backtop


Print 127 comment(s) - last by texbrazos.. on Feb 5 at 3:30 PM

Obama's State of the Union address was a pleasant surprise for nuclear proponents, but a not so pleasant one for critics in both parties

One of the most active debates surrounding U.S. politics is whether U.S. President Barack Obama is doing too much or too little to break away from stale politics on both sides of the aisle.  In his first traditional State of the Union address, U.S. President Barack Obama talked about a number of controversial topics, including one that's very familiar to DailyTech readers -- nuclear energy.

Nuclear power came to the U.S. following the second World War, with the Atomic Energy Act of 1946 a bill championed by a Democratic controlled U.S. House of Representatives and signed into law by Harry Truman, a Democratic president.  Republican leadership contributed significantly to civilian nuclear development as well, with the first commercial nuclear power plant opened under President Dwight Eisenhower.  With John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson -- Democratic presidents -- the commercial nuclear industry expanded dramatically in the 1960s.

What was once an issue that enjoyed bipartisan support, however, split along party lines in the late 1970s and early 1980s.  Democrats, who increasingly drew support from the growing "green" environmentalist movement listened to concerns from their base about toxic nuclear waste.  Accidents like the Three Mile Island incident of 1979 cemented the party's opposition to nuclear expansion.

Today the nuclear industry has moved beyond its "dirty" past; countries like Japan and France enjoy relatively clean, safe, and cheap nuclear energy.  You could tear down every nuclear reactor in the U.S. and replace them five to ten fold with these modern designs, while keeping waste levels constant -- or even shrinking them.  However, nonsensically some in the environmentalist movement have fought adoption of modern designs out of a outdated mistrust, ultimately hurting both the environment and the U.S. public.

U.S. Barack Obama in his address Wednesday night indicated that he looks to silence his party's opposition to the now green and clean energy source and push the U.S. to embrace the benefits of modern nuclear power.  Addressing the nation, he described, "To create more of these clean energy jobs, we need more production, more efficiency, more incentives. And that means building a new generation of safe, clean nuclear power plants in this country."

Those words come as a shock to many conservatives and liberals alike, as many assumed Obama to be be anti-nuclear due to his seemingly pointedly silence about nuclear energy during his election campaign.  He faces tough skepticism from his own party on the move.  As recently as the 2008 election, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, a prominent Democratic, has been a critic of nuclear energy.  She stated during a 2008 interview, "I am agnostic about nuclear. I am very skeptical that nuclear could become acceptable in most regions of the country, and I am doubtful that we have yet figured out how to deal with the waste."

Others on both sides of the aisle have voiced similar concerns.

Still, Democrats are warming to the idea of nuclear power, as are some in the environmentalist movement.  The real question now becomes whether Obama can push nuclear power past its opponents. President George W. Bush also was a proponent of nuclear energy, but a combined lack of decisive action on his part and legislative opposition led to the nation making little real progress on nuclear power during his eight year presidency.

Can Obama do better?  That's an intriguing question.  The nation in 2008 received 19.6 percent of its power from nuclear sources.  If groups like The Clean and Safe Energy Coalition have that number could soon rise significantly, with new construction of dozens of plants.  The group says that 32 new plant proposals are pending.  Can those proposals make it past the Nuclear Regulatory Commission?  That remains to be seen.  But it is clear for now that momentum is mounting for the U.S. to catch up to the rest of the industrialized world in clean nuclear energy -- a notion supported by President Obama and many conservatives and democrats alike.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Bring it on
By DigitalFreak on 1/28/2010 3:47:50 PM , Rating: 5
'bout damn time this happened.




RE: Bring it on
By ClownPuncher on 1/28/2010 3:53:01 PM , Rating: 5
There is no reasonable argument why we should not embrace nuclear, and no reason why we shouldn't get things started NOW. That would be "stimulus". Get people working on building.


RE: Bring it on
By aromero78 on 1/28/10, Rating: -1
RE: Bring it on
By jonmcc33 on 1/28/2010 4:06:52 PM , Rating: 2
You have been watching cartoons too much. Time to grow up...quickly.


RE: Bring it on
By Reclaimer77 on 1/28/10, Rating: 0
RE: Bring it on
By Gul Westfale on 1/28/2010 7:34:59 PM , Rating: 2
the simpsons haven't been funny since i was 15... and that was a looooong time ago.


RE: Bring it on
By ZHENDHIDE4 on 1/28/10, Rating: -1
RE: Bring it on
By bdot on 1/28/10, Rating: -1
RE: Bring it on
By aromero78 on 1/28/10, Rating: 0
RE: Bring it on
By Lord 666 on 1/28/10, Rating: 0
RE: Bring it on
By bupkus on 1/28/2010 4:49:58 PM , Rating: 3
Your hatred for Obama is apparent. You would have him fail even at the detriment to the nation.


RE: Bring it on
By Reclaimer77 on 1/28/2010 4:56:02 PM , Rating: 1
Fail in what ?

Look at the things he's doing, moron. His goal IS to destroy the nation, damn right we want him to fail.


RE: Bring it on
By darkweasel on 1/28/2010 5:10:00 PM , Rating: 4
His goals are simply different than yours, that doesn't mean he is trying to destroy the nation. With rhetoric like that you aren't helping anything.

Under Bush it seemed to me that the administration's goal at times was to destroy the nation, but I didn't rabidly post on message boards about how "evil" he was.


RE: Bring it on
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 1/28/10, Rating: 0
RE: Bring it on
By ClownPuncher on 1/28/2010 7:14:54 PM , Rating: 3
quote:

Did you see the supreme court judge just shake his head left to right and you could read his lips, "No that is a lie". Obama was trying to take credit for some change in the Justice area. Opps... I guess that is a bad idea to do right in front of the guys who actually did the work.


Actually, wasn't Obama saying how big of a mistake it was to uncap political funding from private organizations like corporations and such?


RE: Bring it on
By Nfarce on 1/28/2010 8:36:24 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Actually, wasn't Obama saying how big of a mistake it was to uncap political funding from private organizations like corporations and such?


Yes - as it is going to uncap political funding from unions. I didn't hear anyone mention that for some reason. Besides, it is still illegal to fund directly to campaign candidates by business interests and unions.


RE: Bring it on
By FITCamaro on 1/28/2010 10:33:23 PM , Rating: 1
Yes and he was lying as he said it.

They merely made it legal for corporations, charities, etc. to fund political ads which are the same as free speech.

Still in place are the limits on direct campaign contributions to political candidates. Obama and the Democrats are just pissed because now groups that don't support them will be able to create ads.

Now if a small business disagrees with a political candidate and believes their policies will force them to cut jobs, they can create an ad and buy TV time to air it to express their opinion.


RE: Bring it on
By ClownPuncher on 1/29/2010 1:48:07 PM , Rating: 2
Was it a lie? I didn't get the full story on it. I know that he did say they repealed the law, when in fact they only loosened the regulations that were in place.

quote:
Still in place are the limits on direct campaign contributions to political candidates. Obama and the Democrats are just pissed because now groups that don't support them will be able to create ads.


But it also allows unions and other groups to run their own ads, so I don't see how it would be a bad thing for Democrats.


RE: Bring it on
By HEIJIHUHU on 1/29/10, Rating: -1
RE: Bring it on
By DigitalFreak on 1/28/2010 7:16:24 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Did you see the supreme court judge just shake his head left to right and you could read his lips, "No that is a lie". Obama was trying to take credit for some change in the Justice area. Opps... I guess that is a bad idea to do right in front of the guys who actually did the work.


You, sir, are a moron. Obama was criticizing the Supreme Court's overturning of a 100 year old law that barred corporations from directly funding political campaigns. As if corporate lobbying wasn't bad enough before.


RE: Bring it on
By Nfarce on 1/28/2010 8:40:25 PM , Rating: 5
Yep. And here is what Obama said:

"With all due deference to the separation of powers [they] reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests — i ncluding foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections."

I do find some irony in that however, because if memory serves me correctly, during the election year of 2008 we were bombarded with media opines and bloggers on how the "world" should have a say in our election process.

Funny old world, isn't it?


RE: Bring it on
By Keeir on 1/28/2010 8:44:21 PM , Rating: 4
As painful as it may seem.

Its not really very good policy for a President, the head of the executive branch, to critize the heads of the Judicial Branch in a very public way.

I was very disappointed that Obama choose to make the remark and in the way he made the remark. Wasn't one of his "goals" the end of petty bickering and fighting in the US government?


RE: Bring it on
By Reclaimer77 on 1/28/10, Rating: 0
RE: Bring it on
By aromero78 on 1/29/2010 2:32:21 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
The ruling had nothing to do with lobbying or campaign funding anyway. Where do you get your information ?? It was a ruling stopping Corporations from spending their own profits to advertise for a party or canidate.


Isn't one of the major uses of campaign funding advertising for a party or candidate. That's like saying a spoon isn't for eating its for shoveling food into your mouth. Please think about what your write before you write it. BTW this is f***in tech daily not right wing dumbass central. Please take your political views somewhere else, we believe in science hear so usually most right wing dumbasses feel pretty out of place.


RE: Bring it on
By Nfarce on 1/29/2010 4:58:57 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Isn't one of the major uses of campaign funding advertising for a party or candidate?


What part of DIRECT funding is prohibited and always HAS been prohibited do you not understand there, brainiac? Do you need someone to explain to you the difference between spending on INDIRECT and DIRECT funding? Sheesh.

quote:
Please take your political views somewhere else, we believe in science hear [sic] so usually most right wing dumb@sses feel pretty out of place.


Aren't you cute! Guess you believe in that "science" known as man-induced global warming too, don't you?

PS: learn to spell and use proper syntax - you'll gain credibility I promise


RE: Bring it on
By Parhel on 1/29/2010 3:26:29 PM , Rating: 2
You're comfortable with the idea of foreign corporations paying for American political advertisements? And comfortable allowing that to fall outside any restrictions regarding campaign finance??? I'm not.

While freedom of speech is part of the issue, it certainly isn't the whole of it. There are also laws regarding campaign finance that apply here.

And I'm not certain that corporations with any percentage of foreign ownership are, or should be, guaranteed the exact same protections as private US citizens regarding freedom of speech anyways.

I definitely detect an attitude of automatic disagreement with anything Obama does or says.


RE: Bring it on
By Reclaimer77 on 1/29/2010 3:39:45 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You're comfortable with the idea of foreign corporations paying for American political advertisements? And comfortable allowing that to fall outside any restrictions regarding campaign finance??? I'm not.


Oh please. You guys don't get two flips about that. Stop being dishonest. You were all fine and comfortable with saying foreign powers should have a voice in our election process last year, weren't you ?

quote:
While freedom of speech is part of the issue, it certainly isn't the whole of it. There are also laws regarding campaign finance that apply here.


Don't confuse laws with absolute Constitutional AMENDMENTS. And everyone knows those laws were put on the books to do what Democrats and Liberals always try to do, shut up the other side. That's what this is all about, shutting up people with another voice other than your own. It was Unconstitutional then, and it's Unconstitutional now. Thus it got overturned. Discussion over.

quote:
And I'm not certain that corporations with any percentage of foreign ownership are, or should be, guaranteed the exact same protections as private US citizens regarding freedom of speech anyways.


And yet you guys are just fine with fighting to give Illegal immigrants protected status under the Constitution. Hell your party and president is granting the Constitutional rights of trial to a known terrorist as we speak ! For the first time in history, we are about to try an enemy combatant in the United States as if he were a citizen.

So please, don't play these games with me about this. I know exactly how you feel, you aren't fooling me or anyone else.

You supported the original ruling because you are another anti-business, anti-capitalist Liberal. And you actually believed things were better off with business being told to shut up, and that they could have no say in the backing a candidate or even be able to state their opinion with their OWN MONEY. That ruling was such a crystal clear violation of the First Amendment, and went against the entire spirit of this nation and it's peoples rights.

Discussion over.


RE: Bring it on
By porkpie on 1/29/2010 4:01:25 PM , Rating: 2
"You're comfortable with the idea of foreign corporations paying for American political advertisements?"

It's an ad. They're not being allowed to vote. For that matter, our ability to limit what a foreign company does overseas is already essentially zero -- or do you advocate a law prohibiting US citizens from reading foreign papers or listening to foreign broadcasts, in the off chance one might mention a US election?

Let's face facts. The real issue here is that the majority of pro-Democratic news comes free of charge from newspapers and TV stations that are heavily biased. NONE of that free advertising is limited in any way, shape, or form by campaign finance laws. An organization like MSNBC can spend billions promoting Democratic candidates, and as long as they remember to pretend to call it "news", its legal.

And you know what? That's a good thing. It's called freedom of speech. Just like when a group of people get together to operate a business and also decide they want to exercise their own freedom of speech by buying an ad to let their voice be heard.

Freedom is a pretty cool concept. Why not try it before you knock it?


RE: Bring it on
By nshoe on 1/28/2010 10:53:47 PM , Rating: 2
No, I'm afraid the moron is you - or at least you lack some reading comprehension. The law that bars corporations from directly funding political campaigns is still in force. They are still barred from giving money directly to a candidates political campaign. What they are no longer barred from doing is airing their own political ads (and that law was no where near 100 years old it was passed in 2002)


RE: Bring it on
By FITCamaro on 1/29/2010 6:26:02 AM , Rating: 2
As are you sir. If you actually bothered to read about the decision, you'd know that corporations still CANNOT directly fund political candidates campaigns. They can only use their money to exercise free speech in the form of ads or other medium.


RE: Bring it on
By tmouse on 1/29/2010 8:22:03 AM , Rating: 1
What do you think campaigns spend the vast majority of their money on? In reality for better or worse this is the same a giving money directly to campaigns.


RE: Bring it on
By Reclaimer77 on 1/29/2010 8:42:43 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
What do you think campaigns spend the vast majority of their money on? In reality for better or worse this is the same a giving money directly to campaigns.


No, just give it up. This is not the same.


RE: Bring it on
By aromero78 on 1/29/2010 3:03:44 PM , Rating: 2
Do don't see how its not. O wait, so instead of giving the money to the politician so he/she can buy the ad they do it direct instead of the politician. You're rights that's completely different...moron. That difference is cold comfort, it is still using money and not ideas to influence the political landscape. Not to mention that most politicians would most certainly be more likely to be lenient with regards to laws and issues that effect that company, as opposed to being concerned with the needs of the people that voted them into office. This practice is truly discussing. Like I and other people have said before please go to the rush limbaugh fan boy site and spout your garbage there.


RE: Bring it on
By Parhel on 1/29/2010 3:29:25 PM , Rating: 2
Come on . . . are you joking??? Of course it's the same. Campaign funding is spent primarily on advertising. By paying for the advertising, you're fundng the campaign.


RE: Bring it on
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 1/29/2010 9:10:09 AM , Rating: 3
No sir you are the Moron... read the judges lips.. "No that is a lie". Obama was catch red handed in a lie and you are defending him and calling me a moron after I point it out to you because you refuse to understand the situation.


RE: Bring it on
By callmeroy on 1/29/2010 2:33:35 PM , Rating: 2
First - the biggest thing wrong with political discussions is the actually REAL topics that should be discussed (ie. like HOW do we solve the various problems the nation faces) are often play second fiddle to the bickering and blaming on who did what or who caused what....someone please tell me who has the ability to alter the past? Anyone? What's in the past is the past....we should be concerned on solving the problems of TODAY and TOMORROW, than wasting time and resources complaining over YESTERDAY.


RE: Bring it on
By 0ldman on 1/31/10, Rating: 0
RE: Bring it on
By Reclaimer77 on 1/28/2010 9:09:02 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
His goals are simply different than yours, that doesn't mean he is trying to destroy the nation. With rhetoric like that you aren't helping anything.


With all due respect, blind ignorance like yours isn't helping much either. Even if you voted for him and believed in him, he's virtually broken every campaign promise he's made to you, his supporters. Are we out of Iraq and Afghanistan ? No. Is Gitmo closed ? No. Is he leading from the "Center" ? HELL NO. Did he reform the bloat in Washington and stop earmarks ? HAHA, The "Stimulus" was the most bloated biggest earmarked piece of legislation in the history of the country !

What in the hell has he done, or is going to do, that you support and you think I should ? Can you just please tell me that. Besides going against the will of the people and ramming crap through Congress behind closed doors while we're in the biggest recession in decades ?

Damn right his goals are different than mine. I want the best for my country. He doesn't. It seems to me he's obsessed with making the biggest power grab and move twoard socialism as possible before all his friends in Congress are voted out this year. Mass. was just the beginning my friend.


RE: Bring it on
By porkpie on 1/28/2010 9:25:47 PM , Rating: 1
" What in the hell has Obama done (blah blah blah)"

Hey, on the day Obama embraces nuclear power, he can do whatever $%^&*! else he frappin' wants to. Leave him alone. Tomorrow, we can return to his deficiencies.


RE: Bring it on
By Reclaimer77 on 1/28/2010 9:24:53 PM , Rating: 2
It's going to take a lot more than a fancy telleprompted speech to change this countries energy policy. Until then, it's all populist lip service. As usual.


RE: Bring it on
By thurston on 1/28/10, Rating: 0
RE: Bring it on
By Reclaimer77 on 1/28/2010 11:40:31 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
I listen to conservative talk radio everyday


Well I don't. And if you're so obviously not conservative, why would you listen to it ? I sure as hell don't listen to Liberal radio shows ( if you can even find any, most have been canceled because nobody listens to that swill ).

quote:
Do you realize what hypocrites these people are? I remember Rush singing the praises of mandatory drug sentencing three weeks before everyone found out that he snorted so much Oxycontin that he destroyed his hearing .


lol Ok, so because Conservatives are just as flawed people as Liberals, that means their side is automatically wrong ? And please, let's not even get into hypocracy. We could take an entire day to go over how the left is. Like how they insist we all need this "healthcare reform" but put clauses in the bill that would exempt them from taking part in the "reform" themselves. Or how they raise taxes yet voted that they don't have to pay into social security and can retire with full benefits after just one term. All on the good old taxpayer.

quote:
When are you going to realize that the Right is just as bad as the Left?


Nope. Wrong.


RE: Bring it on
By rodrigu3 on 1/28/2010 5:15:57 PM , Rating: 2
What are you doing on DailyTech? I think you followed the wrong link... here you go: http://www.rushlimbaughforum.com/


RE: Bring it on
By Richlet on 1/29/2010 2:54:22 AM , Rating: 1
I have to say, this whole right vs left is really incredibly funny to read.

The amazing part is watching Dubyah's record being defended in a thread that talks about something Bush can't even pronounce ("Newk-you-ler" Energy as he would say.).

I recall laughing at my right wing friend when she helped re-elect Bush for a second term, saying the Canadian dollar would catch up really quickly and even pass the American dollar at some point (it did, it's behind us now, but we're about par).
She thought I was crazy, but I knew that the Bush administration would put this country's economy in the toilet. And I would like to point out, the *reason* she voted Bush was "Christian values". She was afraid of Gay marriage.


RE: Bring it on
By porkpie on 1/29/2010 11:26:32 AM , Rating: 2
I've found that anyone who calls Bush "Dubya" rarely has anything intelligent to say. Thank you for confirming my preconceptions.

As for the pronunciation "nucular", that actually is the favored way nuclear engineers themselves say the word. Here's a note from Slate about the history of the pronunciation:
quote:
A 1961 Merriam-Webster's edition was the first to include "nucular"; the editors received so many indignant letters that they added a usage note in the 1983 version, pointing out its "widespread use among educated speakers including scientists, lawyers, professors, congressmen, U.S. cabinet members, and at least one U.S. president and one vice president." They even noted its prominence among "British and Canadian speakers."

These days, Merriam-Webster's sends every reader who fusses about "nucular" a defensive, 400-word response letter. Click here to read it.
Note that the "at least one U.S. President" Merriam Webster refers to wasn't Bush, but Carter-- who was himself an ex nuclear engineer of sorts.


RE: Bring it on
By Samus on 1/29/2010 10:12:50 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Fail in what ?...his goal is to destroy the nation


The nation was already 'destroyed' when he took control. He's doing the best anybody humanly can to pick up the pieces. You're certainly entitled to your oppinion but in this country we typically do the best we can to support our leader. Without our support, his job is substantially more difficult.


RE: Bring it on
By Dorkyman on 1/29/2010 11:49:56 AM , Rating: 2
"Already destroyed..." Really? Are you serious?

I'd gladly turn back the clock to 1997 when compared to today. Maybe then we'd be able to stop the FannieMae/FreddyMac insanity of giving out NINJA (No Income, No Jobs or Assets) loans to millions of unworthy borrowers. Would have prevented most of the financial meltdown.

W was a lousy speaker but he had common sense. By contrast, Messiah excels at public speaking but it's now painfully obvious even to his original supporters that there's not much "there" there.


RE: Bring it on
By Samus on 1/29/10, Rating: 0
RE: Bring it on
By TSS on 1/29/10, Rating: 0
RE: Bring it on
By Reclaimer77 on 1/29/2010 3:43:46 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
W was a lousy speaker but he had common sense. By contrast, Messiah excels at public speaking but it's now painfully obvious even to his original supporters that there's not much "there" there.


Obama couldn't even talk to a room full of 20 people, yes twenty, without a telleprompter. Give me a break.

His vaunted excellence at public speaking is as manufactured and hyped as the rest of his image.


RE: Bring it on
By Lord 666 on 1/28/2010 5:39:42 PM , Rating: 2
On the contrary, we all need him to succeed for the United States of America as a whole. I personally do not want him to fail either.

However, he is still learning on the job and paying more attention to polls versus developing a solid recovery strategy and sticking with it. He does not need to make another public appearance for some time. His call for transparency is BS when Obamacare is being formulated behind closed doors.


RE: Bring it on
By rcc on 1/28/10, Rating: 0
RE: Bring it on
By rcc on 2/1/2010 4:19:06 PM , Rating: 2
Oh ouch... I guess a lot of readers here get their science from a cartoon. lol


RE: Bring it on
By teldar on 1/28/2010 11:48:30 PM , Rating: 1
Perhaps the stupidest thing I have ever seen.
Are you aware that The Simpsons is comedy based on irony and sarcasm?

You have no concept of modern thought or society.

Please crawl back into your cave.


RE: Bring it on
By PhoenixKnight on 1/29/2010 1:01:36 PM , Rating: 3
As someone who posted a serious response to an obviously and blatantly sarcastic post, you really have no right to lecture anyone on irony and sarcasm.


RE: Bring it on
By PhoenixKnight on 1/29/2010 1:02:30 PM , Rating: 2
Marge, do you have other men in this house? Radioactive men?


RE: Bring it on
By lukasbradley on 1/28/10, Rating: -1
RE: Bring it on
By nafhan on 1/28/2010 4:17:11 PM , Rating: 5
Which safety issues with Western (European, US, Japan) nuclear reactors need to be addressed? Safety is not an issue with current reactors and modern designs are even safer.
New waste could be minimized with properly designed reactors and reasonable minor changes to regulation. Getting rid of waste that has already been produced by currently running reactors is really more of an issue than waste from future reactors, and it's a problem we will have whether or not additional reactor capacity is brought online.


RE: Bring it on
By Spivonious on 1/28/2010 4:18:38 PM , Rating: 2
Safety is a non-issue. When was the last time a modern fission plant was in the news?

Disposal of waste is a real issue, and one that needs to be solved before wide acceptance of nuclear power can take place. Simply burying it in the ground is not a real option.


RE: Bring it on
By lukasbradley on 1/28/2010 4:24:56 PM , Rating: 2
Safety is always an issue. It isn't something that is "solved" and never touched again. When safety is taken for granted, and when budgets shrink, thinking safety isn't an issue will bite you in the ass.

Agreed on the second point.


RE: Bring it on
By bupkus on 1/28/2010 4:48:12 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Safety is always an issue.

Absolutely. Complacency is very dangerous and if these new reactors do go into production rigorous safety reviews should continue on a regular basis. I don't think even the most ardent proponents will argue against this. In fact, they may demand it.


RE: Bring it on
By porkpie on 1/28/2010 9:35:04 PM , Rating: 2
"Disposal of waste is a real issue"

It's a real nonissue. Which explains why, even though we've refused to build any sort of permanent storage facility, the nations nuclear plants have been just fine storing a half-century of their waste in a local "temporary" facility on site. It's usually about the size of a small warehouse and, even if we continue to be idiots, reactors can continue to do so for the next few centuries without any problem.


RE: Bring it on
By The0ne on 1/29/10, Rating: -1
RE: Bring it on
By D2Lalma on 1/30/2010 10:16:34 PM , Rating: 2
A coal plant for 1KW producing more nuclear waste then a nuclear reactor 1KW. AND that waste goes directly to the air.
So what are U talking about???


RE: Bring it on
By dragonbif on 1/28/2010 5:19:32 PM , Rating: 4
I live in the birth place of nuclear power, Richland, Washington. It is also in this same place that you can find the answer to your arguments.

See this for short history...

http://www.bechtel.com/hanford_waste_treatment.htm...

What is Vitrification?...

http://www.hanfordvitplant.com/project/our_solutio...

Nuclear power has been here for years and it is here that the first reactor was built (was not used for power). Most people are still stuck on the past and do not know what has been done and is being done. No research needs to be done it has been done.

Just so you know I can see the steam from the power plant each morning when I go to work. Power is so cheap here I do not know how the rest of the US gets by paying 3 times as much as I do.


RE: Bring it on
By ClownPuncher on 1/28/2010 7:09:07 PM , Rating: 2
Hanford is a terrible example! It will take until 2040 to clean up all of the leftover waste from that place. Though it obviously spurred a need to innovate ont he waste clean up end of things.


RE: Bring it on
By dragonbif on 1/28/2010 7:53:40 PM , Rating: 2
Hay a bad example is always a good one as long as you learn from it. They have and in a good way, they now what to do with all that waste and they can do the same other places. Dont forget that this was the vary first.

Now that they know what to do with the waste they can build more power plants. I would like them to build a better one here so my power costs go down even more and we can sell more power to California.


RE: Bring it on
By Keeir on 1/28/2010 9:02:56 PM , Rating: 3
Actually, it somes ways Hanford is the perfect example of what's right with Civilian Nuclear Power.

The vast majority of waste at the Hanford site was due to the production of Nuclear Weapons.

The sheer fact that although the US produced 20% of its power from Nuclear sources (and has for decades), yet ~ 2/3 of the US high level radio-active waste is contained at Hanford shows how little Nuclear Waste is actually created by Civilian Nuclear Power.

Lets not even get into the intential releases of radioactive material into the Air/Water/general enivorment that occured for decades (~1945-1965).

Yet for all of these massive mistakes and safety oversights, pollution so bad that it will take 30 more years to clean up if we are lucky...

I am unaware of a single study that shows significant harm to human or animal population near Hanford. In fact, I constantly read about difficulties cleaning up Hanford, because animal populations often move contaimented material... often a significant distance from the primary site.


RE: Bring it on
By porkpie on 1/28/2010 9:37:53 PM , Rating: 2
"I am unaware of a single study that shows significant harm to human or animal population near Hanford"

Yep, the risk factor is essentially zero. Part of the problem is the idiot public, who thinks a single stray atom decaying will kill them -- not realizing they're continually living in a bath of radiation from a dozen different sources, all of them much stronger than they'd get from living right on top of Hanford.

To show how far the idiocy goes, the US NRC sets radiation standards so low for plants that some of them have to actually be LESS radioactive than the air around them.


RE: Bring it on
By bjacobson on 1/28/2010 3:59:25 PM , Rating: 3
Hope it's Thorium Reactors not pebble bed (reprocessing is very expensive).


RE: Bring it on
By JediJeb on 1/28/2010 4:49:15 PM , Rating: 4
From what I remember from physical chemistry in college if Thorium is used the waste left over is much safer than from Uranium. Also since we don't need as much Plutonium for weapons now, we can reprocess the Uranium waste and reuse it. The reason it wasn't in the past was to retain a stockpile for military use if I recall.


RE: Bring it on
By Fallen Kell on 1/28/2010 5:20:34 PM , Rating: 2
Entirely correct. Thorium reactors were actually the first designs originally thought of due to the way the reaction occurs. The only reason that the US didn't use them was because the military benefits of the Uranium reactors in the cold war effort.


RE: Bring it on
By ralniv on 1/28/2010 4:03:37 PM , Rating: 5
Don't count your chickens yet. There is sure to be strong opposition in Congress from both parties. The energy special interests have deep pockets and will lobby Congress to create roadblocks. Some environmentalists will lobby for blockage as well. You'll also have resistance from representatives that come from areas that will be the lucky recipients of nuclear waste material. You know.. that NIMBY (not in my backyard) mentality.

Looking forward to the debates and I hope they can get it through. Cheap, abundant and clean power sure would be nice.


RE: Bring it on
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 1/28/2010 4:25:42 PM , Rating: 4
I'm from Illinois and have know about Obama for more then 6 years... The problem with what Obama is saying is not Congress. In time you will learn (if you have not yet), he says anything and everything but does nothing. So, those were just words on his teleprompter to read. Sadly a year from now we will be no closer, and everyone will get excited again because he will say it again but with different words at the next State of the Union Address.

It would be nice to be proven wrong by Obama own action, but I heard this story some many times before from his mouth it is not even funny. Sorry to all you still blinded by his sliver tongue, but hopefully someday soon the drug will fade and you will see him for what he worth...


RE: Bring it on
By FITCamaro on 1/28/2010 10:42:57 PM , Rating: 5
Exactly. Hell look at the recent budget with him cutting the Constellation program. If my memory serves me correctly, he went to the Cocoa Beach area and spoke to the people there, promising them he would not cut the shuttle program and Constellation if elected.

Yet another broken promise. The man says what he thinks people want to hear. When things go his way, he takes the credit. When they don't, he blames someone else or says he had nothing to do with it. If the Democrats ram the health care bill through using reconciliation and the public is outraged, he'll say he wasn't for it despite encouraging it. And the media will just go along with it.


RE: Bring it on
By wiz220 on 1/29/2010 2:38:47 PM , Rating: 1
Gee weird, a politician that says one thing and does (or doesn't do) another thing. Obama's gotta be the first with that dubious reputation.


RE: Bring it on
By corduroygt on 1/28/2010 4:30:50 PM , Rating: 2
I'm hoping the prospect of jobs and improved quality of life will sway the majority with the state of the economy.


RE: Bring it on
By VaultDweller on 1/29/2010 7:56:43 AM , Rating: 2
I concur.


RE: Bring it on
By bhieb on 1/29/2010 12:47:02 PM , Rating: 2
agreed


RE: Bring it on
By kattanna on 1/29/2010 3:30:08 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Bring it on


i bet you own all 4 movies.. dont you ;>)


Talk is cheap.
By therealnickdanger on 1/28/2010 3:57:55 PM , Rating: 4
Mr. President, fast-track the plants and reduce the red tape. France operates at over 80% nuclear, can we really allow ourselves to be beaten by the French? ;-)

I greet President Obama's words with great skepticism - I doubt strongly that he (or his party) had a collective change of heart regarding nuclear power. I will assume that his proposal involves even greater taxation and some form of profit-dividing or mandatory investment (fees) in other "green" technologies. I suspect that there will be enough government leeching involved to reduce the cost-effectiveness of any proposed plants.

The proof is in the pudding.




RE: Talk is cheap.
By Spivonious on 1/28/2010 4:11:48 PM , Rating: 1
France is also smaller than Texas. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see more nuclear plants (heck, TMI is 30 minutes from my house), but we'd be doing it on a much larger scale.


RE: Talk is cheap.
By Taft12 on 1/28/2010 4:27:51 PM , Rating: 5
I don't see where there is a scale difference... You provide the same quantity of electricity per plant divided by customer demand regardless of how many plants are needed to serve your country's population.

Build a plant where it makes most sense (near large centres), just as you'd build a wind farm where it makes most sense (high wind regions).


RE: Talk is cheap.
By omnicronx on 1/28/2010 5:27:38 PM , Rating: 2
Well to be fair its more about population density than size of the country.. France has 65 million people or about 1/4.5 the population of the states.


RE: Talk is cheap.
By jordanclock on 1/29/2010 5:50:34 AM , Rating: 3
Did you just express the denominator in a fraction as 4.5? I don't think you understand how these things work...


RE: Talk is cheap.
By porkpie on 1/29/2010 10:37:10 PM , Rating: 3
If you think a denominator can't contain a fraction, you're the one who doesn't understand complex fractions.


RE: Talk is cheap.
By Motley on 1/28/2010 4:35:17 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, Illinois isn't doing that bad. 49% of the energy in Illinois came from nuclear power. I agree this could be substantially improved. Another 48% or so of the power in Illinois comes from coal, which isn't very clean.


hmm...
By FS on 1/28/2010 8:51:04 PM , Rating: 2
no post by fitcamaro :(




RE: hmm...
By FITCamaro on 1/29/2010 6:31:06 AM , Rating: 2
Sorry I'm busy at work. Deadlines to meet. I hop on here now only when I'm doing a build which takes like 15 god damn minutes because of my companies f*cking anti-virus software scanning every little god damn thing.


RE: hmm...
By FITCamaro on 1/29/2010 6:36:10 AM , Rating: 2
Oh and as an idea as to how busy I am, on my 19th day straight without a day off. Working tomorrow(saturday). Might take Sunday off.


RE: hmm...
By eddieroolz on 1/29/2010 10:49:08 AM , Rating: 2
Isn't that against labor laws?


RE: hmm...
By Veerappan on 2/1/2010 10:56:29 AM , Rating: 2
Probably not. He's an adult and should be able to decide for himself what amount of time he's willing to put into his job... or whether the hours are worth keeping said job.

I've been there myself in the past, and as long as the deadline is hit and you get a bit of a break afterwards, it's not so bad.


No the real question
By FITCamaro on 1/28/2010 10:29:35 PM , Rating: 3
Is was it just talk. When I see action I'll believe it. One of the first things Obama did was close Yucca Mountain. A retarded move.

I am all for nuclear power. And I will applaud Obama if he actually removes the red tape blocking nuclear power construction. But you'll forgive me if I believe it to just be more talk to appear more to the center.




RE: No the real question
By kattanna on 1/29/2010 11:06:48 AM , Rating: 1
i dont know..

with him having the EPA state CO2 as a pollutant, this statement would be a logical conclusion.

plus who knows.. maybe there are plans to reprocess and reuse that "waste". if so, keeping it in place would be a logical thing.

nuclear is our only truly viable long term safe and clean energy source. he might actually be fully aware of that, and is taking the needed long term baby steps to get the country where it needs to be to get to that same conclusion.

well.. at least thats one possible line of thought.


U.S. Barack Obama
By acase on 1/29/2010 9:24:21 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
U.S. Barack Obama in his address Wednesday night


What is he, a freakin ship?




RE: U.S. Barack Obama
By acase on 1/29/2010 10:43:33 AM , Rating: 2
*prepares for titanic joke*


Finally...
By shank2001 on 1/28/2010 5:36:05 PM , Rating: 2
Nuclear power (preferably thorium reactors) is vital to the future of the global well being, and I am not talking about reducing CO2 here (CO2 is not even close to the most pressing issues facing humanity that we should be dealing with), but of peak oil.

Wind, solar, hydro are just not enough in the coming energy shortages, nuclear has to step up to the plate as renewable resources become more common.

Peak Oil is pretty much here... if it hasn't all ready happened, it will happen in this decade.

Most pressing things facing humanity:

1. Peak Oil/energy shortages
2. clean water shortages
3. population
.
.
.
.
25. CO2 Global warming




better late than never!
By zodiacfml on 1/28/2010 10:08:09 PM , Rating: 2
I don't live in the US but to me is very good for you. I believe cheaper and abundant energy is what we need to minimize our dependence on burning natural resources.
This also makes everything cheaper and could also mean anticipation of the changes will happen in the automotive industry.




By callmeroy on 1/29/2010 2:23:23 PM , Rating: 2
That's nice that the President is acknowledging a need for nuclear power in this country...but I'm not going to get excited about it until I see on the news that plants are actually being BUILT....

This is doubly true for politics -- say anything you think the people want to hear.....especially when the polls are saying your popularity is decreasing...but actually making sure what you said gets DONE that's what I'm more interested in.




Nuclear Safe?
By texbrazos on 2/5/2010 3:27:24 PM , Rating: 2
Below are some links to some interesting recent information about the nuclear issue. It is not as safe as many of you think.
In fact here in Texas there have been studies of huge decreases in aquatic life down stream from nuclear reactors. It just does not make much sense to me that we are provided by nature enough energy to power the whole world for a year every day, but cannot figure out how to make it work correctly. Everyone talks about costs, making gas, digging for coal, nuke plants, etc. all Costs lots, not to mention the environment damage.
One great thing I see everyday are the wind turbines shipping to West Texas. At least there are some smart people trying to make use of what seems logical.
I also know someone who worked for a very short time at a nuclear plant, a young healthy man, who quickly developed Leukemia and died. Nuclear???
Do you all realize how hard it is getting to get clean water???? Folks, chemicals don't come out easily. Global Warming or not, we have to cut out the pollution for the future. You know another issue with the nukes is we keep telling all these other counties they cannot have nukes, but we do it, not only for power, but for weapons. Uh, is that not Hypocritical?

There are a few links below

www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9DM1MJ82.h tm

www.fwweekly.com/index.php?option=com_content&vie w=article&id=1064%3Anuclear-fallout&Itemid=505

www.hardnewsmedia.com/2010/01/3411

www.texasradiation.org/nukesfilth.html

www.txpeer.org/Bush/

www.cleanwateraction.org/programinitiative/nuclea r-power




Nuclear Safe?
By texbrazos on 2/5/2010 3:30:10 PM , Rating: 2
Below are some links to some interesting recent information about the nuclear issue. It is not as safe as many of you think.
In fact here in Texas there have been studies of huge decreases in aquatic life down stream from nuclear reactors. It just does not make much sense to me that we are provided by nature enough energy to power the whole world for a year every day, but cannot figure out how to make it work correctly. Everyone talks about costs, making gas, digging for coal, nuke plants, etc. all Costs lots, not to mention the environment damage.
One great thing I see everyday are the wind turbines shipping to West Texas. At least there are some smart people trying to make use of what seems logical.
I also know someone who worked for a very short time at a nuclear plant, a young healthy man, who quickly developed Leukemia and died. Nuclear???
Do you all realize how hard it is getting to get clean water???? Folks, chemicals don't come out easily. Global Warming or not, we have to cut out the pollution for the future. You know another issue with the nukes is we keep telling all these other counties they cannot have nukes, but we do it, not only for power, but for weapons. Uh is that not Hypocritical?

There are a few links below

www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9DM1MJ82.h tm

www.fwweekly.com/index.php?option=com_content&vie w=article&id=1064%3Anuclear-fallout&Itemid=505

www.hardnewsmedia.com/2010/01/3411

www.texasradiation.org/nukesfilth.html

www.txpeer.org/Bush/

www.cleanwateraction.org/programinitiative/nuclea r-power




Cheap online shopping
By sdfasdgdhasdf on 1/30/2010 12:53:25 PM , Rating: 1

http://0rz.tw/oPWXd
can accept the paypal payment.we can ship within 24 hours after your payment.

accept the paypal
free shipping
competitive price
any size available
http://0rz.tw/oPWXd




Wow what a worthless waste of time and money.
By Codeman03xx on 1/28/10, Rating: -1
By Spivonious on 1/28/2010 4:17:01 PM , Rating: 2
Just read Wikipedia. If we can perfect large-scale lithium-based or deuterium-based fusion reactors, we would have enough power to last for hundreads of millions of years.


By Taft12 on 1/28/2010 4:22:32 PM , Rating: 3
Fusion is 5 years away, same as it has been for 30 years now!


RE: Wow what a worthless waste of time and money.
By Motley on 1/28/2010 4:28:43 PM , Rating: 2
It's difficult to move forward on more complex technologies like fusion, when radicals are hammering fission into oblivion. Get this country back into gear by funding and putting us back into the forefront of fission. The more fission plants we have, the more profitable it becomes to improve it's efficiency, and lead to better and more advanced technologies like (safe/stable) fusion.


RE: Wow what a worthless waste of time and money.
By JediJeb on 1/28/2010 4:56:36 PM , Rating: 2
Right now the problem with fusion is that unless you have enough gravity to produce the pressure and temperature needed for fusion ( like on the sun ) then the energy needed to make fusion work is greater than the energy that come out, at least in a controlled manner. Of course you can get a good yield when you do it like a hydrogen fusion bomb but that is not very practicle for making electricity.


RE: Wow what a worthless waste of time and money.
By wiz220 on 1/29/2010 2:52:12 PM , Rating: 2
Read up on the KSTAR reactor in Korea and ITER being built in Europe. KSTAR will hopefully reach a balance of energy in and out (in the next decade I think) and ITER will obtain a net gain. After ITER, DEMO will be the first demonstration reactor for putting power on a grid. The path for fusion is there and it's being worked on right now on a large scale.


By porkpie on 1/29/2010 4:03:40 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, ITER is expected to do better than break even (we're already at breakeven). But don't let that fool you. A fusion reactor needs about a 3:1 gain to be commercially viable.

In 1975, I read that commercial fusion power was 30 years away. Today, that's the estimate thats still being given.


By Seemonkeyscanfly on 1/28/2010 5:01:10 PM , Rating: 4
Whoooaaa!! I say Whoooaaa there big guy... are you starting to talk with logic and sense? I say, be careful... The people who like to run this country do not like your type. Getting all logical on them... It makes them feel stupid and stuff. Then their app'd to call you an extremists and raise all our taxes to stop the spread of logical thinking.

You should know if a politician feels stupid he automatically raises taxes as a natural form of defense. So you just sit back down and be un-logical like.. You hear?

:)


RE: Wow what a worthless waste of time and money.
By WW102 on 1/28/10, Rating: -1
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 1/28/2010 6:03:44 PM , Rating: 2
Nothing is wrong with me... However, I'm going to guess you do not have much of a funny bone. That is why I put a little :) face at the bottom of the post. That was for anyone who can not pick up on my sarcasm.


By WW102 on 1/29/2010 8:18:36 PM , Rating: 2
I got it was sarcasm, just youre a retard.


RE: Wow what a worthless waste of time and money.
By xpax on 1/28/2010 5:13:09 PM , Rating: 2
The real question is -- where the heck are the ZPMs?


By grath on 1/28/2010 7:07:55 PM , Rating: 1
On Proclarush Taonas? Or my good buddy Camulus can hook you up with one...

Extracting zero-point energy from a subspace vacuum would be nice, but at this point I would settle for a smartphone battery that lasts a full day.


Half life of 246000 years
By blowfish on 1/28/10, Rating: -1
RE: Half life of 246000 years
By DaveLessnau on 1/28/2010 6:04:55 PM , Rating: 5
Dump the waste into a subduction zone at the bottom of an oceanic trench. Out of harms way and into the Earth's very own recycling bin.


RE: Half life of 246000 years
By DigitalFreak on 1/28/2010 7:21:00 PM , Rating: 5
You should change your screen name to blowhard mc'bullshit.


RE: Half life of 246000 years
By sinful on 1/28/2010 8:26:37 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Some isotopes of Plutonium have a half life of 246,000 years.


Long half lifes = low radioactivity. You could probably build your house out of that kind of Plutonium and you'd end up with lung cancer from coal smoke sooner than radiation from that long-half-life plutonium.

quote:

Ironic anyway that there should be this rush to dangerous technology based on the rantings of fraudulent climate alarmists. I say burn oil, coal, gas, and mix in some renewables.


Coal mining accidents cause more deaths per year than nuclear, and burning coal actually releases more radioactive materials than nuclear --
Coal isn't 100% pure; so you end up burning PLUTONIUM as a waste/contaminant, which then ends up IN THE AIR instead of a drum of toxic waste.

So, would you rather have your daily plutonium dose locked up in some reactor somewhere, or would you simply prefer to breathe the toxic waste in?

Your "Safe" oil & gas are going to kill you a lot sooner than the nuclear boogeyman does!

(Imagine the horror if you breathed in Plutonium with a half-life of 246,000 years! The breath of air you took as a newborn might have carried nuclear-coal-smoke into your lungs and will stay there until you die!!!)


RE: Half life of 246000 years
By randomly on 1/28/2010 9:15:28 PM , Rating: 5
This is not correct.

There are feasible solutions to waste handling and disposal. The long half-life transuranics like plutonium can be 'burned' or transmuted in fast neutron reactors yielding fission products that decay to background levels in only around 1000 years. With those time frames waste disposal such as deep borehole disposal (6-16 kilometers deep) become very plausible.
http://www.nda.gov.uk/documents/loader.cfm?url=/co...

An even better option is to move away from the uranium/plutonium fuel cycle to a thorium fuel cycle. This greatly diminishes the transuranics produced and the spent fuel radioactivity decays away rapidly in only hundreds of years. A pure thorium fuel cycle also reduces the total waste produced by a factor of 100. A molten salt thorium reactor can also run at about 50% efficiency in producing electrical power, a 50% improvement over current reactors which again reduces the amount of fuel used and waste produced.

I used to be very enthusiastic over the promise of wind, solar, and biofuels. After researching and following these technologies in depth over the years the reality is depressingly much worse than what is portrayed by enthusiasts and sensationalist news articles. The energy densities are low, the land requirements huge, the costs also very high.

Cheap energy is the basis of our high standard of living. Energy consumption tracks almost exactly with standard of living. Nothing can get produced, transported, mined, refined, heated, or cooled without abundant cheap energy. Americans currently consume an average of 250 Kilowatt hours PER PERSON PER DAY. At $0.10 per Kwh that's $25 a day every day for all 310 million people,$7.75 Billion dollars a day. You can't have expensive energy without choking the economy to death.

With Solar energy facilities only producing about 5 watts/ sq meter of land, Wind about 2 watts/m2, biofuels about 0.5 w/m2 the land areas required tend to be devastatingly large. Not to mention the water usage.

In contrast to supply all the energy a person will use in their Entire Lifetime it only takes a slug of Thorium about the size of a hacky sack. The spent fuel waste from that is also about the size of a hacky sack. To get that energy out of coal you'd need a cube of coal about 4 1/2 stories tall.

There is much to be said for the extremely high energy density of nuclear power. If it's tradeoff between cultivating 6 times the entire agricultural land in the US for biofuels just to produce transportation fuel or having to deal with drilling 10 mile deep boreholes to put some tons of nuclear waste at the bottom I'd prefer to save the environment and drill the holes.

There is a lot of development work that needs to be done to improve nuclear power, particularly in materials research, liquid salt reactors, Thorium fuel cycle, and high temperature reactors. High temperature reactors in particular can provide process heat for industrial use, hydrogen production, and liquid fuel production, eventually moving us completely away from oil and coal.

One can never get complacent about safety, but you won't get any repeats of Chernobyl disasters from modern reactors since the designs are passively safe, unlike the inherently unstable 1950's era RBMK converted plutonium production reactor that blew up in Chernobyl. Safety should always be a primary concern, but it is certainly a manageable problem.

The myth that decommissioning costs and waste disposal costs make nuclear power uneconomic is not supported by the data at all. In the US 0.1 to 0.2 cents/kwh is paid by the utilities into an external sinking fund controlled by the government, already 2/3 of the total cost to decommission all the US reactors has been collected and since most of the US reactors are getting re-certified to extend their lifetimes to 60 years (and potentially 80 years) this won't be a problem. Average cost of decommissioning is about $320 million per reactor.

Nuclear power certainly can be economically competitive, even with coal. China is currently building modern Nuclear powerplants (Westinghouse AP1000) at an accelerating rate with the plan to add 100 reactors by 2020. This is a country that is floating on coal too.

It's time to stop believing the anti-nuke rhetoric without question and go find out what the actual data shows so people can make well informed decisions. No energy solution is a cure all nor without it's share of problems, but Nuclear power along with alternative energy sources needs to be evaluated not on the hype or vilification but on the realistic data. We can't afford to make mistakes on our energy future.


RE: Half life of 246000 years
By porkpie on 1/28/2010 9:32:18 PM , Rating: 5
"With Solar energy facilities only producing about 5 watts/ sq meter of land, Wind about 2 watts/m2, biofuels about 0.5 w/m2 the land areas required tend to be devastatingly large"

It gets even worse than that. Solar and wind are so variable, that if you want to supply more than about 10% of your grid with them, you have to drastically overbuild transmission capacity. If you want to do more than peak shave, you also need some form of energy storage, which wastes more than half the generated energy right there.

The biggest wind powered nation in the world (Denmark) can't even produce 20% of their total power with it, and even then it only works because they sell overproduction to the EU grid, and buy back electricity when the wind farms are underproducing. As a world-wide solution, wind and solar will NEVER give us cheap energy.

The sad thing is none of these things are secrets to the environmentalists. They don't WANT cheap, clean energy.


RE: Half life of 246000 years
By randomly on 1/28/2010 11:25:34 PM , Rating: 2
and the energy storage more than doubles the power costs.

Wind power works well with hydroelectric in a 1 part wind 4 parts hydro ratio, but there is just not that much hydropower available. Denmark only does as well as it does because Norway and Sweden have huge amounts of hydro that can be offset with wind power. Even so Denmark sells it's wind power cheap because it's intermittent non-dispatchable power has low value compared to power that's available on demand. Denmark then buys back on demand power at a premium rate. End result is that Denmark has the highest power costs in Europe and the system wouldn't even work without that availability of hydro-power to back them up.

Having watched the early enthusiasm for wind power here in Texas dissipate as the economic realities set in. Low capacity factors, lack of transmission capacity, high costs and extremely long lead times to install new transmission lines, lack of energy storage, and low value of non-dispatchable power have been a sour reality check on wind power. You can drive through west Texas and see hundreds of wind generators just sitting there not spinning. Wind power prices have been as low as -0.3 cents (that's right, negative). They actually paid people to take their power so they could get the 1.9 cent/Kwh goverment subsidy and the Reusable Energy Credit certificates.

Wind power capital costs have continued to increase also and rival or exceed the construction costs of nuclear power, with the drawback that they don't produce reliable power. That's not even including transmission line costs, and backup power / energy storage costs.


RE: Half life of 246000 years
By porkpie on 1/28/2010 10:40:43 PM , Rating: 4
"Some isotopes of Plutonium have a half life of 246,000 years."

Actually, some isotopes of Pu have half-lives of 80,000,000 years. So? Some radioactive isotopes in the very air we breathe have half-lives in the billions of years. The longer the half-life, the LESS dangerous anything radioactive is. The really dangerous daughter nuclides from a nuclear reactor all mostly gone within about 6 months in a holding pond.

Learn a little, embarrass yourself less.

Not to mention the fact that plutonium isn't a waste product. Its the most compact form of energy we can use at present, and can be entirely burned as fuel in a reactor. We don't need to EVER throw any away as waste.


RE: Half life of 246000 years
By The0ne on 1/29/2010 11:06:44 AM , Rating: 2
Billions, screw the kids and their kids and so on and on. Why should we even care when it takes that long. Just Do It! Give me Nuke or Give me China!


RE: Half life of 246000 years
By porkpie on 1/29/2010 11:33:17 AM , Rating: 2
"Billions, screw the kids and their kids and so on and on."

By that comment, I assume you're advocating for the removal of radioactive gases found naturally in the air. Good luck with that.

BTW, most dangerous elements remain so forever. Lead, mercury, cadmium...they NEVER decay to a harmless state. Never. Somehow we still manage to live with them though, don't we?


RE: Half life of 246000 years
By The0ne on 1/29/2010 2:54:21 PM , Rating: 2
No, I'm being sarcastic in particular to stuff taking forever to decay and why we should even care what happens now or a few generations ahead. Look at Japan, they survive 2 bombs and they are doing just fine and dandy, arguably of course.

That piece of trash there will last for ages too, screw picking it up. The mercury in the water, screw it too. And since we've recently talked about China, they don't need to worry about their water at all.

Don't worry, it's all good :o


RE: Half life of 246000 years
By porkpie on 1/29/2010 10:42:02 PM , Rating: 1
" I'm being sarcastic in particular to stuff taking forever to decay "

Go open up the door under your kitchen sink. See that big bottle of chlorine bleach in there? Guess how long it takes to decay. Forever. Two billion years from now, those chlorine atoms will still be kicking it around, polluting up our precious biosphere.

Yet you own such a dangerous substance! How can you live with yourself?


"It looks like the iPhone 4 might be their Vista, and I'm okay with that." -- Microsoft COO Kevin Turner














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki