and civil liberties.
This 'think of the children' mentality is destroying us.
Re:Seriously, WTF? (Score:3, Insightful)
I haven't researched this too thoroughly, but hasn't the US been test detonating nuclear weaponry in the New Mexico and Nevada desert for freaking decades? Wouldn't those sites already be contaminated? What's a little more? Carve out a huge hole in the desert, eight miles deep, whatever. Line it with concrete. Dump the waste in there. It's not going anywhere and if it does, so what, it's ten miles underground in a site that's already been nuked to hell and back.
Re:Seriously, WTF? (Score:2, Insightful)
Oh, and Chernobyl was still a functioning power plant until 2000. That's scary. But well designed plants? Not in the slightest. Can we please recognize the difference 20 years after the disaster and move on?
Re:Seriously, WTF? (Score:3, Insightful)
The entire purpose of Cheney's false remark is to raise the specter of communist competition and spur the US into an action that we shouldn't pursue. So yes, it is fearmongering - by spreading the fear of the reds, it's hyperbole, "obvious and intentional exaggeration," and if it's not a lie, then it's incompetence in that Cheney should have fact checked, and the OP should have seen that Cheney's statement was so false that he had to retract it.
You're right though, the OP made a slightly more accurate statement than Cheney who said, they ARE drilling off the florida coast. However, slightly more accurate than bullshit isn't truth. The fact that the Chinese hold a lease does not in any way mean that drilling is imminent, and it does not mean that drilling will ever happen.
The oil companies hold leases all over the world. A very small percentage of the land that is leased to someone for oil production will ever be utilized.