backtop


Print 172 comment(s) - last by Mint.. on Mar 4 at 6:34 PM


Democrats actively opposed nuclear power for years. Republicans talked big about it, but never acted. Now after over 20 years of no progress, President Obama has finally done something about it, clearing the red tape and offering loan money for our nation's first new nuclear power facility.
Plant approval will be the first in over 20 years

His critics on both sides of the aisle called his talk mere rhetoric.  However, President Barack Obama this time showed that he had the confidence to stand up to harsh criticism from his own party and from some of his key constituents -- environmental lobbyists and approve federal funding for the first new nuclear development in the U.S. in over 20 years.

Talk of nuclear endeavors began with President Obama's first State of the Union address, in which he name-checked the popular form of alternative energy which he had previously been silent on.  Next his advisors rolled out a report that included references to new nuclear development.  

Today President Obama made good on his word, offering $8B USD in federal loan guarantees to build two new nuclear reactors in Burke, Georgia.  The site currently houses the Alvin W. Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, a 2 reactor plant constructed in 1987.  Among the last plants built, the site is jointly owned by Georgia Power (45.7%), Oglethorpe Power Corporation (30%), Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia (22.7%) and the City of Dalton (1.6%).  It is operated by Southern Co., which will likely assume operating responsibilities at the new 2-reactor plant as well.

Guaranteed financing is necessary for new construction as typically nuclear power plants have a tough time securing loans, as many plants have defaulted in the past.  Reasons for this include regulatory difficulties and public opposition to the plants.  Also older plants were less efficient and less safe than modern designs and much outdated skepticism has remained making investors overly wary. With Obama pushing for the project's approval, though, the prospects of the Nuclear Regulatory Council (NRC) approving the plan in 2011 seem highly likely.  And with loan guarantees in place, the project's backers can start preparing for construction in 2011 once the plant gets the official go-ahead.

President Obama said the decision to approve loan guarantees and clear away the red tape was common sense.  He states, "On an issue which affects our economy, our security, and the future of our planet, we cannot continue to be mired in the same old debates between left and right, between environmentalists and entrepreneurs.  We'll have to build a new generation of safe, clean nuclear power plants in America."

The alternative is risking the U.S. becoming a stale, lifeless innovator, he believes.  He argues, "To meet our growing energy needs and prevent the worst consequences of climate change, we'll need to increase our supply of nuclear power. It's that simple.  Make no mistake: whether it is nuclear energy, or solar or wind energy, if we fail to invest in these technologies today, we'll be importing them tomorrow."

According to President Obama there are 56 nuclear reactors being built around the world today.  Of them, 21 are in China, six in South Korea, and five in India -- all key emerging tech rivals to the U.S.  Japan and France have already embraced safe, clean, and affordable modern nuclear energy, as well.

The decision from President Obama contrasts with former President George W. Bush, who, like many in his party, talked big about nuclear but committed to little action.  President Bush had the means on hand at the time -- a 2005 law allowing federal loans for projects to fight global warming.  However, he never requested the funding for nuclear plant loan guarantees, even as he took full advantage of other bills to request money for projects such as the rebuilding Iraq.

Now, President Obama has used that same law to finally break the nuclear stalemate and push our country to embrace nuclear.  He says the new plant alone will create over 3,500 construction jobs and 850 permanent jobs in years to come.  And he says it will play a critical role in fighting global warming affordably.

Currently around 20 percent of our nation's power comes from nuclear energy.  A single 2-reactor nuclear plant is estimated to reduce carbon emissions by 16 million tons each year, the equivalent of taking 3.5 million vehicles off the road.  Obama's new 2011 budget, recently unveiled offers $36B USD in new loans to nuclear projects, in addition to $18B USD already approved.

In short, it's a great time for nuclear.  There are an estimated 32 projects nationally pending approval, and over a hundred in various stages of planning.  Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell vows to back his political rival's nuclear efforts, urging his Republican colleagues to side with the President.  He states, "We should build a new generation of clean nuclear plants in this country.  Senate Republicans support building 100 new plants as quickly as possible."

The toughest opposition may come from Obama's own party.  While Republicans have been lethargic on pushing any kind of nuclear action, Democrats traditionally took things a step further, actively resisting progress.  Former Presidential candidate and current Secretary of State Hillary Clinton commented in 2008, "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."

Still, President Obama is a powerful speaker and commands significant clout within his party.  Perhaps it will be enough to force both Democrats 
and Republicans to both embrace nuclear power and act on it, for once.



Comments     Threshold


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

New Title
By chaos7 on 2/16/2010 2:36:41 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Obama Approves First New Nuclear Plant to Combat Global Warming


Should probrably be "Obama Approves First New Nuclear Plant to Combat GROWING ENERGY NEEDS". You can't really combat something that doesn't exist.




RE: New Title
By ClownPuncher on 2/16/2010 2:39:40 PM , Rating: 5
Tell that to Don Quixote.


RE: New Title
By deputc26 on 2/16/2010 3:19:27 PM , Rating: 3
Of all the authors that Daily Tech publishes, none more obviously has an agenda than JM.

Please, can you just stick to objective journalism instead of injecting your biased opinion into everything you write?

Then again, I guess controversy attracts attention, which gets clicks. It's a sad day.


RE: New Title
By NA1NSXR on 2/16/10, Rating: 0
RE: New Title
By Natfly on 2/16/2010 6:51:14 PM , Rating: 5
That's just a link to his blog posts on DT, of which this is not.


RE: New Title
By adiposity on 2/16/2010 6:43:31 PM , Rating: 5
Well, besides Michael Andrews (Asher).


RE: New Title
By Aloonatic on 2/17/2010 5:21:43 AM , Rating: 2
Dude, when will you and the other who constantly bash JM realise that this is a blog ?

It states it at the top, just by the authors name, so if you know it's him that has written this then you are also aware that it is a blog. Not a journalistic piece.

So you don't agree with him and want to say something else? Then prove to the powers that be at DT that you can write (or copy and paste with mild editing) a couple of hundred words and have your say. Or failing that, just write a comment about your opinion on the subject, rather than just ranting again (it's hardly original) about how you don't like JM's agenda or whatever, you're just wasting space here.

Then again, I guess bashing JM for injecting his opinion into his own blog posts attracts attention, which gets your comment rating higher. It's a sad day.

I know that I'm wasting space here too, but it just annoys me how often people post comments just to moan about someone writing a blog that offers their own opinion on something, rather than writing a Pulitzer winning journalistic master piece, which is what we all really cone to DT for after all?!?

The whole point of blogs is for the writer to inject their opinion into what they write. If you don't like it, then don't read it, or write a rebuttal. It's really not that hard.


RE: New Title
By Aloonatic on 2/17/2010 5:25:03 AM , Rating: 1
By the way, if the blog bit next to the name of the author does not mean that this is a blog, then that's just a stupid way to lay out the article :)

Either way, the constant moaning and bitching about what people write and how they write it is just old hat now. We know that some of you don't care for Jason's articles/blogs, we get it, can we move on?


RE: New Title
By TechIsGr8 on 2/17/2010 12:27:51 PM , Rating: 3
The 'cons will not move on, their authoritarian bent will not allow them to "live and let live". They feel the need to dictate how everyone else lives.


RE: New Title
By tmouse on 2/18/2010 10:16:44 AM , Rating: 2
As stated many times it is not a blog. When something is a blog the word Blog:(section heading) in orange is listed. So instead of Science it would be Blog:Science.


RE: New Title
By porkpie on 2/17/2010 11:56:43 AM , Rating: 3
'This is a blog. Not a journalistic piece".

Lol, no. It's not a blog. The blogs are separated out and identified as such in the blogs columns. The "blog" link you see above is just that: a link to Mick's real blogs. This is (supposed to be) straight news.


RE: New Title
By porkpie on 2/17/2010 11:56:43 AM , Rating: 2
'This is a blog. Not a journalistic piece".

Lol, no. It's not a blog. The blogs are separated out and identified as such in the blogs columns. The "blog" link you see above is just that: a link to Mick's real blogs. This is (supposed to be) straight news.


RE: New Title
By Hiawa23 on 2/16/2010 3:37:01 PM , Rating: 5
I think the planet heats & cools itself in cycles, with very little regard to what humans do. Glad to see someone is trying to something...

Had other presidents or congress attempted to do something over the past 30 years we might actually have an energy program, have an up to date grid, & produce more of our own oil by now. One can hope.


RE: New Title
By Scabies on 2/17/2010 2:29:38 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
Had other presidents or congress attempted to do something over the past 30 years we might actually have an energy program, have an up to date grid, & produce more of our own oil by now.


minus environmental extremists/activists. though obama's hopenotism might be just the thing to get a few things rolling that have been stymied for no good reason (renewed interest in [/"rational" discussion of] Nuclear Energy being one.)


RE: New Title
By JonnyDough on 2/17/2010 4:19:59 PM , Rating: 3
Now if we can just do away with this god awful HTS and bring modern trains to America we might actually stay a world economic leader.

I still vote for a monorail system that gets us where we want more quickly, efficiently, and safely.

Maybe he's the man to start laying out a long term goal.


RE: New Title
By Yawgm0th on 2/16/2010 3:39:18 PM , Rating: 5
I almost fell out of my chair. Bravo.


RE: New Title
By Cypherdude1 on 2/16/10, Rating: 0
RE: New Title
By SPOOFE on 2/16/2010 5:00:37 PM , Rating: 1
Sure there's the extremist element, the guys that still loved Bush Jr. right up 'til the end. There's also a much more level-headed and rational element in the Republican Party; they don't get as much press as the war hawks or the abortion clinic bombers, but they loathe spending money on balderdash and nonsense. Hence, little attention paid to a "Let's spend money on Global Warming" idea.

Just goes to show how the rabid segment of the Pro-AGW community is shooting themselves in the foot with their wild claims coupled with lukewarm circumstantial evidence.


RE: New Title
By porkpie on 2/16/2010 5:17:09 PM , Rating: 3
" Because the Republican Party has an extremist element in it, they love to start wars "

Clinton sent US troops, fighters, and/or bombing missions to Kosovo/Yugoslavia, Sudan (decimating a couple aspirin factories there), Somalia (Remember Black Hawk Down?), Bosnia, and Iraq, among others. None of those count though, right?


RE: New Title
By Yawgm0th on 2/16/10, Rating: 0
RE: New Title
By porkpie on 2/16/2010 11:37:51 PM , Rating: 3
"How long did we stay in those countries?"

Nearly ten years in Bosnia. The rest were shorter stays. So what? Clinton still attacked more countries than Bush, Bush Sr, or Reagan. You can argue whether or not those attacks were 'justified', but the previous posters idiocy about "warmongering Republicans" was just that.

Most people forget (if they ever knew in the first place) that Clinton attempted to get UN approval for his war in Yugoslavia, just as Bush did for Iraq. And like Bush, Clinton also failed...so decided to go it alone anyway.

"We were there to push our ideals of a model society"

Sort of why we went into Yugoslavia, right? I don't recall them ever attacking us.


RE: New Title
By Arglebargle on 2/17/2010 8:44:45 AM , Rating: 1
Sorry, pet peeve here. Somalia was invaded under Bush I. As a lame duck, he got to make the move and dump the soluton to the problem on his successor.

Another incident of blundering into a situation without understanding 'the territory', something that happens too often, sadly. If we are going to commit lives and money, we have a reasonable expectation that it should be done well. Or at least competently.


RE: New Title
By porkpie on 2/17/2010 12:03:49 PM , Rating: 3
"Sorry, pet peeve here. Somalia was invaded under Bush I"

No. Bush sent a UN-authorized humanitarian mission to Somalia. There was no "invasion". The fighting didn't start until after Clinton was in office.

" we have a reasonable expectation that it should be done well. Or at least competently"

And the US military was adamant at the time that the problems were simple. Clinton refused to allow them sufficient forces to do the job competently. As a result, emboldened warlords continually attacked them, and destroyed any hope of the mission's success.


RE: New Title
By Smilin on 2/17/2010 10:28:13 AM , Rating: 1
Yep Clinton was such a warmonger.

STFU dumbass.


RE: New Title
By porkpie on 2/17/2010 12:46:54 PM , Rating: 2
"Yep Clinton was such a warmonger...STFU"

Your word, not mine. The fact remains that Clinton started more conflicts than Bush, and all your cursing and namecalling won't change that.


RE: New Title
By gunzac21 on 2/18/2010 12:20:25 AM , Rating: 3
fine, but at least we didn't end up in billions of debt because of those wars. unlike with iraq


RE: New Title
By Reclaimer77 on 2/18/10, Rating: 0
RE: New Title
By Mint on 3/4/2010 9:10:45 AM , Rating: 2
WTF is your point? They're all way smaller in scope and size than what Bush did, and that's what matters for this line of discussion.

I can't believe you got + for that remark when we're talking about nuclear power and cost. So many Bush nuthuggers on this forum...


RE: New Title
By hiscross on 2/16/10, Rating: -1
RE: New Title
By RandallMoore on 2/17/2010 12:26:01 PM , Rating: 2
6!


RE: New Title
By StraightCashHomey on 2/16/2010 2:51:46 PM , Rating: 5
I don't care about the reason. I'm just happy someone is actually getting it done.


RE: New Title
By chaos7 on 2/16/2010 2:57:12 PM , Rating: 4
If there is one good thing that is going to come out of this Global Warming scare is the need for clean power generation. So thank you crazy "voodoo science" scientists because I will finally get some new nuclear power. Assuming that Canada follows suit, which they usually do.


RE: New Title
By Ratinator on 2/16/2010 3:08:20 PM , Rating: 2
Don't expect it up North. Between the environmentalists preaching their version of the horrors of nuclear waste and the Natives complaining about their lands, no new nuclear plants are ever going to get built here. The province I am in has a government that wants to do it, but a population that is too dumb to think for themselves.


RE: New Title
By omnicronx on 2/16/2010 3:32:33 PM , Rating: 3
Tree hugging BC != Canada ;)

There are at least 9 plants either planned or currently in development over the next 10 years across Canada.

That being said, even with BC its not like they are sitting idly. They have had a clean initiative for years, and all new plants will have 0 net greenhouse gas emissions, and they expect for all plants to be this way (zero net emissions) in the next 5-8 years.

Do I think they could achieve the same thing and for less money with nuclear, yes.. but its their tax dollars not mine so I could really care less ;)


RE: New Title
By Ratinator on 2/16/2010 3:46:06 PM , Rating: 3
Actually I am from Saskatchewan.


RE: New Title
By Mint on 3/4/2010 8:39:58 AM , Rating: 2
Meh, who cares about your tiny-ass province :P

Seriously, though, it's a good thing that Ontario was able to brush aside those Greenpeace retards when deciding on nuclear so many years back. It's mostly Alberta and the Maritimes relying on coal. Ontario is mostly nuclear and hydro, and eventually more nuclear will be built when the total cost of wind is properly accounted for.


RE: New Title
By eddieroolz on 2/16/2010 5:29:24 PM , Rating: 2
Campbell better have a good clean initiative, because with all the Carbon Tax he's charging us its making people's lives miserable.


RE: New Title
By GodisanAtheist on 2/16/2010 3:21:26 PM , Rating: 2
Too true. I've often held that should wide-spread paranoia result in cleaner air and forward thinking energy generation then so be it.

For some reason this always caused my enviro-nut friends to go thermonuclear. Bad for the environment, all the hot air and radioactive waste they generate.


RE: New Title
By therealnickdanger on 2/16/2010 3:21:51 PM , Rating: 5
Well, some people in Georgia might get clean nuclear power, but I'd really like to see America meet or surpass Japan/France in percentage of nuclear.


RE: New Title
By eddieroolz on 2/16/2010 5:30:26 PM , Rating: 2
Now that's a good target to set!


RE: New Title
By omnicronx on 2/16/2010 3:26:48 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Assuming that Canada follows suit, which they usually do.
Follow suit? You mean continue to do what we have been doing for the past 30 years? We already have 18 reactors that account for around 15% of our power needs, with plans to build 9 more reactors over the next 10 years. Ontario has gone even further with ~50% of our power needs coming from nuclear.

Furthermore Almost 60% of our power needs are powered by Hydro meaning less than 20% of our power comes from coal and gas.

When it comes to nuclear power, we have not been stagnant like the US.


RE: New Title
By Reclaimer77 on 2/17/10, Rating: 0
RE: New Title
By VaultDweller on 2/17/2010 10:00:44 AM , Rating: 3
What does that have to do with anything? I don't see how that changes the fact that Canada has been moving towards nuclear power generation, and will be continuing to do so in the foreseeable future.


RE: New Title
By Reclaimer77 on 2/17/2010 11:58:53 AM , Rating: 1
Because it's easier to do ANYTHING when it's on a tiny scale. That's why.


RE: New Title
By Mint on 3/4/2010 8:27:02 AM , Rating: 2
What kind of dumbass logic is that? Why isn't Texas on nuclear? Ohio?

And since when is nuclear easy to do on a small scale? The states, provinces, and nations with appreciable nuclear power are always the larger ones.


RE: New Title
By porkpie on 2/17/2010 1:04:14 PM , Rating: 2
I agree with a lot of what you say, but the nuke plants Canada builds are just as big as anything the US constructs (or could construct, if we still were). In fact, nearly 100% of the radiological isotopes used for medicine come from a single source in Canada.

Interestingly enough, when anti-nuke nuts managed to get that reactor shut down temporarily, it had to be emergency restarted due to the world demand for just those isotopes.


RE: New Title
By barjebus on 2/16/2010 3:48:58 PM , Rating: 2
Seems you may not know enough about Canada?

We generate 60% of our electricity from hydro, 25% from steam (mostly coal), and 13% from nuclear. The rest is from misc. sources. Ontario (our largest province) obtains 42% of its energy from nuclear power.

Saskatchewan nearly built a 2GW nuclear plant (their current capacity is ~3.8GW) to replace older coal plants, but public opinion was severely opposed (not in my backyard attitude).

So yes, the environmentalists are still alive and kicking up north keeping nuclear power from expanding, but as you said, if "the One" decides to take the nuclear plunge, perhaps some will relent up North. It just doesn't make fiscal sense in alot of cases...loan guarantee's with taxpayer money on projects that are notorious for going over budget doesn't seem to be in any politicians best interest these days.


RE: New Title
By chaos7 on 2/16/2010 4:15:20 PM , Rating: 1
I was alluding to the fact that although we are generating a significant percentage of our power through nuclear in Ontario, there are still many hurdles that are preventing additional upgrades and new plants being built.


RE: New Title
By Entropy42 on 2/16/2010 4:40:56 PM , Rating: 2
Canuck fight!


RE: New Title
By VaultDweller on 2/17/2010 10:03:50 AM , Rating: 2
Looks like a pretty hardcore, scrappy fight, doesn't it?


RE: New Title
By porkpie on 2/16/2010 4:49:04 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Seems you may not know enough about Canada?

We generate 60% of our electricity from hydro, 25% from steam (mostly coal), and 13% from nuclear
I saw a statistic stating that Canada could easily power all of North America (including the US and Mexico) from its untapped hydro resources.

Of course, that would involve building new dams...something environmentalists oppose almost as much as they do nuclear power.


RE: New Title
By eddieroolz on 2/16/2010 5:33:54 PM , Rating: 4
Enviroterrorists oppose everything, they'd rather have all of us living in caves again.

Against nuclear. Against climate change. Against industry. Bunch of hypocritical morons.


RE: New Title
By Mint on 3/4/2010 9:21:30 AM , Rating: 2
I wouldn't trust that statistic, unless it's ignoring cost and looking at crazy megaprojects like damming James Bay or flooding the Rockies.

Hydro is the cheapest electricity source out there, and even envirotards would prefer it over coal. If that statement was even remotely true we'd see all of Canada's energy come from hydro rather than just half.


RE: New Title
By SilentSin on 2/16/2010 3:00:19 PM , Rating: 5
Agreed. This is the best thing I've witnessed this presidency do in the short time it has been in place. I only hope that some of the money will go towards marketing and education about new forms of nuclear energy and waste disposal. Joe Average w/ a Prius needs to know just how much safer and cleaner nuclear is than just about everything else available so there won't be as many protests as there have been in the past. We need more energy capacity yesterday, the fewer the road blocks the faster we can get there.


RE: New Title
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 2/16/2010 3:40:40 PM , Rating: 4
Holy crap... I need to check my underwear.... After hear Obama backing up the building of a Nuclear power plant I think I soiled myself. I hope he does back up with action and not just words, also a few more plants not just in Georgia...


RE: New Title
By bhieb on 2/16/2010 5:45:56 PM , Rating: 1
Why does that shock you? Not like he has said no to spending money of any kind. Mr. Fix it all at once can't say no to spending no matter what it is on.

I had some higher hopes for him (even as a Rep), but he is just trying to fix EVERYTHING all at once during a time when we cannot afford it.

BTW I know you were joking, but honestly if he believes in it at all what is another few billion. Sad that he thinks that way, hope we can survive long enough to run him out.


RE: New Title
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 2/16/2010 5:53:53 PM , Rating: 2
Why does that shock you? Not like he has said no to spending money of any kind. Mr. Fix it all at once can't say no to spending no matter what it is on.

I'm from Illinois I understand Obama, his all hot air no action. He is the biggest do nothing guy on the planet. So, for once I hope he actually carries through and I would love to be proven wrong about him on a subject like this... I just will not hold my breath.


RE: New Title
By fic2 on 2/16/2010 6:41:28 PM , Rating: 2
Good thing Bush was such a fiscal conservative or we would be in a real mess. Oh, wait...


RE: New Title
By Reclaimer77 on 2/17/2010 11:34:44 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
Good thing Bush was such a fiscal conservative or we would be in a real mess. Oh, wait...


He certainly wasn't lol. He was barely a Republican. He went along with almost every Liberal spending plan, and they hated him for it.

When Obama and the Liberals now preach for bipartisanship, remember George Bush everyone. In almost every issue besides the war, he worked with and agreed with the Democrats, and look what happened. He was hated by them, slandered, and lost the respect of his own party.

If you stick to your guns you win every time, even when you lose.


RE: New Title
By Reclaimer77 on 2/16/2010 5:24:11 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
I don't care about the reason. I'm just happy someone is actually getting it done.


It's not going to matter if his Cap and Tax energy agenda goes ahead as planned. When you're paying 30% more for power, you aren't going to give a goddamn if it's coming from a Nuclear plant or Coal.


RE: New Title
By foolsgambit11 on 2/16/2010 10:01:18 PM , Rating: 2
Won't it, though? I mean, if it is well executed (a big if), then a cap and trade scheme would mean that nuclear plants would be able to sell their pollution credits to offset increases in energy costs. At the very least, they will get an exemption from part/all of any 'pollution tax' that would get implemented. A reasonable and simple scheme, like a certain tradeable pollution allowance per GW generated (or maybe by capacity, or a combination of both) would give nuclear a distinct cost advantage, even lowering its cost for consumers below current levels. Or, if instead of cap and trade, they went the tax route (again, simply and sensibly), taxing companies based on carbon emitted, nuclear wouldn't get hit with the tax, and would cost approximately what it does today.

Of course, there's always the possibility that certain lawmakers' animosity towards nuclear would lead to non-exempt status or a denial of carbon credits.


RE: New Title
By Reclaimer77 on 2/17/2010 11:28:32 AM , Rating: 2
You're an idiot and so is everyone who dowrated me and uprated you. Cap and TAX will destroy this country. Everything we do requires energy. The cheaper the better. And "pollution credits" is a scheme !! Use your goddamn brain for just two minutes !

You know I almost hope Obama get's his way with everything, so when the whole country gets dragged to SHIT for generations to come, people like you can finally wake the fuck up...

except you wont. Still.


RE: New Title
By Mint on 3/4/2010 9:44:04 AM , Rating: 1
Even European-level carbon taxes won't make much of an impact to everyday lives. It's the cap and trade scheme that I'm scared of, because there's no limit to how much of a premium this could wind up adding. We've seen how speculation and trading can inflate oil prices through the roof for an inelastic good, and carbon credits will do the same.

Thankfully, it looks like the cap-and-trade bill is dead.

quote:
You know I almost hope Obama get's his way with everything, so when the whole country gets dragged to SHIT for generations to come, people like you can finally wake the fuck up...
I would love to see the US split in two so that the Republican areas can implement everything you want them to, dividing the debt based on revenue from and services to each state in the past. Then we'll see which country gets dragged to shit.

You are just like all the other short-sighted Obama-haters out there, completely unwilling to accept how much more fucked up the US would be without stimulus spending, and how much less fucked up future generations would be without the Bush tax-cuts.


RE: New Title
By Chiisuchianu on 2/16/2010 2:57:45 PM , Rating: 2
Was about to post the very same thing. I can't believe so many policies and money is being thrown away to combat something that's pretty much been proven to be a hoax.


RE: New Title
By BioRebel on 2/16/2010 3:17:26 PM , Rating: 2
But you can worship something that doesn't exist? (ie God)


RE: New Title
By Omega215D on 2/16/2010 4:17:21 PM , Rating: 2
Oh wow, that post went from 4 to 0 rather quickly...


RE: New Title
By fic2 on 2/16/2010 6:44:57 PM , Rating: 1
I know it's a stretch, but I think the headline was refering to this from the article:
quote:
a 2005 law allowing federal loans for projects to fight global warming


So, Obama is using a federal loan program put in place to prevent something that doesn't exist. Sounds like most gov't programs.


RE: New Title
By swizeus on 2/16/2010 9:19:32 PM , Rating: 2
I wish i could give all my 5 votes to you so you can get 10


RE: New Title
By safcman84 on 2/17/2010 5:38:15 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Should probrably be "Obama Approves First New Nuclear Plant to Combat GROWING ENERGY NEEDS". You can't really combat something that doesn't exist.


Who says it doesnt exist? or does your OPINION overrule all current scientific debate?

None of the most qualified scientists in the world can say for certain whether it is happening or not, so how can you?

Your entitled to have an opinion and to state your opinion, but that does not make it a fact .


RE: New Title
By Grabo on 2/17/2010 7:03:32 AM , Rating: 1
If you need caps to prove a point, you either predict a somewhat retarded readership or you know your point is weak and is trying to compensate.

Is the Arctic sea ice melting because of increased orca activity in the North Sea? http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20100203_...


RE: New Title
By porkpie on 2/17/2010 12:49:04 PM , Rating: 2
The Arctic has been melting steadily for the past 12,000 years. Sea levels have been rising for TWENTY thousand years. During most of that period, they were rising far faster than they are today:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Post-Glacial_Sea...

Care to tell us again how a "melting arctic" proves SUVs are the cause?


RE: New Title
By Grabo on 2/17/2010 3:35:44 PM , Rating: 2
Your graph shows sea level rise has been pretty cosntant for the last 6k years, while just recently ( http://climate.nasa.gov/keyIndicators/index.cfm#Se... ) it has increased.

Your graph says nothing at all about the melting of the Arctic for the last 12k years. The Arctic has never been stable for very long as far as anyone knows - but I dare say that few now dispute that increased levels of certain greenhouse gases play a role in the current downward trend. ->
http://www.acia.uaf.edu/pages/scientific.html

Before satellite measurements began in 1979, measurements were a deal less certain.

Care to tell us how you know that 'it has been melting steadily for the past 12k years'?

No one disputes that atmospheric co2 is a greenhouse gas, and no one thinks that the level of atmospheric co2 hasn't increased since the industrial revolution.


RE: New Title
By porkpie on 2/17/2010 3:54:33 PM , Rating: 2
The "recent" increase is since the end of the Little Ice Age. Not surprising we'd see an uptick. Still, the rate of increase is still much smaller than it was 10,000 years ago.

How many polar bears were driving SUVs 10,000 years ago?

"Care to tell us how you know that 'it has been melting steadily for the past 12k years'?"

Pick up a book on paleoclimatology sometime. Know what a moraine is? That's just one of the many ways researchers can determine the historical extent of ice extent, as glaciers advance and retreat. Ice cores are another.

"No one disputes that atmospheric co2 is a greenhouse gas"

Red herring. Many people do dispute that CO2 is potent enough to cause signficant warming, especially since it only absorbs in a very limited band of infrared, a band that is almost entirely already absorbed by a much stronger and far more prevalent GHG: water vapor.


RE: New Title
By Grabo on 2/18/2010 9:37:34 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The "recent" increase is since the end of the Little Ice Age. Not surprising we'd see an uptick. Still, the rate of increase is still much smaller than it was 10,000 years ago.


1. Are you comparing the loosely defined "Little Ice Age" and anectodal evidence of glacial advances with the termination of the last glacial period and the melting of the massive ice sheets that covered large parts of Europe and NA that ensued?

2. Saying that sea levels are rising because ice has been melting since this "little ice age" is like saying molten ice = water. Or do you mean to say that the Little Ice Age and the rising sea level since is widely accepted as a natural variation, "much like the somewhat regular glacial periods but a tad smaller in scale", and back that up with something? That it coincides with the industrial revolution and that atmospheric levels of co2 have risen steadily since(http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/trends/co2/lawdome.smoot... has nothing to do with it? In 2009, we were at 387ppm- when was the last time this happened? Not in any of the last interglacial periods from what ice cores say.

quote:
Red herring. Many people do dispute that CO2 is potent enough to cause signficant warming, especially since it only absorbs in a very limited band of infrared, a band that is almost entirely already absorbed by a much stronger and far more prevalent GHG: water vapor.


Do you have any source, any at all, that blames water vapour for recent warming trends? Besides, an increase of other greenhouse gases will mean an increase in water vapour. I haven't seen any major changes in the direct addition of water vapour to the atmosphere lately.

My previous link was to a rather interesteing report on the Arctic's ice, with historial melting trends and such, but you obviously didn't read it.


RE: New Title
By porkpie on 2/18/2010 10:16:02 AM , Rating: 2
" is like saying molten ice = water."

If you don't think molten ice turns into water, what DO you think it becomes?

"Do you have any source, any at all, that blames water vapour for recent warming trends? "

Lol, you mean besides the IPCC and every single scientist in the world who believes in AGW? Do you really not realize that the very BASIS of AGW theory is that CO2 -- a very weak GHG on its own -- acts to warm the planet by a positive feedback loop caused by increasing water vapour?

Honestly Grabo, learn a little about your subject before you attempt to debate it. You'll embarrass yourself much less that way.

"Are you comparing the loosely defined "Little Ice Age" and anectodal evidence of glacial advances "

The LIA is not "loosely defined" and the evidence isn't anecdotal. Not only do we have countless historical verification of events such as the Thames and New York Harbor freezing over, but countless scientific evidence such as tree ring and ice core data, moraine formation, and dozens of other sources.

Again-- learn a little about your subject.


RE: New Title
By Grabo on 2/18/2010 11:49:23 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
If you don't think molten ice turns into water, what DO you think it becomes?


Thank you Mario, but our point is in another castle.

quote:
Lol, you mean besides the IPCC and every single scientist in the world who believes in AGW? Do you really not realize that the very BASIS of AGW theory is that CO2 -- a very weak GHG on its own -- acts to warm the planet by a positive feedback loop caused by increasing water vapour?


"Very weak"? 9 - 26% of the greenhouse effect, on its own. (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005... As temperatures increase, so do the levels of water vapour in the atmosphere, and as water vapour levels increase so does the temperature, as it is a greenhouse gas. This doesn't go on automatically without the disturbance in atmospheric co2, however.
Venus has a "runaway greenhouse effect" primarily because of co2, which leads me to next paragraph.

You are obiously missing the point here too, as water vapour isn't the root problem. Disturbances in atmospheric CO2 hang around for a long time, while water vapour balances itself quickly.

Feedbacks aren't what we can affect much, forcings however are, and in this case we are shifting the balance of atmospheric co2 directly; we aren't shifting the balance of atmospheric water vapour directly to any significant degree.

quote:
The LIA is not "loosely defined" blah blah blah


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age
"..though climatologists and historians working with local records no longer expect to agree on either the start or end dates of this period, which varied according to local conditions"

Besides, comparing rising sea levels due to ice that formed then now melting to raising sea levels due to the end of the last glacial period is still obscene. Additionally, you've already stated that "The Arctic has been melting for the last several thousand years", and this slightly contradicts "quicker sea level rise since the Little Ice Age ended".


RE: New Title
By porkpie on 2/19/2010 2:13:34 AM , Rating: 2
"Thank you Mario, but our point is in another castle."

Sorry, you don't get a pass that easily. I ask you again. If you don't think molten ice = water, what DO you think it is?

""Very weak"? 9 - 26% of the greenhouse effect, on its own"

Lol, did you actually use Realclimate as a source? The shrillest bunch of AGW loons on the planet? Luckily, its quite easy to disprove their figure using math even you can follow. 33C is the commonly assumed figure for total GHG based forcing (even RC got this right). If CO2 was responsible for 26% of that alone, then a 100ppm increase in CO2 (what we've seen since the beginning of the industrial age), then we would expect to have ALREADY seen a temperature rise on the order of ((380ppm/280ppm)-1)*33C*0.26 = a WHOPPING 3C. Instead, we've seen total warming of about 1/2C -- one SIXTH as much.

Perhaps you didn't notice the DATE on that RC posting? It's five YEARS old...and (giving them the benefit of the doubt) was calculated based on year-2000 era GISS GCM code, back when they actually believed CO2's forcings were much larger than they actually are.

But wait, it gets even better! Somehow you've failed to understand that the GCM values ALREADY work in the water vapor feedback effect. I have no clue how you could possibly miss that, since the phrase "water vapor feedback" is not only written in the text of the link itsel, but in in the ARTICLE'S TITLE. Hahaha.

Seriously, I'm beginning to believe you're a Shell Oil employee, paid to make AGW fanatics appear stupid. No one able to even find the "on" switch on their computer could make some of the mistakes you've done.

So be honest. Are you just putting us on, or what?


RE: New Title
By Grabo on 2/19/2010 5:33:47 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Sorry, you don't get a pass that easily. I ask you again. If you don't think molten ice = water, what DO you think it is?

lol
quote:
<bashing of another source without any sort of backup> <a belief that a novices simplified maths are absolute and disprove what scientists have been working on all their professional lives> | ..then we would expect to have ALREADY..

Is there a correlation between increased levels of co2 and global mean temperatures? Yes. Is it absolutely understood? No. Do the two lines always follow each others like the Sedins? No; few scientists claim they do.

quote:
<personal insults> <caps> <point totally beside mine>


Of all the greenhouse gases, we are directly influencing the atmospheric co2, so that levels of it are higher than they have been for several hundred thousand years. This is the point. If I attempt to make it the size of a barn-door, you might not miss it:

You realize that natural systems are about balance, yes? That we now have co2 levels that are unprecedented since a long way back? That this is probably in part (mostly, I mean come on, what else has significantly started adding co2 to the atmosphere during this interglacial period?) due to humans?
Carbon that will stay there for tens to hundreds of years?
What do you think will happen?
Sharper minds than ours are working on that. The difference between us is that I don't think my maths are god.


RE: New Title
By Grabo on 2/19/2010 5:42:09 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
back when they actually believed CO2's forcings were much larger than they actually are.


So what "are they actually" then, pray tell?

I can't blame you for drowning me with solid references, or really any at all, but hey, you know what a moraine is, that's the main thing.


RE: New Title
By porkpie on 2/19/2010 11:13:23 AM , Rating: 2
"I can't blame you for drowning me with solid references"

Here's an excellent one on calculating forcings. It's a bit dated, but the basic physics has not changed since it was first written:

http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/181_PNAS97...

"So what "are they actually" then, pray tell?"

That's just it -- we don't know what CO2's actual forcing value is, and we have no a priori method to calculate it. We can calculate by assuming all the warming we've seen is CO2-based (a very shaky assumption), or we ca set an upper bound from the geologic record, which shows us that CO2 is effective at preventing ice ages, but increasingly weak as temperatures rise, a result which makes sense from a physical basis as well.


RE: New Title
By Grabo on 2/19/2010 1:18:51 PM , Rating: 2
I meant "accuse you",instead of "blame you", but anyway;

quote:
Perhaps you didn't notice the DATE on that RC posting? It's five YEARS old...and (giving them the benefit of the doubt) was calculated based on year-2000 era GISS GCM code, back when they actually believed CO2's forcings were much larger than they actually are.


quote:
Here's an excellent one on calculating forcings. It's a bit dated, but the basic physics has not changed since it was first written:


Since the article you are referring to is from 1995,and "they" "actually believed co2 forcings were much larger than they actually are" (around 2000), you either don't believe in linear time or you need to define who "they" were that were clearly using faulty conceptions in 2000-2005 when others sat on the real knowledge in -95..

quote:
That's just it -- we don't know what CO2's actual forcing value is,


Even if this was true, so what? We ignore it?
Either way, clearly I think you are less of an authority than a number of scientific institutions, so if they say it has significance I shall believe it.

They all agree that co2 is a greenhouse gas - the one humankind is especially fond of altering, and they know we're at pretty record levels now, so unfortunately they don't share your optimism.


RE: New Title
By jcherrybon on 2/18/2010 11:27:05 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Should probrably be "Obama Approves First New Nuclear Plant to Combat GROWING ENERGY NEEDS". You can't really combat something that doesn't exist.


Global warming does exist. We know this as fact. The debate is over whether or not humans contribute at all.

Some people think that dumping tons of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere has no effect on our climate. Others think it does.

The skeptics are funny though. I like how their arguments often contradict each other.

1 - Global warming doesn't exist because it was cold last week (you mean 1 degree raise in temperature didn't eliminate winter? I'm shocked)
2 - GW exists, but the sun is 100% of the cause
3 - Ok so the sun is on a down period and 2009 was the 2nd hottest year.... but Al Gore sucks!!

Then back to #1.

Repeat as needed.


It is a start...
By ClownPuncher on 2/16/2010 2:39:03 PM , Rating: 3
In this day and age of debt in the trillions, $8b seems like a drop in the bucket...but I hope these projects go through and face no problems. Nuclear needs some good PR work. 2 new clean energy nuclear plants is a start.




RE: It is a start...
By wookie1 on 2/16/2010 2:53:57 PM , Rating: 2
It's just a loan guarantee, the gov't isn't loaning the money, the guarantee provides lower interest rates to the borrower in exchange for protection from default.


RE: It is a start...
By Smilin on 2/16/2010 3:13:12 PM , Rating: 3
Exactly.

One of the big roadbloads for nuclear power is the time and cost needed to build the plants.

They take decades to complete before they produce income and in the meantime the bank is giving out a huge loan with no collateral. There is also a big risk of the project getting legal entanglements or otherwise cancelled.

This is really really good news.


RE: It is a start...
By porkpie on 2/16/2010 4:37:38 PM , Rating: 3
"They take decades to complete before they produce income "

Correction. They take only 5 years to build, but when you factor in the time spent acquiring permits and fighting legal challenges from environmental groups, they can take 15-20 years to complete.


RE: It is a start...
By 67STANG on 2/16/2010 6:58:08 PM , Rating: 2
So what about "decades to complete before they produce income" needed correction?

It'll be interesting to see if Obama closes the Yucca Mountain storage site as he said he would.

I also wonder if the $7B they've spent on it thus far and the eventual $58B over the next 50 years will be tacked onto the price we pay for nuclear energy.

Of course, unless we figure out how to reprocess the waste in the next few years, that site will be out of space anyhow-- it can only handle 80,000 tons and we already have 65,000 tons waiting to go in.


RE: It is a start...
By kyp275 on 2/16/2010 8:25:13 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Of course, unless we figure out how to reprocess the waste in the next few years,


Welcome to last century.

It's not that we don't know how to reprocess the spent fuel (where do you think weapons grade plutonium comes from?), but rather that it's banned in the US to do so. You have good 'ol Carter to thank for that one.


RE: It is a start...
By RobertAnderson on 2/17/2010 10:37:02 AM , Rating: 2
Carter only said we cannot "commercially" reprocess. The government could take on the task if they want. This way the materials could be controlled better.

Also in its current state the waste is solid. If you reprocessed you recycle 80% of the current waste, but the remaining 20% is now a liquid. Personally I think I would rather have the nuclear waste solid so a leak can't form and get into the water table. Though somehow the anti-nuclear population thinks the current solid waste can somehow leak into the water table so maybe my point is moot.


RE: It is a start...
By nafhan on 2/17/2010 10:53:31 AM , Rating: 2
I think it's still cheaper to mine new Uranium than it is to reprocess. That, I'm sure, also plays a part in any decision regarding reprocessing.
I don't know if that takes the cost of storage/disposal into account, though.


RE: It is a start...
By porkpie on 2/16/2010 8:48:27 PM , Rating: 2
"So what about "decades to complete before they produce income" needed correction?"

That part that implied the problem was with nuclear power itself, rather than simple ignorance, fear, and kowtowing to environmental terrorists. Call it a 'clarification' if you prefer.

"It'll be interesting to see if Obama closes the Yucca Mountain storage site as he said he would."

He already did. A rather odd move, considering his about-face on nuclear power.


RE: It is a start...
By Smilin on 2/17/2010 10:33:18 AM , Rating: 1
Yucca mountain was really found not to be viable. They overlooked the frequent minor earthquakes in the area but ultimately a big fault was found under the facility.

We should be reprocessing this stuff anyway.


RE: It is a start...
By porkpie on 2/17/2010 12:09:38 PM , Rating: 2
"Yucca mountain was really found not to be viable"

Lol, where do people get this nonsense? There is no "really big fault" undernearth Yucca Mountain. Even if there was, it'd hardly be a showstopper. The facility is built to withstand Richter 8 earthquakes (10 TIMES as powerful as those that demolished Haiti). Still worse, even if it DID crack, so what? You'd have to ignore the damage for 10 or more years before any leakage even reached a population center. There's essentially zero hydrologic activity in the area.

The problem with Yucca Mountain is just fear and ignorance, exploited by radical environmnentalists.


RE: It is a start...
By Smilin on 2/23/2010 6:27:16 PM , Rating: 2
If there were damage and if it were discovered it would take longer than 10 years to reach and fix. Besides, who says the civilization that built this thing will be around when the problem happens?

Yucca mountain was a big ball o pork. Those knuckleheads spent decades on it and didn't bother to notice bow ridge fault. They replanned again but geez, wtf?

there has to be a better solution, but I don't propose we halt all nuclear power until we find it.


RE: It is a start...
By Solandri on 2/17/2010 4:50:13 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
Of course, unless we figure out how to reprocess the waste in the next few years, that site will be out of space anyhow-- it can only handle 80,000 tons and we already have 65,000 tons waiting to go in.

It should be pointed out that 65,000 tons of spent uranium fuel only takes up about 3100 m^3. That's less than 1.5 olympic-sized swimming pools. If it were a cube, it'd be less than 15 meters per side. This is all the waste we have from over 50 years of commercial nuclear power.

Currently the nuclear power industry in the U.S. produces about 2000 tons of spent fuel per year. In terms of volume, this is less than one semi-trailor's worth of waste to provide 20% of the electricity needs of the entire U.S. for a year. It's a helluva bargain if you ask me.

And this isn't even considering that the so-called "waste" could be reprocessed to yield almost 20x more energy than has already been extracted from it.


RE: It is a start...
By Mint on 3/4/2010 10:14:27 AM , Rating: 2
It's so sad that most people have no sense of scale. I've heard people describe this as a "mountain" of nuclear waste.

I could never understand how an environmentalist could prefer coal over nuclear when the former needs 10,000 to several million times as much fuel by mass, and all of it wound up as crap going into the air instead of containable waste.


RE: It is a start...
By RobertAnderson on 2/17/2010 10:31:48 AM , Rating: 2
I am worried this was just a political move. The problem has never been money, it has been getting permits. Power companies have been spending billions to try to acquire permits over the last 20 years and have failed. If I remember right there are over 30 reactors trying to get permits. The company has the money to build the plan, just no permit.

I found this article, but I thought there were more than 35 waiting.
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1143064/3...


RE: It is a start...
By Shadowself on 2/16/2010 3:30:25 PM , Rating: 2
It depends upon how it is written and how it is structured. Look up the Federal Financing Bank. It's legal description is a bit confusing, but it has authority to by and sell securities of the USG and from those make loans.


RE: It is a start...
By knutjb on 2/16/2010 7:05:25 PM , Rating: 2
Don't forget Obama, aka Mr Union, will stipulate that anyone taking such guarantee will have to use ONLY union labor like he did with his "stimulus" bill. Does union labor guarantee a better product? Nope, but it does guarantee a far more expensive one.


RE: It is a start...
By Jumbo Shrimp on 2/16/2010 4:05:44 PM , Rating: 2
The post is so riddled with inaccuracies and outright confusion of the author about the subject at hand it is hard to even comment.

Is it that hard to find authors with some background in science, history, economics and finance?

I am sure Jason Mick will one day have a fulfilling career as a Huffington Post poster. But he is a bit out of his depth at DailyTech.


RE: It is a start...
By Divineburner on 2/16/2010 4:20:13 PM , Rating: 2
Would you please kindly point out which and where in order to enlighten some of us confused readers?


RE: It is a start...
By bissimo on 2/16/2010 4:40:28 PM , Rating: 2
Number 1 - the plant has not been approved, and a regulatory go-ahead will not happen before 2011. The title of the article is false.

Number 2 - Failure to mention that this type of federal backing is necessary for nuclear power plants because of the industry's notoriety for defaulting on loans.


RE: It is a start...
By JasonMick (blog) on 2/16/2010 4:52:12 PM , Rating: 2
Good comments, I do appreciate them.

I'm adding some clarification on both of these points and have changed the title slightly.

As far as point Number 1, I never meant to imply that the plant's approval is finalized. However, Obama has given both a loan guarantee AND an executive mandate to green light the plant's approval, and the NRC will certainly take that into consideration when it evaluates the plant proposal.

Ultimately the end result is the same, regardless of whether it was approved today or in 2011, as construction of the plant itself would be unlikely to start until around 2011 anyhow. With a loan guarantee in place TODAY, and with Obama pushing the NRC to approve the plant, it's as good as approved -- they can start preparing for construction and preparing the land.

I think you raise a salient point with your second criticism, though. I am adding comments on this to the article, having read up a bit more on it. I'm certainly no nuclear regulatory expert, but I am very interested in the topic of nuclear power and am trying to provide unparalleled coverage. I'd like to point out that I have provided you guys with a lot of details that the AFP piece published around the same time was missing.

I hope you all enjoy the good news, and I'll try to update the article as per our discussion here, to add some clarifications.

Let me know if you have any other thoughts or suggestions.

Cheers,
Jason


RE: It is a start...
By lightfoot on 2/16/2010 5:31:24 PM , Rating: 2
If you could also clarify the following statement:
quote:
a 2005 law allowing federal loans for projects to fight global warming. However, he never committed the funding, instead pouring money into alternative projects like rebuilding Iraq.

How exactly does money set aside for fighting climate change end up getting "poured" into a foreign nation? If the money was allocated by Congress it would be available regardless of additional spending on the war. If the funds were diverted that would require the approval of Congress. I just don't see how you can place the "blame" for this on the previous President. At least give a link or a name to this "2005 law" and state exactly how the funds were spent, instead of simply implying that they were mis-allocated.

It is a most serious charge that the President of the United States took funds that were ear-marked for one purpose and spent them on his own pet project without Congressional approval. Additional facts would be much appreciated since you seem to be the only person breaking this story.


RE: It is a start...
By JasonMick (blog) on 2/16/2010 7:37:17 PM , Rating: 4
Hi Lightfoot,
I changed the paragraph you referenced to:
quote:
The decision from President Obama contrasts with former President George W. Bush, who, like many in his party, talked big about nuclear but committed to little action. President Bush had the means on hand at the time -- a 2005 law allowing federal loans for projects to fight global warming. However, he never requested the funding for nuclear plant loan guarantees, even as he took full advantage of other bills to request money for projects such as the rebuilding Iraq.


I feel that there was some validity in your complaint; I never intended to infer that money was being diverted from energy funding to the Iraq war.

Rather, my point was that George W. Bush took full advantage of legislation to provide funding for other efforts he vocally supported, such as the Iraq war, but largely failed to ask Congress (via the federal budget) for significant funding to support nuclear development. He had the means to do so with the 2005 energy law, but never took advantage of the opportunity in front of him.

I feel the altered paragraph expresses this more clearly and succinctly.

That said, I do give George W. Bush credit for being a long time vocal supporter of nuclear energy, if only in voice.

Ultimately it shouldn't matter WHO is backing nuclear power, the key story here is that the first new nuclear plant in over 20 years now has guaranteed loans and a presidential endorsement, which should lead to a regulatory approval in 2011. That's likely to anger some on BOTH sides of the aisle off, but its great news for those who see the merits of clean nuclear power.


Baffled
By mckirkus on 2/16/2010 2:36:47 PM , Rating: 3
I'm completely baffled by those who oppose global warming and nuclear power. It's like the oil lobby has infiltrated Green Peace.




RE: Baffled
By Omega215D on 2/16/2010 2:51:25 PM , Rating: 4
No, the green peace types want all of us to live like cavemen using sticks, stones and plain old fire... unless fire is also un-green to them.


RE: Baffled
By omnicronx on 2/16/2010 3:16:41 PM , Rating: 3
Exactly, Greenpeace's main goal = world deindustrialization.


RE: Baffled
By Nik00117 on 2/16/2010 3:40:18 PM , Rating: 1
The Green Peace hippies want everything yet wish to give nothing.

Example Californa wanted to install a wind mill, green peace protested because it might kill birds who used the area to fly in.

Then they wanted to do a solar panel farm however green peace said no again because it would endanger the animnals there.

The founder of green peace said he left because during a meeting they were discussing banning cholerine to which he responded "That is on the perodic table, that'd be like banning oxygen"

I can just imagine that "Let's ban oxygen!!!!!!" dumbass motherfucking green peace faggots.


RE: Baffled
By Dorkyman on 2/16/2010 3:49:40 PM , Rating: 2
We absolutely should not be giving loan guarantees to build 2 new nuke plants.

We should be giving guarantees to build 1,000 new nuke plants.

Right now the US is a sitting duck, since we get so much of our energy from foreign sources. We need to become energy independent ASAP. That means building nukes--lots of them. It also means drilling for oil aggressively here on domestic soil. It also means developing the vast new gas fields just as fast as we can.

Here's hoping the new Republican majorities in the House and Senate next winter can get the ball rolling.

About those pesky "Global Warming" zealots: I guess they haven't yet gotten the email about their warming god Phil Jones and his back pedaling last week. Makes for good reading. The sky is not falling, after all.


RE: Baffled
By fic2 on 2/16/10, Rating: -1
RE: Baffled
By Yames on 2/16/2010 4:43:01 PM , Rating: 5
The real problem is sustaining the human population. If Green Peace members were serious, they would help tackle the real problem and kill themselves.


RE: Baffled
By Curelom on 2/16/2010 3:36:40 PM , Rating: 2
We can't use windmills either cuz it kills the birds, can't use hydro cuz it kills the fish

and on and on and on...


RE: Baffled
By porkpie on 2/16/2010 4:43:13 PM , Rating: 3
"No, the green peace types want all of us to live like cavemen using sticks, stones and plain old fire... unless fire is also un-green to them."

Why did this get rated down? Allow me to quote famed environomentalist Stewart Brand, from his article in the Whole Earth Catalog:
quote:
We have wished, we ecofreaks, for a disaster or for a social change to come and bomb us into Stone Age, where we might live like Indians in our valley, with our localism, our appropriate technology, our gardens, our homemade religion -- guilt-free at last!

Or Amory Lovins, founder of the Rocky Mountain Institute:
quote:
If you ask me, it'd be a little short of disastrous for us to discover a source of clean, cheap, abundant energy because of what we would do with it.


RE: Baffled
By corduroygt on 2/16/2010 5:01:01 PM , Rating: 2
I don't get what's holding up the ecofreaks from going into the wilderness and living at one with nature? Maybe it's the fact that writing about it is much more convenient than actually living like that?

Why do they want everyone to live like that, don't they know that we polluting, uncultured, barbaric rednecks have guns and will not hesitate to use them against anyone who threatens us and our way of life?


RE: Baffled
By lightfoot on 2/16/2010 5:44:00 PM , Rating: 2
Can you even imagine the environmental damage that environmentalists would do to our national parks if they were allowed to live in them? I say allow the environmentalists to live in our cities, a least they can use an overpass for shelter and not have to cut down any trees or bushes. They also wouldn't need to start fires and kill small animals for food. The truly ironic part is that the urban lifestyle allows humans to live in small compact areas and thus leave a much larger area untouched.


RE: Baffled
By porkpie on 2/16/2010 8:50:28 PM , Rating: 4
"The truly ironic part is that the urban lifestyle allows humans to live in small compact areas and thus leave a much larger area untouched. "

Very few people understand this. Even fewer realize that the US is more heavily forested today than it was in 1900...thanks to ultra-high output farming, courtesy of oil-based fertilizers and oil-powered farm vehicles.


RE: Baffled
By fic2 on 2/16/2010 8:53:08 PM , Rating: 2
You truly misunderstand the ecofreaks - they don't want to live in the wilderness, they want everyone else to.

Like Al Gore flying around in his private jet telling everyone else they should use energy efficient everything. But, it's ok if he uses a private jet because he buys carbon "offsets".

BTW, carbon offsets is like a being able to murder someone because, you know I have a people offset by having a kid.


RE: Baffled
By nafhan on 2/17/2010 10:47:02 AM , Rating: 2
The funny thing about that is that it's counterproductive to their own goals. Environmentalism is a luxury for most people. If you're doing well financially, it's not a big deal to spend extra time recycling or to donate some money to save a penguin. However if you just lost your job, getting food on the table comes first, and eff everything else. Look at Bangledesh or most of Africa or the small farmers in the Brazilian rain forest. Are those people worried about the environment? Screw up the economy enough, and the environment will suffer.


Finally... but with a caveat
By bupkus on 2/16/2010 3:16:15 PM , Rating: 5
I don't think I could list all the geopolitical benefits in our building nuclear generators.
1. takes money out of Saudi hands so less go to terrorists,
2. asserts our global stature in a lagging technology,
3. reducing dependence on foreign oil and their hatred of US.
4. U.S. has abundance of uranium so money stays here,
5. Less foreign debt (see 4)
The list goes on I'm sure, so feel free to ad.

Caveat? What to do with the waste.
I figure China will simply embed their nuclear waste into plastics used to make children's toys and sell them to the U.S.




RE: Finally... but with a caveat
By XZerg on 2/16/2010 4:04:15 PM , Rating: 2
You have no idea how much Oil that US has that it does not want to tap into yet...


RE: Finally... but with a caveat
By Mint on 3/4/2010 8:56:39 AM , Rating: 2
Bull. If there was cheap oil that the US could tap into, it would have done so ages ago.

Higher cost oil production is too risky now. We have PHEV marching forward to displace oil consumption. I used to be against the absurd, subsidized, corn-based ethanol industry, but now we have companies predicting $1/gallon cellulosic ethanol in a few years and economic algal ethanol in a few more. Oil price is too prone to fluctuation because demand is inelastic and OPEC has very low production cost. Just imagine if we started drilling for new oil when it was >$150/bbl, thinking that it would stay above $100 for sure.

There are so many conspiracy theories about the amount of cheap oil that the US has, and they're all based on fabricated "facts" that ignore the economic realities of the world.


RE: Finally... but with a caveat
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 2/16/2010 4:15:31 PM , Rating: 3
"I figure China will simply embed their nuclear waste into plastics used to make children's toys and sell them to the U.S."

Toothpaste, for that glowing white smile... We are inspecting their toy too much to get away with hiding nuclear waste in the toy.


By KillerInTheRye on 2/16/2010 4:35:52 PM , Rating: 3
The key to finding a place to dispose of the waste is to sink Billions into Yucca Mountain, cancel it and then build Nuclear Power plants. Way to go Obama - that makes total sense!

On another note:
Please use heavy water reactors.


RE: Finally... but with a caveat
By kattanna on 2/16/2010 4:35:24 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
What to do with the waste


how about we reprocess it and re-use it. you know.. recycle

there is no good reason to simply throw away all that spent fuel, THAT would be a waste.



RE: Finally... but with a caveat
By FITCamaro on 2/16/2010 10:36:44 PM , Rating: 3
You realize that very little power is generated from oil. So nuclear power has nothing to do with reducing dependence on foreign oil.

That said, we need more nuclear power. But these loans also do nothing to solve the myriad of red tape. I don't think financing is the problem. The problem is the 3-4 years or more that it takes to get a plant approved. There's 12 other applications out there right now. If financing was the problem, I don't think energy companies would be trying to build plants.

Also the government has no authority to give these loans to begin with. It might sound great, but that doesn't make it right.


RE: Finally... but with a caveat
By werfu on 2/17/2010 1:03:15 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You realize that very little power is generated from oil. So nuclear power has nothing to do with reducing dependence on foreign oil.


Not much of the power is generated from oil, but much of the cars run on oil. As the cars manufacturers are going electric, you're gonna need an improved power grid and a cleaner electric source. Running all the cars on coal generated electricity is simply moving the pollution from oil to coal.

Nuclear reactors environmental issues are overrated. Today's reactors are much more safer than older ones and much of the wastes can be reprocessed. And what's great with nuclear reactor is it can be built where the power is needed. By localizing the power generation, you reduce transport loss and the grid cost.


RE: Finally... but with a caveat
By Mint on 3/4/2010 9:25:26 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah, but this would happen even without nuclear. Cars go electric and recharge on spare coal generation capacity at night.

That being said, building more nuclear still is important for a bunch of other reasons.


Scott Brown
By wookie1 on 2/16/2010 2:55:44 PM , Rating: 2
The ripple effects of the Massachusetts election are simply amazing. This is a good turnabout on O's position. Now if the Yucca Mountain storage facility that he blocked could be reinstated, we could proceed with more nuclear production in the west.




RE: Scott Brown
By randomly on 2/16/10, Rating: -1
RE: Scott Brown
By porkpie on 2/16/2010 5:27:16 PM , Rating: 4
"Obama had nothing to do with Yucca Mountain"

Utter Nonsense. Yucca Mountain was cancelled at the behest of the DOE, a department firmly in the EXECUTIVE branch of the US government. Right in the memo that cancelled it, the DOE said the Obama Administration was "working on a new strategy for disposal".

In fact, shutting down Yucca Mountain was one of Obama's CAMPAIGN PROMISES:

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/newsarticle.aspx...

" the spent fuel that would go into Yucca mountain needs to cool/decay for about 100 years before being emplaced"

More like 6 months in a holding pond.


RE: Scott Brown
By QuantumPion on 2/16/2010 6:01:54 PM , Rating: 2
Don't mean to pick nits but it's technically 5 years :p

http://frwebgate4.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/TEXTgate....


RE: Scott Brown
By porkpie on 2/16/2010 8:53:02 PM , Rating: 2
You're not picking nits; I should have spoken more clearly. The regulatory limit is 5 years, but on technical grounds alone, moving and storing the fuel after 6 months is practical.


RE: Scott Brown
By corduroygt on 2/17/2010 12:04:33 AM , Rating: 2
I think it's a good thing the Yucca Mountain was cancelled. There is really no need for it with reprocessing. They also passed regulation that regulates radiation levels for ONE MILLION YEARS. What arrogance, what lasts so long that's man made!!!


RE: Scott Brown
By porkpie on 2/16/2010 5:22:35 PM , Rating: 4
No clue why this got rated down, except that the lunatic leftist fringe thinks hiding a fact can make it go away.

No one in their right mind thinks that, had the MA election results not forced Obama to change course, that he'd now be out there today, bucking his party to promote nuclear power.

As far as Yucca Mountain goes, I'd like to see it get finished, but there's really no need for it to be honest. Our current nuke plants are already storing a half-century of waste right on site....it's a very small pile, usually. They can continue to do that for another 200 years if needed, or we can simply build reactor capable of burning that waste as fuel, generating even more power from it.


RE: Scott Brown
By porkpie on 2/16/2010 5:29:00 PM , Rating: 4
From a score of 4 to -1 in under 5 minutes? Hrm, which lunatic leftist is using his multiple accounts again.


RE: Scott Brown
By Mint on 3/4/2010 6:34:42 PM , Rating: 2
I always got a sense that Obama was more pro-nuclear than his party would let him be, because:
-I've seen him mention nuclear in many speeches even before he got elected
-Nuclear is far and away the best way to tackle global warming when anyone with a brain considers the options properly
-Stephen Chu has long been an advocate of more nuclear power

The only conclusion I can come to is that nuclear power was always in Obama's plans. He's just been waiting for the right time to convince his party and his voter base. Slowly but surely the environmental movement (aside from Greenpeace) has been accepting that we need nuclear to replace coal.

Yucca mountain probably crosses the line for what his party and voter base will accept, but it's not a big deal because there's no urgency to move waste away from temporary sites. We all know that many solutions exist, so something will develop. Eventually NIMBY will give way to getting billions in free revenue to simply stick something in the ground in a way that will never hurt anyone, especially in this economy.


Welcome
By omnicronx on 2/16/2010 2:54:02 PM , Rating: 4
to the 21st century USA ;)

Now if only we could find a place to put all these environmentalists that postponed this for so long..




RE: Welcome
By corduroygt on 2/16/2010 2:56:53 PM , Rating: 5
I say send them to Iran, let them protest Iran's nuclear program and see what happens :)


Oh. Mick
By bill4 on 2/17/2010 8:47:52 AM , Rating: 2
You absurdly biased son of a gun.

This article acts as of Obama is some brave force pushing us towards much needed nuclear power against the odds. A nice myth in keeping with Mick's typical hard left stances.

The real truth us Obama has basically banned the only nuclear waste site, alone setting a huge obstacle in the way of nuclear power.

But further Obama was noncommittal at best about nuclear power during the campaign. He's only recently come to support it with few options and the economy crumbling around him due to EPA regulations strangling power production.

Basically global warming nuts like \Mick never offer any real solutions as to where were going to get energy when coal is banned as they wish. They propose a bunch of theoretical crap, short on any details that is proven to not work, like "wind and solar". Which of course, wind and solar are both completely useless, more or less, for any power generation. Or maybe Mick posts about how his latest imaginary quantum computer is going to solve the problem.

So anyway yeah, Buclear is the only real low emmissions energy solution, and Obama had no choice.

The great thing is, the more global warming mythology regulations takes hold, the more the USA economy is destroyed, and the more liberals are guaranteed to be voted out due to a bad economy. Mick is caught in a catch 22 of death.




RE: Oh. Mick
By bill4 on 2/17/2010 8:51:12 AM , Rating: 2
I support ultra strict EPA CO2 regulations :) Will just mean Obama and the Democrat bums are thrown out even more en masse as the economy continues to crumble under EPA CO2 restrictions, as it is now.


RE: Oh. Mick
By Smilin on 2/17/2010 10:37:13 AM , Rating: 2
The only nuclear waste site sits on a fault and has frequent minor earthquakes.

How did you manage to take an article about the Obama administration approving Nuclear power plants and convert it into "Obama it trying to stop nuclear power"?

I'll use your own words on you: "You absurdly biased son of a gun."


The red tape
By bighairycamel on 2/16/2010 2:31:02 PM , Rating: 3
So does this mean the project can no longer be contested?

I'ld like to see them start building rather than spending the next 10 years in court.




RE: The red tape
By xpax on 2/17/2010 9:49:31 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
So does this mean the project can no longer be contested?

Sadly, no. Now THAT would be a great piece of legislation. Eliminate the possibility of the enviro-morons from messing us up any more than they have for the last 20 years.

This is a group of people who rallied against nuclear power and were able to derail the construction of new reactors. Did they have any hard science? No, they had f'in granola. Did they present viable alternatives? No. Instead, we're still relying on coal which is unbelievably bad for the environment they claimed they were trying to protect.

It's time that everyone stopped listening to these uninformed cranks and get on with the business of producing energy and, possibly, saving the planet.


Proofreading is a valuable skill
By NesuD on 2/16/10, Rating: 0
By barrychuck on 2/16/2010 3:14:33 PM , Rating: 5
Jesus loves you.

The rest of us think you're an A$$HAT!


In order to get around Cap and Trade
By mkruer on 2/16/2010 2:51:53 PM , Rating: 3
All future Nuclear reactors will be build in Iran




Nice, however.....
By Freezebyte on 2/16/2010 4:16:45 PM , Rating: 2
We can still keep adding wind turbines where appropriate and help reduce the overload on our current and future power plants.




This is a Poem about Jason Mick
By scrapsma54 on 2/17/2010 10:21:38 AM , Rating: 2
Jason, Oh Jason.
Is there a problem with your blog?
It seems the their has been a failure to log.
there is a dilema with the atmosphere
the Givers and the takers are keeping you down.
But don't you fret, You got dailytech's frown.
The polar bears and tigers love you death
lets hope they don't like your breath.




No Radioactive Wastes
By rbrtw on 2/19/2010 5:51:28 AM , Rating: 2
Radioactive wastes can be very dangerous, and there are no safeguards to prevent nuclear proliferation. I think the safest and cleanest way to solve the global warming problem is aneutronic energy, it can produce huge quantities of electricity without neutron emissions.
http://www.crossfirefusor.com/nuclear-fusion-react...




Applause
By eddieroolz on 2/16/2010 5:25:37 PM , Rating: 2
If there's one thing I can applaud Obama for - it would be this. Good for him!




RE: Applause
By xxsk8er101xx on 2/16/10, Rating: -1
Downsides of nuclear
By Andy35W on 2/17/10, Rating: 0
ummm water vapor?
By xxsk8er101xx on 2/16/10, Rating: -1
RE: ummm water vapor?
By Freezebyte on 2/16/2010 4:24:45 PM , Rating: 2
Nuclear power doesn't "CREATE" water dumbass, it simply uses local water resources like a river, pumps and channels it down the cooling towers and then back into the river or lake system.


RE: ummm water vapor?
By Entropy42 on 2/16/2010 4:38:23 PM , Rating: 2
He didn't say it created water, he said it created water *vapor*.


RE: ummm water vapor?
By porkpie on 2/16/2010 4:45:55 PM , Rating: 2
They don't do that either. The amount of water vapour in the air is a function of relative humidity, determined by temperature.

If a nuclear reactor or your Mom's teapot boils some additional water, the steam just condenses right back out. It doesn't permanently raise the amount of vapour in the air.


RE: ummm water vapor?
By lightfoot on 2/16/10, Rating: 0
RE: ummm water vapor?
By blowfish on 2/16/10, Rating: 0
RE: ummm water vapor?
By Reclaimer77 on 2/16/2010 6:13:31 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
At least Obama doesn't say "nucular" like the previous idiot.


No but he does say corpsman by pronouncing the P lol


RE: ummm water vapor?
By lightfoot on 2/16/2010 6:53:50 PM , Rating: 2
But even a well-spoken idiot is still an idiot.


RE: ummm water vapor?
By porkpie on 2/16/2010 8:59:10 PM , Rating: 4
"At least Obama doesn't say "nucular" like the previous idiot. "

Oh god, not this nonsense again. Learn a little, please.

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.

By the way, the US President refered to above who used the "nucular" pronunciation wasn't Bush, but President Carter...who himself was a nuclear engineer of sorts.


RE: ummm water vapor?
By porkpie on 2/16/2010 8:55:44 PM , Rating: 4
"By that same logic, burning fossel fuels also does not permanently raise the amount of CO2 in the air"

Please try to think clearly. Atmospheric CO2 has a lifespan of approximately 100 years (according to the IPCC; other people rate it somewhat lower). Water vapour artificially added from boiling water has a lifespan of anywhere from a few minutes to a few days.


RE: ummm water vapor?
By lightfoot on 2/17/2010 1:55:15 AM , Rating: 1
I am thinking clearly. Even you admit that the only difference between the Carbon cycle and the Water cycle in the atmosphere is time. Just because carbon can remain in solution for longer periods of time is irrelevant.

I also don't consider either to be particularly bad, all life on this planet relies on an abundance of both, and neither is a "pollutant."


RE: ummm water vapor?
By porkpie on 2/17/2010 12:19:04 PM , Rating: 2
You are in no way, shape, or form "thinking clearly".

Time is not "the only difference". It's the one crucial factor. Something that stays in the atmosphere a day or two is precipitating out far too fast for us to even change the concentration by any measurable amount.

Do the math. There is already 50X as much water vapor in the air as CO2. Water vapor condenses out some 12,000 times faster than CO2. That means we would have to be generating water vapor at nearly one MILLION times as much to even begin increasing water vapor levels at a measureable rate. We could build 100,000 nuclear reactors and still not come close to that.

But wait! It gets even worse. Unlike CO2, the higher you raise humidity levels, the faster water condenses out. So even if we did begin to approach that point, all we'd do is slightly increase precipitation levels -- thereby getting us right back where we started.


RE: ummm water vapor?
By lightfoot on 2/17/2010 3:23:01 PM , Rating: 2
You clearly have an odd definition of "permanent." Adding CO2 to the atmosphere is NOT in any way a permanent increase. It will be filtered out, and at higher concentrations it will be filtered out at a faster rate (and will require less energy.) If the CO2 concentration were high enough it would precipitate out of the atmosphere just like water (it is by definition a heavier than air gas.) The only difference is that when it did we might asphyxiate instead of drown.

You have only reinforced my original point - that adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere is not permanent. It is just like adding water vapor, only on a vastly smaller scale and an increased time horizon.

Before you continue arguing you may want to look up the term "permanent." Neither carbon dioxide nor water vapor emissions have a permanent impact on the global atmosphere. Yes, the effects of massive carbon dioxide emissions may be detectable for centuries but that hardly constitutes a permanent change.

The atmosphere can be saturated by any gas, including both water vapor and carbon dioxide.


RE: ummm water vapor?
By porkpie on 2/17/2010 4:51:27 PM , Rating: 2
"You clearly have an odd definition of "permanent."

God, I'm truly surprised you still don't get it. The issue isn't over permanence...NOTHING is truly permanent in nature. Nothing. The issue is whether or not its persistent enough to allow us to impact concentration levels.

CO2 is persistent enough to potentially allow anthropogenic effect (on its level at least...whether or not it affects climate is an entirely different issue). Water vapor is NOT. Not even if we built a 10,000 or even 100,000 nuclear reactors.

And btw, CO2 will *not* precipitate out of the atmosphere at any concentration level. Take a look at Venus, where its atmosphere is almost entirely CO2. Water condenses out because temperature is substantially below its boiling point. But the ONLY place CO2 will precipitate from is the inner depths on Antarctica, and then only when the temperature gets to be about -70 below.


RE: ummm water vapor?
By Reclaimer77 on 2/17/2010 6:42:53 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
CO2 will *not* precipitate out of the atmosphere at any concentration level. Take a look at Venus, where its atmosphere is almost entirely CO2.


There also isn't any TREES or grass or plant life either...

Comparing Earth to Venus is like mixing water and oil.


RE: ummm water vapor?
By porkpie on 2/17/2010 8:57:19 PM , Rating: 2
Plant life removes CO2 through carbon fixation, not precipitation.

I realize what you were trying to state...most people don't realize that the earth's carbon cycle removes many times more CO2 from the air each year than we produce from burning fossil fuels, but that's a different issue entirely.


RE: ummm water vapor?
By xxsk8er101xx on 2/16/2010 7:04:12 PM , Rating: 2
What? Water vapor is a gas and makes up 99% of the atmosphere. Water vapor is a green house gas. Our atmosphere is mostly green house gases. It is also the only thing keeping our planet warm. The gas just doesn't magically turn to rain and go away. It takes a special process.

Water is used to cool the nuclear rods where water vapor escapes thru those huge pillars. That gas you see escaping from those pillars is water vapor. Nuclear power plants require large amounts of water to cool the rods.

http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear_power/nuclear_power_...

All you're doing is swapping pollution no matter what you do. Hybrid cars where you go from CO2 to O3 - both of which are green house gases. O3 is a lot more toxic than CO2 and can cause many illnesses including respiratory problems.

http://www.rabies.ncdhhs.gov/epi/oee/ozone/symptom...

Nuclear power vs coal burning again swapping pollution. You going from CO2 where the science is not settled to waste with a half life of what 10k years and increase water vapor. However plants and the ocean absorbs CO2. Plants exhale oxygen.

No matter what we do we produce waste and pollution. The only solution is mass extinction of life.

The solution to me is biological not technology which the planet has enough life to absorb all that CO2.

If you care about the planet that much you should be planting plants. Not swapping pollution which we don't know what the long term effects are.


RE: ummm water vapor?
By xxsk8er101xx on 2/16/2010 7:24:58 PM , Rating: 2
Well ozone may not be an issue but the waste from batteries is. Still swapping pollution.


RE: ummm water vapor?
By porkpie on 2/16/2010 9:34:10 PM , Rating: 5
"Water vapor is a gas and makes up 99% of the atmosphere"

Lol, what? Water vapor makes up about ONE percent of the atmosphere, not 99%.

"The gas just doesn't magically turn to rain and go away. It takes a special process"

What 'special process' do you think it takes for water to condense into rain? Magic fairy dust, perhaps?

"Nuclear power vs coal burning again swapping pollution"

News flash. Anything and everything mankind does generates pollution. Nuclear power is simply the cleanest form of energy we have. By far.


"What would I do? I'd shut it down and give the money back to the shareholders." -- Michael Dell, after being asked what to do with Apple Computer in 1997














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