Nuclear Power and Climate Change

Environment • Views: 2,489

Associated Press writer H. Josef Hebert has an interesting piece about the importance of nuclear power in the debate over global warming, not just as a technical means to generate power without CO2 emissions, but as a political bargaining chip.

The industry’s long-standing campaign to rebrand itself as green is gaining footing as part of the effort to curtail greenhouse gases.

Nuclear power still faces daunting challenges, including the fate of highly radioactive reactor waste. Reactors remain a tempting target for terrorists, requiring ever vigilant security measures.

But 104 power reactors in 31 states provide one-fifth of the nation’s electricity. They also are producing 70 percent of essentially carbon-free power and are devoid of greenhouse gas emissions.

It’s something the nuclear industry has hammered away at in advertising and in lobbying on Capitol Hill for nearly a decade. Only recently, however, has the message begun to resonate among both industry supporters and skeptics.

Jump to bottom

269 comments
1 Bagua  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 3:38:25pm

Great, let's talk about sensible solutions which a win for all sides!

2 Walter L. Newton  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 3:38:37pm

And this is what we are up against...

Nuclear Power is the Problem, Not a Solution

There is a huge propaganda push by the nuclear industry to justify nuclear power as a panacea for the reduction of global-warming gases.

[Link: www.commondreams.org...]

3 Sharmuta  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 3:38:39pm
Democratic sponsors of the climate bill are far short of the 60 votes needed to overcome a GOP filibuster. They hope a compromises could bring along uncommitted centrist Democrats and some Republicans. Along with talk of opening more waters to oil drilling, support for nuclear energy is seen as the carrot that might attract Republicans.

If they have any principles in energy independence, they will support these measures. Otherwise, I will have to assume their rhetoric on EI is as false as their support of fiscal responsibility.

4 Killgore Trout  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 3:38:42pm
The prospects of such a compromise appeared to brighten recently when Sens. John Kerry, D-Mass., the climate bill's principle sponsor, and Graham collaborated on a new bid to build consensus.

"Nuclear power needs to be a core component of electricity generation if we are to meet our emission reduction targets," they wrote. They called for ending "cumbersome regulations that have stalled" new reactors, measures to help utilities secure financing and expanded research to resolve the waste problem.

They outlined a framework that other Republicans might follow. GOP senators such as McCain, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Lamar Alexander of Tennessee and independent Sen. Joe Lieberman of Conn., have shown an interest in climate legislation — if nuclear energy plays a greater part.

Can a Republican vote for it and then survive the rabid RINO hunters?

5 Walter L. Newton  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 3:41:31pm

re: #4 Killgore Trout

Can a Republican vote for it and then survive the rabid RINO hunters?

If the proposal is not encumbered with a lot of other progressive babble and is truly a responsible and affordable bill, with a strong nuclear element, then it would be right up a conservatives alley. Conservatives are not against nuclear energy.

6 Bagua  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 3:42:10pm

re: #1 Bagua

Great, let's talk about sensible solutions which are a win for all sides!

7 freetoken  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 3:43:15pm

It should be noted, again, that the current administration's Sec. of Energy and the Science Advisor are both proponents of expanding nuclear energy as a way of eliminating coal dependence.

Also, Dr. Hansen likewise has written on the need to convert to a new generation of nuclear reactors to displace fossil fuels.

8 Sharmuta  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 3:43:32pm

re: #4 Killgore Trout

Can a Republican vote for it and then survive the rabid RINO hunters?

Probably not. Compromise is not the current strategy- it's all "No".

9 Killgore Trout  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 3:43:36pm

re: #6 Bagua

It's going to be tough. The conservative base is not going to tolerate bipartisanship.

10 Sharmuta  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 3:44:57pm

re: #7 freetoken

It should be noted, again, that the current administration's Sec. of Energy and the Science Advisor are both proponents of expanding nuclear energy as a way of eliminating coal dependence.

Also, Dr. Hansen likewise has written on the need to convert to a new generation of nuclear reactors to displace fossil fuels.

I wonder if we have a work force capable of maintaining these facilities? Are we educating enough kids to handle these jobs?

11 Walter L. Newton  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 3:45:40pm

re: #8 Sharmuta

Probably not. Compromise is not the current strategy- it's all "No".

Then, what do you think can be done to turn this around? Shouldn't the left have the needed votes to get anything passed?

12 Sharmuta  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 3:46:46pm

re: #11 Walter L. Newton

I would tell the RINO hunters to STFD and STFU, but that's just me.

13 bosforus  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 3:47:05pm

Oh, wouldn't you know it? A nucular thread goes up just as I'm about to head home. That's just great!
Anywho, let's go nuclear!

14 ckb  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 3:49:12pm

We should be building nuclear plants by the dozen. Lots of small pebble bed arrays. My backyard is fine.

The waste problem is inconsequential compared to EI. Security is a problem for any energy facility.

I know the waste problem is considered unsolvable by some, but it's just another challenge for us to overcome. I've never seen talk about introducing the waste into a subduction zone, like a deep ocean trench. Facilities like Yucca seem to create so many problems.

15 ckb  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 3:51:12pm

re: #8 Sharmuta

Probably not. Compromise is not the current strategy- it's all "No".

I'm not sure what you mean. The Dems are obstructing nuclear, not the Republicans. Do I have that wrong?

16 redshirt  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 3:51:42pm

This may be a stupid question, but what would happen to the waste if it was put deep into a volcanoes molten magma, if it's even possible?

17 ryannon  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 3:52:20pm

re: #16 redshirt

This may be a stupid question, but what would happen to the waste if it was put deep into a volcanoes molten magma, if it's even possible?

And what about McMuffins?

18 Walter L. Newton  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 3:52:42pm

re: #12 Sharmuta

I would tell the RINO hunters to STFD and STFU, but that's just me.

Well, I would too, but, we shouldn't need them right, I mean the RINO's, or any conservatives, do we.

THe party in power should be able to pass this with no problems, and we will be on our way to energy independence.

19 Walter L. Newton  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 3:53:12pm

re: #16 redshirt

This may be a stupid question, but what would happen to the waste if it was put deep into a volcanoes molten magma, if it's even possible?

Scientology would be born.

20 Bagua  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 3:53:43pm

re: #2 Walter L. Newton

And this is what we are up against...

Nuclear Power is the Problem, Not a Solution

There is a huge propaganda push by the nuclear industry to justify nuclear power as a panacea for the reduction of global-warming gases.

[Link: www.commondreams.org...]

The article you cited was written by "an anti-nuclear campaigner," essentially a propaganda piece warning of propaganda.

21 Neutral President  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 3:54:11pm

re: #12 Sharmuta

I would tell the RINO hunters to STFD and STFU, but that's just me.

If the RINO hunters kill nuclear power expansion just to say no to the Democrats, they need to told a lot more than STFD and STFU... GTFH or GTH probably should be among them just to get started.

22 Walter L. Newton  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 3:54:44pm

re: #15 ckb

I'm not sure what you mean. The Dems are obstructing nuclear, not the Republicans. Do I have that wrong?

Ssshhh... quiet... dont' say that so loud... someone may hear you!

23 Cato the Elder  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 3:56:35pm

I know! Let's reduce carbon emissions by using a technology which creates waste that basically remains poisonous forever and can be used to make weapons of mass destruction!

There's an idea whose time has gone.

24 Walter L. Newton  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 3:56:46pm

re: #20 Bagua

The article you cited was written by "an anti-nuclear campaigner," essentially a propaganda piece warning of propaganda.

I know, but I'm pointing out that this is the kind of mindset that we would be up against in this country, hell, we've been up against it since 1978 (last active nuclear plant in the US).

You think you've seen a lot of push back on health care from the right. Just wait until you see the push pack if any bill try's to introduce nuclear plant options.

25 watching you tiny alien kittens are  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 3:57:14pm

Well it seems as if the ice is starting to break, the last two years has seen new plants being permitted for the first time in decades. Progress Energy is planning for two new nuclear plants here in Florida. Unfortunately it also means that they are getting a hefty rate hike from the public, they need the extra money to fund construction of the plants.

26 Mich-again  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 3:57:47pm

re: #16 redshirt

This may be a stupid question, but what would happen to the waste if it was put deep into a volcanoes molten magma, if it's even possible?

I don't think it would affect the decay of the waste but it would make for more interesting volcanic eruptions.

27 funky chicken  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 3:57:57pm

re: #3 Sharmuta

If they have any principles in energy independence, they will support these measures. Otherwise, I will have to assume their rhetoric on EI is as false as their support of fiscal responsibility.

And their rhetoric on carbon dioxide and global warming.

28 Walter L. Newton  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 3:57:58pm

re: #24 Walter L. Newton

I know, but I'm pointing out that this is the kind of mindset that we would be up against in this country, hell, we've been up against it since 1978 (last active nuclear plant in the US).

You think you've seen a lot of push back on health care from the right. Just wait until you see the push pack if any bill try's to introduce nuclear plant options.

Addendum to my comment above, reference - #23 Cato the Elder for further information from the anti-science team.

29 Cato the Elder  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 3:58:39pm

re: #28 Walter L. Newton

Addendum to my comment above, reference - #23 Cato the Elder for further information from the anti-science team.

What did I say that's non-scientific?

30 Neutral President  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 3:58:52pm

re: #23 Cato the Elder

Or we can stop using 30 year old envirozealot talking points and implement the solutions which are basically already available to address all of those "concerns".

31 Walter L. Newton  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 3:59:48pm

re: #19 Walter L. Newton

Scientology would be born.

Ok, I apologize. That was a really obscure snark, only evident to those who have reach the Operating Thetan Level (level 7). I don't think even Cato has reach that level yet?

32 Mich-again  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 3:59:48pm

re: #23 Cato the Elder

I know! Let's reduce carbon emissions by using a technology which creates waste that basically remains poisonous forever and can be used to make weapons of mass destruction!

There's an idea whose time has gone.

Breeder reactors use nuclear "waste" for fuel. Someday in the future, people will scorn us for burying all that energy as toxic waste.

33 Cato the Elder  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 4:00:33pm

re: #30 ArchangelMichael

Or we can stop using 30 year old envirozealot talking points and implement the solutions which are basically already available to address all of those "concerns".

Of course. Because when we do it, everything is cool. Nothing to be concerned about.

We torture people gently, too.

34 Walter L. Newton  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 4:00:48pm

re: #29 Cato the Elder

What did I say that's non-scientific?

In the sense that science has already address any concerns about waste.

35 funky chicken  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 4:00:57pm

re: #24 Walter L. Newton

I know, but I'm pointing out that this is the kind of mindset that we would be up against in this country, hell, we've been up against it since 1978 (last active nuclear plant in the US).

You think you've seen a lot of push back on health care from the right. Just wait until you see the push pack if any bill try's to introduce nuclear plant options.

But if enough of the public gets educated, and if honest folks who are concerned with carbon emissions get on board in a a big way, the howling luddites won't be able to impede the expansion of nuclear power.

Monsanto still makes plenty of GM seeds, after all. (one example where the leftists have howled for years but haven't stopped production)

36 Cato the Elder  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 4:01:12pm

re: #34 Walter L. Newton

In the sense that science has already address any concerns about waste.

First I've heard of it.

37 Bagua  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 4:01:26pm

re: #24 Walter L. Newton

Oh I see now, you were quoting after you wrote "See what we are up against..."

38 sattv4u2  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 4:01:42pm

re: #30 ArchangelMichael

Or we can stop using 30 year old envirozealot talking points and implement the solutions which are basically already available to address all of those "concerns".

Yeah ,,, All those effecient WIND FARMS and SOLAR PANELS out in the cities and towns providing all that much needed energy to the nation!
//

oh ,, wait ,,, those are being blocked too!!

39 Walter L. Newton  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 4:02:09pm

re: #36 Cato the Elder

First I've heard of it.

See...

re: #32 Mich-again

40 Walter L. Newton  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 4:02:47pm

re: #37 Bagua

Oh I see now, you were quoting after you wrote "See what we are up against..."

Yep...

41 Neutral President  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 4:03:01pm

re: #33 Cato the Elder

Of course. Because when we do it, everything is cool. Nothing to be concerned about.

We torture people gently, too.

42 ryannon  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 4:04:36pm

re: #28 Walter L. Newton

Addendum to my comment above, reference - #23 Cato the Elder for further information from the anti-science team.

For Christ's sake, must you really sink this low?

43 Walter L. Newton  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 4:04:44pm

re: #38 sattv4u2

Yeah ,,, All those effecient WIND FARMS and SOLAR PANELS out in the cities and towns providing all that much needed energy to the nation!
//

oh ,, wait ,,, those are being blocked too!!

I need to clip and paste my wind/solar technology rant and just report it over and over like Ludwigs does.

Solar/wind has possibilities, but it's a far cry from being a sustainable renewable industry yet.

44 Cato the Elder  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 4:05:47pm

re: #39 Walter L. Newton

See...

re: #32 Mich-again

And breeder reactors are exactly what a country like Iran needs to produce all the stuff required for any god's quantity of weapons.

Let's spread that technology around the world!!1!

45 Mich-again  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 4:06:28pm

re: #43 Walter L. Newton

Solar/wind has possibilities, but it's a far cry from being a sustainable renewable industry yet.

It works fine if you want some electricity at the cabin in the middle of nowhere.

46 Walter L. Newton  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 4:06:30pm

re: #42 ryannon

For Christ's sake, must you really sink this low?

Hey, Cato and I are the Kings of Curmudgeon's here. we can snipe at each other all we want. Leave us alone :)

47 Walter L. Newton  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 4:07:00pm

re: #45 Mich-again

It works fine if you want some electricity at the cabin in the middle of nowhere.

That's the ticket.

48 Taqyia2Me  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 4:07:36pm

re: #4 Killgore Trout

Can a Republican vote for it and then survive the rabid RINO hunters?

How about a bill with ONLY the nuclear expansion component? If they democrats were serious, this would have already happened, and they would have had major bi=partisan support.

49 Walter L. Newton  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 4:08:23pm

re: #44 Cato the Elder

And breeder reactors are exactly what a country like Iran needs to produce all the stuff required for any god's quantity of weapons.

Let's spread that technology around the world!!1!

Honestly, they can get what they want and we have nothing to do with it... haven't you noticed?

50 Bagua  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 4:08:41pm

re: #33 Cato the Elder

Of course. Because when we do it, everything is cool. Nothing to be concerned about.

We torture people gently, too.

Not torture, interrogation, but you knew that.

But you are correct that this must not be spread around the world.

51 ryannon  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 4:09:07pm

re: #50 Bagua

Not torture, interrogation, but you knew that.

But you are correct that this must not be spread around the world.

Way too late.

52 Mich-again  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 4:09:22pm

re: #44 Cato the Elder

And breeder reactors are exactly what a country like Iran needs to produce all the stuff required for any god's quantity of weapons.

Let's spread that technology around the world!!1!

I believe that breeders make that process more difficult than traditional reactors.

53 Cato the Elder  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 4:11:36pm

re: #52 Mich-again

I believe that breeders make that process more difficult than traditional reactors.

That's precisely wrong.

Wiki: "A breeder reactor is a nuclear reactor that generates new fissile or fissionable material at a greater rate than it consumes such material."

Just what you need if you're looking for extra material to make weapons with.

54 Mich-again  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 4:12:22pm

re: #47 Walter L. Newton

That's the ticket.

Not many people know about the potential fire hazard from solar panels on the roof. But the insurance companies know. If anyone is doing a business case to see how many years it will take for the solar panels to pay off, they need to make sure they get a quote for the adder for the home insurance. It might cancel out the savings from the free electricity.

55 ryannon  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 4:12:30pm

re: #53 Cato the Elder

That's precisely wrong.

Wiki: "A breeder reactor is a nuclear reactor that generates new fissile or fissionable material at a greater rate than it consumes such material."

Just what you need if you're looking for extra material to make weapons with.

Works for me.

56 Mich-again  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 4:15:08pm

re: #53 Cato the Elder

Just because its fissionable doesn't make it weapons grade.

57 Killgore Trout  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 4:15:33pm

re: #48 Taqyia2Me

How about a bill with ONLY the nuclear expansion component? If they democrats were serious, this would have already happened, and they would have had major bi=partisan support.

That's not the way it works. The only incentive to put it into a bill would be to get Republican votes for Cap and Trade. If Republicans can't/won't vote for it there's no incentive for Dems to put it in the bill. You can't expect the Dems to pander to the Republicans because they don't have to.

58 Neutral President  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 4:15:41pm

There is no such thing as a magic bullet zero-trouble source of energy. As soon as people get that through their heads and stop all the handwringing about all the "what ifs" we can get to proper cost/benefit analysis of the alternative options. I believe some form of nuclear power that is available today blows away any other option that is available today even with all of the "cons" associated with it.

59 Cato the Elder  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 4:15:57pm

re: #56 Mich-again

Just because its fissionable doesn't make it weapons grade.

Duh.

It's the first step in the process.

60 Walter L. Newton  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 4:16:36pm

re: #54 Mich-again

Not many people know about the potential fire hazard from solar panels on the roof. But the insurance companies know. If anyone is doing a business case to see how many years it will take for the solar panels to pay off, they need to make sure they get a quote for the adder for the home insurance. It might cancel out the savings from the free electricity.

And you've heard my rant about solar/wind etc. I supported research in that industry for 13 years at The National Renewable Energy Lab, and it will be a viable alternative some day, but it is far from sustainable right now.

And as long as we have politicians that are truly interested in renewable research, and not just interested in paying off their big money interests, the Lab should continue to receive the funding needed to continue the excellent research that they do.

But that in itself is always debatable, since both left and right administrations have cut the Lab's budgets off and on during the last 35 years.

That's who I got laid off in 2004, Bush cut our budget.

61 Walter L. Newton  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 4:17:21pm

re: #57 Killgore Trout

That's not the way it works. The only incentive to put it into a bill would be to get Republican votes for Cap and Trade. If Republicans can't/won't vote for it there's no incentive for Dems to put it in the bill. You can't expect the Dems to pander to the Republicans because they don't have to.

No, I would expect Dem's to do what's right. But I must be dreaming.

62 Taqyia2Me  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 4:18:22pm

re: #57 Killgore Trout

That's not the way it works. The only incentive to put it into a bill would be to get Republican votes for Cap and Trade. If Republicans can't/won't vote for it there's no incentive for Dems to put it in the bill. You can't expect the Dems to pander to the Republicans because they don't have to.

To me, this is a leadership moment. Real leadership would have done this LONG ago, maybe they'd find themselves today still in majority status if they had done this way back when. Democrats, in turn, do NOT deserve leadership status without doing this, imho.

63 Mich-again  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 4:19:06pm

re: #59 Cato the Elder

Duh.

It's the first step in the process.

But if bomb-making material is the goal they wouldn't need a breeder. My point in bringing that up is because your original point was that nuclear energy is not worth pursuing because it creates nuclear waste. Then you move to yeah well breeder reactors are bad because the Iranians can use them to make a bomb. Goalpost on casters alert.

64 Walter L. Newton  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 4:19:59pm

re: #63 Mich-again

[snip]

Goalpost on casters alert.

LO really L.

65 PAUL_MACDONALD  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 4:20:05pm

In my various forays into this debate, the issue of Climate Change has little or nothing to do with viable solutions to GHG emissions.

The only thing environmentalists hate more than oil is nuclear. Nuclear power fulfills their requirements of low to no emissions. It provides a 24/7 source of energy and is cheap like borscht.

They will, without fail, call on people to use wind and solar. Not hydro, though. Just wind and solar. Absolutely no idea how much energy is required to manufacture turbines and solar panels. Absolutely no idea what type of harmful byproducts come about from said manufacture. All they know is that wind and sun are natural, ergo power produced by said sources is natural.

Oh, you can spend hours trying to explain the physics of the thing, but it doesn't matter. You can tell them that, bar none, nuclear power has the least impact on the environment. I have often compared these debates to debating with any other zealot.

In the end, is pointless. The bridge to viable wind and solar power will have to be nuclear, period. I don't think viable wind and solar will be around in my lifetime.

66 Mich-again  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 4:22:12pm

re: #65 PAUL_MACDONALD

Absolutely no idea what type of harmful byproducts come about from said manufacture.

Windmill blades are filled with 2-part isocyanate structural foam for rigidity.

67 MisterCookie  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 4:22:58pm

I'd rather have nuclear waste, which can be more easily contained, than CO2 and pollutants being spat into the air indiscriminately, where nothing can be done about it once it is released. At least with nuclear waste, it will be a localized issue if any escapes containment.

68 Walter L. Newton  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 4:23:05pm

re: #57 Killgore Trout

That's not the way it works. The only incentive to put it into a bill would be to get Republican votes for Cap and Trade. If Republicans can't/won't vote for it there's no incentive for Dems to put it in the bill. You can't expect the Dems to pander to the Republicans because they don't have to.

I hope you are just talking out of the top of your head, and not really talking for the Dem's, because if you are, if you are actually repeating something you know, a position you know, then you are saying that the Dem's don't really give two shits about the energy future of the country, but only winning points.

Sounds like you are describing politicians that are as worthless as the stupid far right.

Good put down of the Dem's, Killgore.

69 Mich-again  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 4:24:03pm

re: #67 MisterCookie

I'd rather have nuclear waste, which can be more easily contained, than CO2 and pollutants being spat into the air indiscriminately, where nothing can be done about it once it is released. At least with nuclear waste, it will be a localized issue if any escapes containment.

NIMBY! syndrome. Thats the problem.

70 Randall Gross  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 4:24:48pm

re: #65 PAUL_MACDONALD

In my various forays into this debate, the issue of Climate Change has little or nothing to do with viable solutions to GHG emissions.

The only thing environmentalists hate more than oil is nuclear. Nuclear power fulfills their requirements of low to no emissions. It provides a 24/7 source of energy and is cheap like borscht.

They will, without fail, call on people to use wind and solar. Not hydro, though. Just wind and solar. Absolutely no idea how much energy is required to manufacture turbines and solar panels. Absolutely no idea what type of harmful byproducts come about from said manufacture. All they know is that wind and sun are natural, ergo power produced by said sources is natural.

Oh, you can spend hours trying to explain the physics of the thing, but it doesn't matter. You can tell them that, bar none, nuclear power has the least impact on the environment. I have often compared these debates to debating with any other zealot.

In the end, is pointless. The bridge to viable wind and solar power will have to be nuclear, period. I don't think viable wind and solar will be around in my lifetime.

The Left's orginal anti-nuclear chants were "Split Wood not Atoms" and " The only physics I know is Ex-Lax". Then they went to the proliferation threat when it was demonstrated to them how harmful burning hydrocarbons truly is. The true environmentalists have since wised up, this is why you see Stewart Brand and Patrick Moore now supporting nuclear energy.

71 Walter L. Newton  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 4:24:59pm

re: #69 Mich-again

NIMBY! syndrome. Thats the problem.

Part of it. And you get NIMBY on wind, solar and other renewable resources.

72 Mich-again  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 4:25:48pm

re: #71 Walter L. Newton

Part of it. And you get NIMBY on wind, solar and other renewable resources.

Definitely. Wind turbines are for thee, not for me.

73 Taqyia2Me  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 4:26:48pm

re: #72 Mich-again

Definitely. Wind turbines are for thee, not for me.

And they're tough on bats, I've heard.

74 Bagua  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 4:28:52pm

re: #65 PAUL_MACDONALD

With one quibble, borscht is definitely much cheaper than nuclear fuel. Let's be accurate.

75 solomonpanting  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 4:28:59pm

re: #3 Sharmuta

Democratic sponsors of the climate bill are far short of the 60 votes needed to overcome a GOP filibuster. They hope a compromises could bring along uncommitted centrist Democrats and some Republicans. Along with talk of opening more waters to oil drilling, support for nuclear energy is seen as the carrot that might attract Republicans.

If they have any principles in energy independence, they will support these measures. Otherwise, I will have to assume their rhetoric on EI is as false as their support of fiscal responsibility.

re: #57 Killgore Trout

re: #48 Taqyia2Me

How about a bill with ONLY the nuclear expansion component? If they democrats were serious, this would have already happened, and they would have had major bi=partisan support.

That's not the way it works. The only incentive to put it into a bill would be to get Republican votes for Cap and Trade. If Republicans can't/won't vote for it there's no incentive for Dems to put it in the bill. You can't expect the Dems to pander to the Republicans because they don't have to.

Thank goodness for Democrat's sake that they have no EI principles (or fiscal ones either, but I digress) and therfore don't need to be held to a similar standard. No one expects them to. Sort of a corollary to the "soft bigotry of low expactations" as expressed in other fields.

76 ryannon  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 4:29:05pm

re: #65 PAUL_MACDONALD

Snip

The only thing environmentalists hate more than oil is nuclear. Nuclear power fulfills their requirements of low to no emissions. It provides a 24/7 source of energy and is cheap like borscht.

Snip

Not everyone would agree with that:

[Link: climateprogress.org...]

77 Neutral President  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 4:29:17pm

re: #71 Walter L. Newton

Part of it. And you get NIMBY on wind, solar and other renewable resources.

Often it's more than just NIMBY, it's BANANA:

Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything.

78 Walter L. Newton  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 4:31:18pm

re: #74 Bagua

With one quibble, borscht is definitely much cheaper than nuclear fuel. Let's be accurate.

And tastes better. I had some Russian borsch a few weeks ago, with Russian sour cream... hmm... hmmm... good.

79 A Man for all Seasons  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 4:31:19pm

1 minute till the start of the NBA season!
Really It's better than waiting for Santa at Christmas time...
The Hoopster is Jacked!
Be well Lizards..See ya at half time

80 Mich-again  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 4:32:03pm

re: #73 Taqyia2Me

And they're tough on bats, I've heard.

I think they should put streamers on the turbine blades like Pee Wee had on his handlebars so the birds will see them and avoid them. I don't think that will help with the bats though. /

81 Racer X  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 4:32:25pm

re: #79 HoosierHoops

1 minute till the start of the NBA season!
Really It's better than waiting for Santa at Christmas time...
The Hoopster is Jacked!
Be well Lizards..See ya at half time

LAAAKKKEEERRRSSS!! !! !! !!

BABY!

82 Walter L. Newton  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 4:32:59pm

re: #75 solomonpanting

Thank goodness for Democrat's sake that they have no EI principles (or fiscal ones either, but I digress) and therfore don't need to be held to a similar standard. No one expects them to. Sort of a corollary to the "soft bigotry of low expactations" as expressed in other fields.

I know, that was a great defense of the Dem's. They don't have to do anything if they don't want just to fuck over the Republicans. Great plan they have.

83 PAUL_MACDONALD  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 4:35:29pm

re: #76 ryannon

The price to produce energy will spike regardless of methods used. It will still be cheaper, in the long run, to go nuclear.

The analysis was not, shall we say, compelling.

84 Decatur Deb  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 4:35:31pm

re: #32 Mich-again

Breeder reactors use nuclear "waste" for fuel. Someday in the future, people will scorn us for burying all that energy as toxic waste.

Waste is just stuff we don't know how to use yet, that's in a place for which
we have other plans.

85 Decatur Deb  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 4:36:33pm

re: #80 Mich-again

I think they should put streamers on the turbine blades like Pee Wee had on his handlebars so the birds will see them and avoid them. I don't think that will help with the bats though. /

Turbines just breed better bats.

86 CyanSnowHawk  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 4:37:03pm

re: #16 redshirt

This may be a stupid question, but what would happen to the waste if it was put deep into a volcanoes molten magma, if it's even possible?

A volcano is an exceptionally bad place to put it. They tend to spew magna out, rather than take it in. Now placing the waste in a subduction zone might be a good way to deal with it, as long as you can assure yourself that once the waste is subducted into the planets core that it would stay there for at least 5 half-lives for itself and any decay products that it may generate.

To really deal with the waste problem, you must start by reprocessing the used fuel. Nuclear fuels need a minimum concentration to be viable, when you use the fuel, the concentration falls as the atoms split into decay products, some of which retard further fission reactions by absorbing the neutrons that cause fissions in the fuel atoms. When the fuel concentration falls far enough, and the concentration of decay products increases enough, the fuel is no longer viable and you need to refuel. There are plenty of remaining fuel atoms in used fuel, reprocessing extracts those, separates out the decay products, and brings the fuel concentration back up to usable levels. One of the reasons that fuel reprocessing is not done now is because it can be used to extract isotopes that can be used in weapons production. This reprocessing can greatly reduce the amount of long half-life waste that needs to be stored.

That is just one of the steps that can be done to deal with the waste problem.

87 Bagua  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 4:41:14pm

One of the funniest spins on the “Global warming has stopped” thread.

Turnip said: We do not have good data on temperature fluctuations over the past trillions of years

When it was pointed out to him: “the universe is only about 13 billion years old. The Earth itself is at most, 4.5 billion years old.”

Turnip made this brilliant riposte.

So you think that a climate system only exists within one universe, and that other universes (preceeding[sic], or simultaneous) are irrelevant? Or is it that you think that this is the only universe that will ever exist?

88 ryannon  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 4:43:24pm

re: #83 PAUL_MACDONALD

The price to produce energy will spike regardless of methods used. It will still be cheaper, in the long run, to go nuclear.

The analysis was not, shall we say, compelling.

You managed to read the 36+page .pdf report in under ten minutes?

Now, that's compelling!

[Link: climateprogress.org...]

By the way, what exactly is not compelling (I presume you mean conclusive) in it?

89 wrenchwench  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 4:43:58pm

One of my favorite camping trips was to San Onofre State Beach. Ai kan has in mah bakyard?

90 jdog29  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 4:46:52pm

OT:
Since Joe Leiberman has agreed to join the Republicans to Filibuster the Healthcare bill as it is currently written, will the headline read "BIPARTISAN FILIBUSTER OF HEALTHCARE"
///

91 RogueOne  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 4:47:35pm

re: #90 jdog29
Somehow I doubt it, just a gut feeling of course.
//

92 jdog29  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 4:49:43pm

re: #91 RogueOne

Somehow I doubt it, just a gut feeling of course.
//

I remember all the huh bub about the bill being bipartisan after one Republican, Olympia Snowe, voted for it IN COMMITTEE.

93 Randall Gross  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 4:49:45pm

Since Nuclear is being pushed by Lindsay Graham and John McCain, I fully expect the usual cry of RINO! to go up from the lunatic fringe right.

94 Nervous Norvous  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 4:51:16pm

re: #87 Bagua

In my alternate universe, people who write computer viruses are subject to the death penalty.

95 Sharmuta  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 4:51:51pm

re: #75 solomonpanting

Thank goodness for Democrat's sake that they have no EI principles (or fiscal ones either, but I digress) and therfore don't need to be held to a similar standard. No one expects them to. Sort of a corollary to the "soft bigotry of low expactations" as expressed in other fields.

No- I don't have to hold them to that standard because they don't claim to hold those as principles. However- the other party does claim to be interested in energy independence and fiscal responsibility, and I for one will be damned if I stop holding them to the standards they claim to hold, even if everyone else does.

96 Nervous Norvous  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 4:51:58pm

re: #94 PT Barnum

Oh and I am Batman

97 sattv4u2  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 4:52:09pm

re: #83 PAUL_MACDONALD

The price to produce energy will spike regardless of methods used. It will still be cheaper, in the long run, to go nuclear.

The analysis was not, shall we say, compelling.

I see. So if tomorrow Shell finds a 50 year supply of oil off the coast of Texas, and the gov't okays the drilling immediatly (national security issue) and Shell has that in the pipeline in a year, gas prices will go UP!?!?!?!

98 Political Atheist  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 4:52:14pm

re: #86 CyanSnowHawk

As I recall the Japanese use weapons grade fuel for some of their power plants. In any case one way to de-weaponise the material is put it in fuel rod form. That would assuage the IAEA and the world in general. Re-processing IS the waste solution. Why let weapons use stop the whole concept? Yucca should be a storgae facility pending re processing. that takes care of the 10,000 year problem.

99 Four More Tears  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 4:52:31pm

re: #90 jdog29

The Republican and Connecticut for Lieberman parties have reached a consensus.

100 Nervous Norvous  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 4:53:10pm

re: #95 Sharmuta

Hypocrisy is okay if you're a family values politician.

101 watching you tiny alien kittens are  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 4:54:53pm

How about this for a pretty slick self-contained breeder reactor. One that does not make any weapons grade plutonium as a by-product either.

[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]

I saw one that is being developed by Mitsubishi in Japan too, but can't find the link right now. Pretty cool idea, an intrinsicly safe, self contained nuclear generating plant sized for industrial applications.

Way cool!

102 BARACK THE VOTE  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 4:55:23pm

re: #87 Bagua

One of the funniest spins on the “Global warming has stopped” thread.

Turnip said: We do not have good data on temperature fluctuations over the past trillions of years

When it was pointed out to him: “the universe is only about 13 billion years old. The Earth itself is at most, 4.5 billion years old.”

Turnip made this brilliant riposte.

So you think that a climate system only exists within one universe, and that other universes (preceeding[sic], or simultaneous) are irrelevant? Or is it that you think that this is the only universe that will ever exist?

Favourited. I think that could come in handy lots!

So you think that a climate system health care reform only exists within one universe, and that other universes (preceeding[sic], or simultaneous) are irrelevant? Or is it that you think that this is the only universe that will ever exist?

So you think that a climate system Obama's Kenyan birth certificate only exists within one universe, and that other universes (preceeding[sic], or simultaneous) are irrelevant? Or is it that you think that this is the only universe that will ever exist?

So you think that a climate system [insert topic here] only exists within one universe, and that other universes (preceeding[sic], or simultaneous) are irrelevant? Or is it that you think that this is the only universe that will ever exist?

Beautiful. Hours of entertainment!

103 jdog29  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 4:55:43pm

re: #99 JasonA

The Republican and Connecticut for Lieberman parties have reached a consensus.

The very definition of BI partisan, lol

104 solomonpanting  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 4:56:11pm

re: #95 Sharmuta

No- I don't have to hold them to that standard because they don't claim to hold those as principles. However- the other party does claim to be interested in energy independence and fiscal responsibility, and I for one will be damned if I stop holding them to the standards they claim to hold, even if everyone else does.

As you should. My point is that the Dems are relieved of any similar responsiblities.

105 BARACK THE VOTE  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 4:56:46pm

re: #104 solomonpanting

As you should. My point is that the Dems are relieved of any similar responsiblities.

Rubbish.

106 ryannon  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 4:57:20pm

re: #98 Rightwingconspirator

As I recall the Japanese use weapons grade fuel for some of their power plants. In any case one way to de-weaponise the material is put it in fuel rod form. That would assuage the IAEA and the world in general. Re-processing IS the waste solution. Why let weapons use stop the whole concept? Yucca should be a storgae facility pending re processing. that takes care of the 10,000 year problem.

I've got a problem with the 200,000-year half-life problem. Not to mention the millions-of-years half-life problem.

[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]

107 solomonpanting  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 4:57:56pm

re: #105 iceweasel

Rubbish.

Now there's a recyclable resource.

108 Sharmuta  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 4:57:57pm

re: #104 solomonpanting

As you should. My point is that the Dems are relieved of any similar responsiblities.

That's something their base will have to take up with them. At the rate the RINO hunters are going, there might be enough of us to stage a hostile takeover of the other party. Who knows?

109 CyanSnowHawk  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 4:59:35pm

re: #98 Rightwingconspirator

As I recall the Japanese use weapons grade fuel for some of their power plants. In any case one way to de-weaponise the material is put it in fuel rod form. That would assuage the IAEA and the world in general. Re-processing IS the waste solution. Why let weapons use stop the whole concept? Yucca should be a storgae facility pending re processing. that takes care of the 10,000 year problem.

Reprocessing doesn't take care of the whole problem, just a significant chunk of it. Using the fuel isn't the problem. Reprocessing extracts isotopes that can be used in weapons production and that is what the non-proliferation groups have used to make it illegal. As long as it's locked up in used fuel sitting in some long term storage facility, it can't be used to make weapons. Breeder reactors have the same problem. IIRC breeders use isotopes that can be used in weapons, and make more isotopes that can be used in weapons.

110 Political Atheist  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 5:01:02pm

I'm looking at my footage of a pro nuclear candidate for California Senator. Just cutting it now. I'm working on my footage but here is a link to his campaign site with footage from the San Diego Tea Party

[Link: www.chuckdevore.com...]

111 BARACK THE VOTE  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 5:02:13pm

Semi-OT: Glenn Beck is (predictably) pushing the crazy meme we first saw Monckton pushing (and the Freepers loving):

Beck says "run-up" to the U.N. climate change conference in Copenhagen "could mean the end of U.S. sovereignty"

112 Decatur Deb  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 5:03:25pm

re: #98 Rightwingconspirator

As I recall the Japanese use weapons grade fuel for some of their power plants.

Availability of US and USSR weapons-grade to the power market put a
dent in mining yellowcake after the arms-reduction treaties.

113 A Man for all Seasons  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 5:04:43pm

re: #111 iceweasel

Semi-OT: Glenn Beck is (predictably) pushing the crazy meme we first saw Monckton pushing (and the Freepers loving):

Beck says "run-up" to the U.N. climate change conference in Copenhagen "could mean the end of U.S. sovereignty"

Beck needs to start his own political party.. Let's call it the Clown party..
Back to basketball...Damn..Cavs look good

114 sattv4u2  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 5:05:19pm

re: #111 iceweasel

Semi-OT: Glenn Beck is (predictably) pushing the crazy meme we first saw Monckton pushing (and the Freepers loving):

Beck says "run-up" to the U.N. climate change conference in Copenhagen "could mean the end of U.S. sovereignty"

Because we all know if the UN has ever stood for something it's always been for US sovereignity, especially in the last 20-25 years!

/

115 Walter L. Newton  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 5:05:55pm

re: #111 iceweasel

Semi-OT: Glenn Beck is (predictably) pushing the crazy meme we first saw Monckton pushing (and the Freepers loving):

Beck says "run-up" to the U.N. climate change conference in Copenhagen "could mean the end of U.S. sovereignty"

Wait... I thought that Obama was not even speaking, or going?

116 sattv4u2  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 5:06:03pm

re: #113 HoosierHoops

Beck needs to start his own political party.. Let's call it the Clown party..
Back to basketball...Damn..Cavs look good

1st night emotional burst

Celtics have cut it to 6

117 sattv4u2  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 5:06:52pm

re: #113 HoosierHoops

re: #116 sattv4u2

1st night emotional burst

Celtics have cut it to 6 4

118 soxfan4life  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 5:07:11pm

re: #114 sattv4u2

Because we all know if the UN has ever stood for something it's always been for US sovereignity, especially in the last 20-25 years!

/

That is so last the eight 8 years, now that we have such a wonderfully nuanced President like Barack Hussein Obama American Sovereignty is A-Okay.

119 Cato the Elder  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 5:07:21pm

re: #111 iceweasel

Semi-OT: Glenn Beck is (predictably) pushing the crazy meme we first saw Monckton pushing (and the Freepers loving):

Beck says "run-up" to the U.N. climate change conference in Copenhagen "could mean the end of U.S. sovereignty"

Hell, if anything comes out of København other than CO2 gas, I'll eat a rutabaga raw.

120 jdog29  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 5:07:26pm

re: #116 sattv4u2

1st night emotional burst

Celtics have cut it to 6

The Celtics are going to win it all and everybody will be talking about how they missed out on the 3-peat because of KG's injury last year.

121 Political Atheist  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 5:07:50pm

re: #109 CyanSnowHawk
Caveat-I have plenty of big gaps in my understanding of nuclear chemistry. I thought the waste could be processed under IAEA audit for re use for about any kind of reactor. Even if some is left, surely even low energy isotopes have uses. Medical or something. In any case less is better for long term storage.

Maybe I'm crazy but I have the feeling later generations are going to consume the weapons grade stuff for propulsion & electricity away from earth.

Maybe the US and the other powers need to allow the IAEA full access for disclosure, reductions in arsenals and peaceful uses of the high grade.

122 sattv4u2  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 5:08:05pm

re: #120 jdog29

The Celtics are going to win it all and everybody will be talking about how they missed out on the 3-peat because of KG's injury last year.

SSshhh ,,, long season. ANYBODY can get injured and wreck anyones season

123 sattv4u2  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 5:08:54pm

re: #113 HoosierHoops

2

124 Decatur Deb  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 5:11:36pm

re: #121 Rightwingconspirator

Caveat-I have plenty of big gaps in my understanding of nuclear chemistry. I thought the waste could be processed under IAEA audit for re use for about any kind of reactor. Even if some is left, surely even low energy isotopes have uses. Medical or something. In any case less is better for long term storage.

Maybe I'm crazy but I have the feeling later generations are going to consume the weapons grade stuff for propulsion & electricity away from earth.

Maybe the US and the other powers need to allow the IAEA full access for disclosure, reductions in arsenals and peaceful uses of the high grade.

If I remember, we have already flown spacecraft (SNAP series) with
power supplies based on "waste". With proper storage, we will buy
a few thousand years to get smart on this.

125 Political Atheist  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 5:11:57pm

re: #112 Decatur Deb

I wonder what the US is doing with the sheer metric tons of yellowcake they removed from Iraq. I'm also curious about the warhead pits from weapons that are decommissioned. Fuel for reactors? Or just stored.

126 Mich-again  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 5:12:01pm

re: #119 Cato the Elder

Hell, if anything comes out of København other than CO2 gas, I'll eat a rutabaga raw.

You forgot copious amounts of methane as well.

127 ryannon  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 5:12:39pm

re: #121 Rightwingconspirator

Snip

Maybe I'm crazy but I have the feeling later generations are going to consume the weapons grade stuff for propulsion & electricity away from earth.

Snip


Maybe I'm crazy, but I have the feeling that later generations may be obliged to leave the earth precisely because of our mismanagement of this crap.

128 A Man for all Seasons  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 5:12:44pm

re: #123 sattv4u2

2

I'm a Celts fan.. One little old problem..KG has like 1200 games on those knees..Give it 2 months and he is done...Stats don't lie...
Hope today finds you well...

129 sattv4u2  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 5:12:59pm

re: #126 Mich-again

You forgot copious amounts of methane as well.

Thats from all the raw rutabaga

130 CyanSnowHawk  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 5:13:30pm

re: #121 Rightwingconspirator

Caveat-I have plenty of big gaps in my understanding of nuclear chemistry. I thought the waste could be processed under IAEA audit for re use for about any kind of reactor. Even if some is left, surely even low energy isotopes have uses. Medical or something. In any case less is better for long term storage.

Maybe I'm crazy but I have the feeling later generations are going to consume the weapons grade stuff for propulsion & electricity away from earth.

Maybe the US and the other powers need to allow the IAEA full access for disclosure, reductions in arsenals and peaceful uses of the high grade.

My knowledge of it is pretty general in most cases, but I know some specifics. I was in the Navy Nuclear Propulsion Program, and I've got friends in the industry and follow it, but not too closely.

131 jdog29  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 5:13:36pm

re: #122 sattv4u2

SSshhh ,,, long season. ANYBODY can get injured and wreck anyones season

...yeah and just wait til Rasheed Wallace gets a hold of some of that Nuclear waste and converts into the league leading receiver of Technical Fouls...he'll be the Big Baby till Big Baby gets back.

132 sattv4u2  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 5:13:47pm

re: #128 HoosierHoops

I'm a Celts fan.. One little old problem..KG has like 1200 games on those knees..Give it 2 months and he is done...Stats don't lie...
Hope today finds you well...

They'll be watching his minutes VERY closely

133 BARACK THE VOTE  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 5:14:00pm

re: #115 Walter L. Newton

Wait... I thought that Obama was not even speaking, or going?

There is some kind of crazy wingnut meme that was started by that lunatic Monckton. It's been running through Freak Republic and the Ron Paul forums and other such dens for the deranged.

At [the 2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference in] Copenhagen, this December, weeks away, a treaty will be signed. Your president will sign it. Most of the third world countries will sign it, because they think they’re going to get money out of it. Most of the left-wing regime from the European Union will rubber stamp it. Virtually nobody won’t sign it.

I read that treaty. And what it says is this, that a world government is going to be created. The word “government” actually appears as the first of three purposes of the new entity. The second purpose is the transfer of wealth from the countries of the West to third world countries, in satisfaction of what is called, coyly, “climate debt” – because we’ve been burning CO2 and they haven’t. We’ve been screwing up the climate and they haven’t. And the third purpose of this new entity, this government, is enforcement.

How many of you think that the word “election” or “democracy” or “vote” or “ballot” occurs anywhere in the 200 pages of that treaty? Quite right, it doesn’t appear once. So, at last, the communists who piled out of the Berlin Wall and into the environmental movement, who took over Greenpeace so that my friends who funded it left within a year, because [the communists] captured it – Now the apotheosis as at hand. They are about to impose a communist world government on the world. You have a president who has very strong sympathies with that point of view. He’s going to sign it. He’ll sign anything. He’s a Nobel Peace Prize [winner]; of course he’ll sign it.

This hits all the sweet spots for Beck's audience: the AGW deniers, the people scared of a One World Government, the people who think Obama is a Marxist, the people who think that Obama is the AntiChrist and that creating a One World Government is a necessary stage in the End Times...etc. Not surprising he's pushing it.

134 Racer X  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 5:14:21pm

My team gets their rings tonight!

PPPFFFTTTHHHPPPTTT!

135 Political Atheist  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 5:14:27pm

re: #127 ryannon

We share this glass that is both half empty and half full.

re: #124 Decatur Deb

That's the ticket!

136 soxfan4life  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 5:14:42pm

re: #131 jdog29

...yeah and just wait til Rasheed Wallace gets a hold of some of that Nuclear waste and converts into the league leading receiver of Technical Fouls...he'll be the Big Baby till Big Baby gets back.

That will be about 2 months if they don't trade him away after the broken thumb incident.

137 sattv4u2  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 5:14:54pm

re: #134 Racer X

My team gets their rings tonight!

PPPFFFTTTHHHPPPTTT!

My team wants them back!

138 austin_blue  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 5:15:48pm

re: #112 Decatur Deb

Availability of US and USSR weapons-grade to the power market put a
dent in mining yellowcake after the arms-reduction treaties.

They had to reprocess that nuclear grade fuel to a lower level, kinda like cutting barrel strength scotch to 80-proof. But a LOT more dilution (which is why mining went down to squat).

The terms "fuel grade" and "weapons grade are there for a reason. Incompatible technologies. You can lose control of a fuel grade reaction in a power plant (TMI: bad; Chernobyl: disastrous). You *cannot* control a weapons grade reaction. That's the point, dontchaknow...

139 ryannon  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 5:16:04pm

re: #135 Rightwingconspirator

We share this glass that is both half empty and half full.

Here's looking at you, friend.

By the way, what are we drinking?

And why is it glowing?

Um, you first?

140 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 5:16:07pm

re: #68 Walter L. Newton

if you are actually repeating something you know, a position you know, then you are saying that the Dem's politicians don't really give two shits about the energy future of the country, but only winning points.

FTFY

141 sattv4u2  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 5:16:19pm

re: #136 soxfan4life

That will be about 2 months if they don't trade him away after the broken thumb incident.

Won't happen. He showed enough last year with Garnet that they'll fine/ suspend him then have the vets sit with him 24/7

142 soxfan4life  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 5:16:25pm

re: #134 Racer X

My team gets their rings tonight!

PPPFFFTTTHHHPPPTTT!

Will Kobe let the rest of them share the spotlight, or will his giant ego want all the light on him?

143 Mich-again  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 5:16:25pm

re: #131 jdog29

...yeah and just wait til Rasheed Wallace gets a hold of some of that Nuclear waste and converts into the league leading receiver of Technical Fouls...he'll be the Big Baby till Big Baby gets back.

Doesn't every team need a 7 foot 3 point shooter who occasionally plays defense? The T's are just a bonus feature.

144 Odahi  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 5:17:04pm

Two quick ideas. Don't sell or build any plants in places other than the US- that completely absolves us of the responsibility for weapons proliferation. If we don't sell it or build it for anyone else, it ain't OUR fuel being turned into weapons. Then we take up the issue with other nations who DO sell/build for Iran, Norks, etc. Second- to solve the NIMBY problem- anyone within a 10-mile radius of the new power plant gets half price electricity for the first five years. Betcha that would shake loose some permits.

145 Decatur Deb  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 5:17:17pm

re: #125 Rightwingconspirator

I wonder what the US is doing with the sheer metric tons of yellowcake they removed from Iraq. I'm also curious about the warhead pits from weapons that are decommissioned. Fuel for reactors? Or just stored.

An unhappy Texas A&M prof told me the demiled stuff goes into power
production. (Don't know about the processing.) If the Iraq yellowcake
is the stuff they bought in Africa, I don't think it will be a problem.

//

146 AtadOFF  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 5:18:34pm

re: #58 ArchangelMichael

Pffft, wherever did you get the idea that people are rational?

147 soxfan4life  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 5:19:22pm

re: #144 Odahi

Two quick ideas. Don't sell or build any plants in places other than the US- that completely absolves us of the responsibility for weapons proliferation. If we don't sell it or build it for anyone else, it ain't OUR fuel being turned into weapons. Then we take up the issue with other nations who DO sell/build for Iran, Norks, etc. Second- to solve the NIMBY problem- anyone within a 10-mile radius of the new power plant gets half price electricity for the first five years. Betcha that would shake loose some permits.

The property tax breaks alone should be a good enough incentive, otherwise let them start taking land by Eminent Domain to
put reactors plants on.

148 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 5:19:37pm

re: #131 jdog29

...yeah and just wait til Rasheed Wallace gets a hold of some of that Nuclear waste and converts into the league leading receiver of Technical Fouls...he'll be the Big Baby till Big Baby gets back.

ahahaha are you also a jilted Jailblazers fan? :D

149 Mich-again  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 5:19:40pm

I saw part of an old rerun of I Dream of Genie today. Barbara Eden mentioned "back home in Baghdad." Who knew?

150 ryannon  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 5:20:05pm

re: #147 soxfan4life

The property tax breaks alone should be a good enough incentive, otherwise let them start taking land by Eminent Domain to
put reactors plants on.

In bed.

151 soxfan4life  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 5:20:19pm

re: #149 Mich-again

Upding for Barbra Eden.

152 solomonpanting  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 5:20:57pm

re: #151 soxfan4life

Upding for Barbra Eden.


No Viagra.

153 jdog29  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 5:20:59pm

re: #148 WindUpBird

ahahaha are you also a jilted Jailblazers fan? :D

No, but I was rooting for Pippen to get his 7th ring so he could call up MJ and gloat.

154 Mich-again  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 5:21:32pm

re: #147 soxfan4life

otherwise let them start taking land by Eminent Domain to
put reactors plants on.

I'd hazard a guess the Government already owns more than enough land on plenty of acceptable locations.

155 A Man for all Seasons  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 5:21:52pm

re: #151 soxfan4life

Upding for Barbra Eden.

I met Barbra Eden at a charity event.. That woman is so tiny and short..
I was shocked

156 Sharmuta  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 5:22:09pm

re: #152 solomonpanting

No Viagra.

I would think a genie wouldn't need Viagra...

157 sattv4u2  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 5:22:33pm

re: #155 HoosierHoops

I met Barbra Eden at a charity event.. That woman is so tiny and short..
I was shocked

Why? She had to fit inside a little coke-sized bottle!

158 BARACK THE VOTE  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 5:23:14pm

re: #119 Cato the Elder

Hell, if anything comes out of København other than CO2 gas, I'll eat a rutabaga raw.

Oh Cato, I have some funny Sarah Palin news for you. Not news, exactly, but a funny smackdown of one of her hagiographers.

159 solomonpanting  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 5:23:43pm

re: #156 Sharmuta

I would think a genie wouldn't need Viagra...

The reference was, uh, aimed at soxfan4life, so to speak.

160 Mich-again  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 5:24:22pm

re: #151 soxfan4life

Upding for Barbra Eden.

I haven't seen the show since I was a kid. I never noticed back then how every move she made and every camera angle seemed to accentuate certain things. And the genie costume. nice.

161 sattv4u2  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 5:24:45pm

re: #159 solomonpanting

The reference was, uh, aimed at soxfan4life, so to speak.

HEY ,,, watch where you aim that thing!

163 bosforus  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 5:24:55pm

re: #154 Mich-again

I'd hazard a guess the Government already owns more than enough land on plenty of acceptable locations.

They've around 50% of Utah's land to work with. I'm sure they can find a spot.

164 austin_blue  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 5:25:01pm

re: #144 Odahi

Two quick ideas. Don't sell or build any plants in places other than the US- that completely absolves us of the responsibility for weapons proliferation. If we don't sell it or build it for anyone else, it ain't OUR fuel being turned into weapons. Then we take up the issue with other nations who DO sell/build for Iran, Norks, etc. Second- to solve the NIMBY problem- anyone within a 10-mile radius of the new power plant gets half price electricity for the first five years. Betcha that would shake loose some permits.

I'll disagree. We should be ramping up production and selling those Westinghouse and GE 3G's as fast as we can. Those reactor vessels are made *here*, by American labor. Those are real Green Jobs. Worry about the waste issue later. Get them built now, here and overseas.

So sayeth the Sierra Club life member.

165 bosforus  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 5:25:19pm

re: #163 bosforus

They've around 50% of Utah's land to work with. I'm sure they can find a spot.

They've got around...
PIMF

166 Decatur Deb  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 5:26:11pm

re: #130 CyanSnowHawk

My knowledge of it is pretty general in most cases, but I know some specifics. I was in the Navy Nuclear Propulsion Program, and I've got friends in the industry and follow it, but not too closely.

In an earlier thread, I said the Navy record says they should handle
nuke power at the operating level. I'm pro-nuke in theory, but we
can't have the lowest bidder build and run the things (yeah, you,
NY Edison).

167 Killgore Trout  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 5:26:34pm

re: #162 Killgore Trout

Brain cramps!

168 austin_blue  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 5:27:00pm

re: #154 Mich-again

I'd hazard a guess the Government already owns more than enough land on plenty of acceptable locations.

Water availability. Transmission capacity. Big bottlenecks.

169 bosforus  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 5:27:47pm

re: #154 Mich-again

Check your home state here:
[Link: www.nationalatlas.gov...]

170 Ayeless in Ghazi  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 5:29:08pm

re: #102 iceweasel

Favourited. I think that could come in handy lots!

So you think that a climate system health care reform only exists within one universe, and that other universes (preceeding[sic], or simultaneous) are irrelevant? Or is it that you think that this is the only universe that will ever exist?

I would refer you to the work of a certain Professor Deutsche, but I fear you would lack the wit to comprehend it, ignorant fubsy that you are. You have a tenth rate mind you see, unlike my first rate mind, which is capable of such intellectual feats as changing the words of Gilbert and Sullivan verses to fit a topical theme.

;-)

171 Political Atheist  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 5:29:21pm

re: #166 Decatur Deb

Heck yeah, now that's jobs for guys that left the military nuclear programs. Time to get over our nuclear fears. That's the Peace Dividend.

172 The Sanity Inspector  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 5:31:18pm

re: #9 Killgore Trout

It's going to be tough. The conservative base is not going to tolerate bipartisanship.

Nor will the greenie NIMBYs.

173 soxfan4life  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 5:31:43pm

re: #171 Rightwingconspirator

Heck yeah, now that's jobs for guys that left the military nuclear programs. Time to get over our nuclear fears. That's the Peace Dividend.

Make it a little more "progressive" and you can get the Democrats and Obama to buy it.

174 ryannon  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 5:32:57pm

re: #162 Killgore Trout

There's a nugget of gold in the form of an hour-long talk by the physicist Laurence Krauss in there:

175 Odahi  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 5:33:03pm

I was merely suggesting one way to overcome the fears of proliferation. Personally, I'd love to see the US as the biggest provider of certain kinds of reactors. We could use the positive balance of trade. And if the French aren't up to their hoity-toity behinds in nuclear waste, I think we can probably solve that issue at least as well as they can.

176 bosforus  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 5:33:35pm

re: #173 soxfan4life

Make it a little more "progressive" and you can get the Democrats and Obama to buy it.

How would you do that?

177 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 5:35:17pm

I could not write more strongly about the need to switch to 4th gen reactors.

We have the technology to make them impossible to melt down.

We have the technology to have a complete fuel cycle that will recover unspent fissionables.

We need about another 200 of them.

Even at the cost of 2 billion per plant, it is still cheaper than the bailout to build them and, the project will pay for itself in the long run as it will ultimately stop us hemorrhaging money to hostile nations.

This would also create tens of thousands of jobs.

It is a scientific solution. It is an economically sensible solution. It is a politically sensible solution in terms of not letting foreign regimes hold us hostage - particularly if we use the reactors to power electric and advanced hybrid vehicles.

So why do we not do this?

NIMBY is one reason. Deep opposition by vested interests is another. And lastly, we can not forget the history of nuclear energy in America.

Lots of industry and economic types like to go into regulations killing them...

Well too bad.

Such a project needs to be run like the navy does it. In teh Navy, they have the attitude that if something goes wrong, their shipmates die, there is a terrible international incident, and last but not least you loose a two billion dollar boat.

The public needs to be convinced that any new reactors will be run with that sort of a standard.

Honestly I do not think that private industry is the way to go with such projects. Wall Street won't fund them and the public is too wary. This is
has to come from Washington because no one else will do it, and only Washington has the authority to tell NIMBY people too bad.

Please remember, the Navy, a government organization, does a damn fine job. This needs to be a national project funded on the national level, with a person like Rickover involved from the get go to prevent shenanigans from the various contractors.

Some large profile violators (and there will always be those who game the system, with extra unexpected costs, shoddy workmanship, cutting corners etc...) would need to be put in prison early on as examples.

In addition, solar, wind and battery technologies need to be deployed.

At present technologies, if we really cared, for again, costs like those of the bailout, we could have achieved energy independence and solved much of our emissions problems.

The fact that we do not, when the tech is already here, and it is sensible to do anyway for it's own merit (do you like funding Chavez and the Saudis?) depresses me.

178 soxfan4life  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 5:35:41pm

re: #97 sattv4u2

I see. So if tomorrow Shell finds a 50 year supply of oil off the coast of Texas, and the gov't okays the drilling immediatly (national security issue) and Shell has that in the pipeline in a year, gas prices will go UP!?!?!?!

How can that be, all the lefties keep telling us that any oil drilling will take years to hit the market.

179 A Man for all Seasons  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 5:35:49pm

re: #168 austin_blue

Water availability. Transmission capacity. Big bottlenecks.

What the Hell? Water availability? A primary coil has to run with pure water or else it melts the copper 70/30 tubes... You can be in the middle of the Ocean and still require pure water in the primaries...Ask any Sub Captain..
Secondary coils steam off water in the main Condensers ...No biggie...
At half time I will discuss Nuclear Reactors..I have 20 years experience...This is more complex than people realize

180 austin_blue  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 5:35:55pm

re: #176 bosforus

How would you do that?

You really don't have to. Most Dems are *perfectly* aware that to make the CO2 cuts necessary to reverse present trends, coal baseline generation *must* be replaced with nukes. Simply impossible any other way.

181 Kilroy  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 5:35:57pm

Cold Fusion! Where are all those university intellectuals when we need them.Working on carbon emissions?

182 Decatur Deb  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 5:36:08pm

re: #173 soxfan4life

Make it a little more "progressive" and you can get the Democrats and Obama to buy it.

Letting the Navy run it, like the Army Corps of Engineers runs waterways,
is pretty progressive and old-school at the same time.

183 Bagua  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 5:36:33pm

re: #174 ryannon

There's a nugget of gold in the form of an hour-long talk by the physicist Laurence Krauss in there:


As though we don't already have enough maths homework as it is.

184 Political Atheist  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 5:36:42pm

I have the re: #179 HoosierHoops

Please do!

185 Randall Gross  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 5:36:49pm

re: #168 austin_blue

Water availability. Transmission capacity. Big bottlenecks.

Those same constraints exist for oil, gas, and coal plants. They all require cooling towers, and need to meet environmental regs.

186 A Man for all Seasons  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 5:36:53pm

re: #182 Decatur Deb

Letting the Navy run it, like the Army Corps of Engineers runs waterways,
is pretty progressive and old-school at the same time.

I couldn't agree more

187 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 5:37:13pm

re: #118 soxfan4life

That is so last the eight 8 years, now that we have such a wonderfully nuanced President like Barack Hussein Obama American Sovereignty is A-Okay.

But is this the good America that elected Barack Obama, or the 'scary America' that arrests elderly filmmakers as they reach out their trembling hands for their awards?

188 simoom  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 5:37:19pm

Kind of odd ~ Mark Sanford's Ayn Rand article in the next issue of Newsweek:

Atlas Hugged

For that reason, I think, those passages in Atlas Shrugged foreshadow what might happen to our country if there is no change in direction. As Rand shows in her book, when the government is deprived of the free market's best minds, it staggers toward collapse.
189 soxfan4life  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 5:37:26pm

re: #176 bosforus

How would you do that?

Promise x amount of minority jobs, union construction.

190 solomonpanting  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 5:38:49pm

re: #176 bosforus

How would you do that?

Tell 'em the nuke plants will be solar powered, the rich aren't eligible to receive the power generated at said facilities, and there will be energy rebates for low income users.

191 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 5:39:11pm

re: #133 iceweasel

This hits all the sweet spots for Beck's audience: the AGW deniers, the people scared of a One World Government, the people who think Obama is a Marxist, the people who think that Obama is the AntiChrist and that creating a One World Government is a necessary stage in the End Times...etc. Not surprising he's pushing it.

WOW. That's a truly complex piece of paranoid stupidity.

192 TedStriker  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 5:39:28pm

re: #133 iceweasel

"Lord" Monckton's antics just go to show that just because you're paranoid, it doesn't mean they aren't out to get you...

;-P

193 BARACK THE VOTE  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 5:39:38pm

re: #170 Jimmah

I would refer you to the work of a certain Professor Deutsche, but I fear you would lack the wit to comprehend it, ignorant fubsy that you are. You have a tenth rate mind you see, unlike my first rate mind, which is capable of such intellectual feats as changing the words of Gilbert and Sullivan verses to fit a topical theme.

;-)


This...this creature appeared. And its attitude was decidedly hostile!

Alas, with my tenth-rate mind and potty-mouth, I'm incapable of comprehending the sheer brilliance of the 'verse' and the 'essays', as well as recognising what a treasure Gilbert and Sullivan parodies are.
Hola, Jim-ski. :)

194 Randall Gross  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 5:40:00pm

re: #154 Mich-again

I'd hazard a guess the Government already owns more than enough land on plenty of acceptable locations.

This is true. Most of the existing nuclear energy sites are adding reactors, this will be the first wave since permitting takes so verdamnt long at new sites.

195 Taqyia2Me  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 5:40:06pm

re: #177 LudwigVanQuixote

Do we need some of the add'l capacity possible with this for increased desalinization needs?

196 watching you tiny alien kittens are  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 5:40:32pm

The door is going to open on nuclear power with or without the government at this point. Small self-contained systems are being designed and marketed by multiple companies, if the U.S. doesn't want them or will not allow it other countries certainly will.

[Link: www.ubergizmo.com...]

[Link: earth2tech.com...]

[Link: www.llnl.gov...]

[Link: www.acceleratingfuture.com...]

197 Sharmuta  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 5:41:01pm

re: #194 Thanos

This is true. Most of the existing nuclear energy sites are adding reactors, this will be the first wave since permitting takes so verdamnt long at new sites.

Think of all the jobs that would be created.

198 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 5:41:13pm

re: #149 Mich-again

I saw part of an old rerun of I Dream of Genie today. Barbara Eden mentioned "back home in Baghdad." Who knew?

Where else would a cosmopolitan djinni be from? Damascus? Don't make me laugh.

199 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 5:41:23pm

re: #181 Kilroy

Cold Fusion! Where are all those university intellectuals when we need them.Working on carbon emissions?

I do hope that you meant to have a sarc tab.

If you were serious, two points:

1. Cold fusion is not real, just like lightsabers, star trek beam me ups and the Easter Bunny.

2. Those university intellectuals have been screaming for a decade about nuclear solar and wind!

200 bosforus  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 5:41:47pm

re: #189 soxfan4life

Promise x amount of minority jobs, union construction.

I think austin_blue's #180 is spot on. Federal jobs are already under EEO regulations. I think the route you suggest would just stir up the right wing too much. Remember when whoever-it-was said they didn't just want white construction workers doing the stimulus projects? That's the reaction you'd get.

201 Bagua  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 5:42:15pm

re: #177 LudwigVanQuixote

[...]

In addition, solar, wind and battery technologies need to be deployed.

Surely you mean developed as wind is not ready for prime time and solar is still a bit player at the moment?

Otherwise, great position on the Nuclear. It is a win win for all sensible parties. If phrased this way, even AGW sceptics will join in the support.

202 austin_blue  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 5:43:47pm

re: #177 LudwigVanQuixote

I could not write more strongly about the need to switch to 4th gen reactors.

We have the technology to make them impossible to melt down.

We have the technology to have a complete fuel cycle that will recover unspent fissionables.

We need about another 200 of them.

Even at the cost of 2 billion per plant, it is still cheaper than the bailout to build them and, the project will pay for itself in the long run as it will ultimately stop us hemorrhaging money to hostile nations.

This would also create tens of thousands of jobs.

It is a scientific solution. It is an economically sensible solution. It is a politically sensible solution in terms of not letting foreign regimes hold us hostage - particularly if we use the reactors to power electric and advanced hybrid vehicles.

So why do we not do this?

NIMBY is one reason. Deep opposition by vested interests is another. And lastly, we can not forget the history of nuclear energy in America.

Lots of industry and economic types like to go into regulations killing them...

Well too bad.

Such a project needs to be run like the navy does it. In teh Navy, they have the attitude that if something goes wrong, their shipmates die, there is a terrible international incident, and last but not least you loose a two billion dollar boat.

The public needs to be convinced that any new reactors will be run with that sort of a standard.

Honestly I do not think that private industry is the way to go with such projects. Wall Street won't fund them and the public is too wary. This is
has to come from Washington because no one else will do it, and only Washington has the authority to tell NIMBY people too bad.

Please remember, the Navy, a government organization, does a damn fine job. This needs to be a national project funded on the national level, with a person like Rickover involved from the get go to prevent shenanigans from the various contractors.

Some large profile violators (and there will always be those who game the system, with extra unexpected costs, shoddy workmanship, cutting corners etc...) would need to be put in prison early on as examples.

In addition, solar, wind and battery technologies need to be deployed.

At present technologies, if we really cared, for again, costs like those of the bailout, we could have achieved energy independence and solved much of our emissions problems.

The fact that we do not, when the tech is already here, and it is sensible to do anyway for it's own merit (do you like funding Chavez and the Saudis?) depresses me.

I am in total agreement with everything you say except that we can roll out, right now, 4G units. Not quite yet. Lots of promise, but not quite there. Should the government fund more research there? Absolutely, with the caveat that it should get a certain part of the licensing fee for every unit built.

I like the idea that Government should control the funding and operation of the new nukes, but you would have multiple energy interests, from coal producers to Duke to Southern manning the barricades over the "perceived Government takeover of 12% of our economy."

Hmmm...that sounds familiar...hmmm...

203 Randall Gross  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 5:44:41pm

re: #197 Sharmuta

Think of all the jobs that would be created.

Unfortunately we are so anti-nuclear in the US that some of these jobs are being shipped overseas; Sheffield steel already has the bid for some of the new turbines. Expect more of this to happen due to the luddites on the left and the right here. E.G. "The Blue Green Alliance" is part of Al Gore's WE, which is very anti-nuclear, but the Blue Green Alliance is US Steel unions.

204 Ayeless in Ghazi  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 5:45:04pm

re: #188 simoom

Kind of odd ~ Mark Sanford's Ayn Rand article in the next issue of Newsweek:

Atlas Hugged

Rand was right about one thing - the need for the GOP to distance itself from the religious maniacs. On other issues I find her to be rather creepy.

And that film "The Fountainhead" was hilarious. It must be stupendously funny to watch while stoned.

205 BARACK THE VOTE  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 5:45:56pm

re: #188 simoom

Kind of odd ~ Mark Sanford's Ayn Rand article in the next issue of Newsweek:

Atlas Hugged

More than odd. I'll say this for Sanford-- he knows a little something about Going Galt. /

As for Ayn Rand...well, I can do no better than to reproduce this:

There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world.

The other, of course, involves orcs.

206 Randall Gross  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 5:45:57pm

The energy moguls in fifty years will not be Exxon or BP, they will be the companies who build the best nuclear reactors.

207 Bagua  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 5:46:15pm

re: #202 austin_blue

Open question:

While we are pulling out the stops developing the 4th gen, how many current reactors would be a sensible target?

208 watching you tiny alien kittens are  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 5:46:20pm

Solar and wind energy just cannot be used as alternatives until better energy storage systems are developed. With the battery technology we have today they are not feasible alternatives.

Sure they can supplement other generating systems, but they can't replace them.

209 Kilroy  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 5:47:12pm

re: #199 LudwigVanQuixote
I live in SE Alaska and there's so much water ,salt and fresh, moving around in narrow channels it's hard to believe it's ignored.
I think cold fusion provided some famous universities big grants.

210 Racer X  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 5:47:33pm

re: #208 ausador

Solar and wind energy just cannot be used as alternatives until better energy storage systems are developed. With the battery technology we have today they are not feasible alternatives.

Sure they can supplement other generating systems, but they can't replace them.

"The Grid" is the battery.

It lightens the load on other power generators.

211 Decatur Deb  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 5:47:43pm

re: #202 austin_blue

(snip)

I like the idea that Government should control the funding and operation of the new nukes, but you would have multiple energy interests, from coal producers to Duke to Southern manning the barricades over the "perceived Government takeover of 12% of our economy."

Hmmm...that sounds familiar...hmmm...

For fun, check out what the interests said about commie TVA power
in the '40s and '50s.

212 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 5:47:46pm

re: #195 Taqyia2Me

Do we need some of the add'l capacity possible with this for increased desalinization needs?

I don't know where the desalinization meme crept on to this board. It is an utter pipe dream (actually literally) to think that we could desalinize enough water and transport it to service even one state.

If you doubt that statement do a little math.

How much water does the average American use per day?

A: about 2-300 litres.

How much does it cost to transport 2 billion liters a day? That would be for one state BTW?

A: well look at the costs of any pipeline project, consider that even the Alaska pipeline only gives a fraction of that per day, and then realize that you would need a branched network of such pipelines over a whole state.

Don't forget the need to build and power pumping stations as well.

In other words trillions. In fact much more than just getting off of fossil fuels and preventing the need to build such a thing.

Honestly, the idea that we could desalinize and pump our way out of problems is just ludicrous. There is not enough money in America to do such a thing, and even if there were, one well placed bomb would mean that millions go thirsty. It would be a security nightmare.

213 Randall Gross  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 5:47:51pm

re: #208 ausador

Solar and wind energy just cannot be used as alternatives until better energy storage systems are developed. With the battery technology we have today they are not feasible alternatives.

Sure they can supplement other generating systems, but they can't replace them.

They can if you have baseload power like nuclear energy. If you put them up without baseload you actually increase use of coal and oil. That's been the experience in Europe where they've put up large wind and solar plants.

214 A Man for all Seasons  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 5:48:58pm

re: #207 Bagua

Open question:

While we are pulling out the stops developing the 4th gen, how many current reactors would be a sensible target?

Westinghouse 5w reactors. Period..Every seen a Navy Reactor blow up?

215 MR_J  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 5:49:24pm

Before the meat of the post, just to let you all know I'm in favor of a mixed energy economy, we should be doing everything in our power to promote alternatives to fossil fuels, nuclear, geothermal, wind, solar...with that said.

It's popular to blame leftists and greens for the lack of nuclear construction here in the States, but folks let's get real, for 8 of the last 9 years Big Energy lobbyists were writing energy legislation for the White House. If Big Energy wanted to build nuclear power plants they would have done so and there would be little for Green Peace or the Sierra Club to do about it but complain on PBS.

The real reason that there haven't been any new nuclear plants here in decades...COST. Fuel expenses may be low, but the cost of constructing and then decommissioning a nuclear power plant makes them unattractive in a market with a rather low profit margin. It would take years to see a profit off the construction of a plant. (Assuming that the plant was somehow built on schedule and on budget which it wouldn't be) No one wants to assume the liability. This is the market at work, pure and simple.

The only way that private companies are going to build nuclear power-plants is with massive government subsidies...so if you want nuclear power prepare for the price tag.

216 XopXproxyX  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 5:49:48pm

re: #205 iceweasel

There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world.

The other, of course, involves orcs.

Haha, that is spot on. Where did you reproduce it from?

217 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 5:50:02pm

re: #202 austin_blue

I am in total agreement with everything you say except that we can roll out, right now, 4G units. Not quite yet. Lots of promise, but not quite there. Should the government fund more research there? Absolutely, with the caveat that it should get a certain part of the licensing fee for every unit built.

I like the idea that Government should control the funding and operation of the new nukes, but you would have multiple energy interests, from coal producers to Duke to Southern manning the barricades over the "perceived Government takeover of 12% of our economy."

Hmmm...that sounds familiar...hmmm...

Fine so build some 3rd gen now, continue on the 4th gen research, I don't really think they are that far off, and let those who whine about the government taking over whine. Tell them, that's right, the government is taking over because we are tired of them holding the country hostage as well.

218 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 5:50:40pm

re: #204 Jimmah

Rand was right about one thing - the need for the GOP to distance itself from the religious maniacs. On other issues I find her to be rather creepy.

And that film "The Fountainhead" was hilarious. It must be stupendously funny to watch while stoned.

Rand seems to have surrounded herself with other religious maniacs, whose religion was her.

Dunno. I read "Athem". The ending to that made me so mad I spit tacks.

219 Bagua  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 5:51:24pm

re: #208 ausador

Exactly, solar is really good in local, limited applications and wind is a ship that should still be on the drawing board.

re: #210 Racer X

"The Grid" is the battery.

It lightens the load on other power generators.

Nope, beyond about 5% it is destabilising, it needs backup generation in place which is part of its huge cost. It can only lighten the load with spare capacity that equals it.

220 BARACK THE VOTE  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 5:51:48pm

re: #216 XopXproxyX

Haha, that is spot on. Where did you reproduce it from?

I think the original source is this blogger, KungFu Monkey. It rocketed around the snarkosphere though so I've run across it in other places as well.

[Link: kfmonkey.blogspot.com...]

221 SanFranciscoZionist  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 5:52:05pm

re: #205 iceweasel

Who said that?

222 austin_blue  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 5:52:37pm

re: #207 Bagua

Open question:

While we are pulling out the stops developing the 4th gen, how many current reactors would be a sensible target?

200- 250, to start. Say, three terawatts. They can be built right next to the coal fired monstrosities they will replace. Water and transmission capacity are already there.

223 Randall Gross  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 5:55:15pm

re: #215 MR_J

Before the meat of the post, just to let you all know I'm in favor of a mixed energy economy, we should be doing everything in our power to promote alternatives to fossil fuels, nuclear, geothermal, wind, solar...with that said.

It's popular to blame leftists and greens for the lack of nuclear construction here in the States, but folks let's get real, for 8 of the last 9 years Big Energy lobbyists were writing energy legislation for the White House. If Big Energy wanted to build nuclear power plants they would have done so and there would be little for Green Peace or the Sierra Club to do about it but complain on PBS.

The real reason that there haven't been any new nuclear plants here in decades...COST. Fuel expenses may be low, but the cost of constructing and then decommissioning a nuclear power plant makes them unattractive in a market with a rather low profit margin. It would take years to see a profit off the construction of a plant. (Assuming that the plant was somehow built on schedule and on budget which it wouldn't be) No one wants to assume the liability. This is the market at work, pure and simple.

The only way that private companies are going to build nuclear power-plants is with massive government subsidies...so if you want nuclear power prepare for the price tag.

Sorry but part of that's untrue. If you factor in complete life cycle for a nuclear plant you have to do the same for oil, gas, and coal. The only two energy sources that come close to nuclear are coal and hydro.
I do agree with you however that big oil definitely wants to keep nuclear out of their market share, and it's instructional that they fund the Heartland institute on one hand to create global warming denialism, and they fund the fringe green groups on the other hand in some cases to create opposition to new nukes whenever one looks like it might get built.

224 CyanSnowHawk  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 5:55:15pm

re: #177 LudwigVanQuixote

Such a project needs to be run like the navy does it. In teh Navy, they have the attitude that if something goes wrong, their shipmates die, there is a terrible international incident, and last but not least you loose a two billion dollar boat.

Not to mention that ONE disaster is the end of Navy Nuclear Propulsion. Rickover made that very clear and demonstrated it against the Army after the SL1 accident in Idaho.

As for civilian nuclear power, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is god. It is primarily staffed with former Navy nucs, as are most of our operating civilian plants.

225 Taqyia2Me  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 5:55:25pm

re: #212 LudwigVanQuixote

Well, no...I was, unfortunately, not clear. Sorry.
The question was, is the desalinization process a big power user?
I would think desalinization is an inevitable need at some point in our lives for our coastal cities.
Your statements about the massive infrastructure needs for bringing it far inland are well taken nontheless.
I agree with anyone here who is of the opinion much increased nuke capacity is a must for American society, and that was as of at least ten years ago. So it is that much more urgent now.

226 BARACK THE VOTE  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 5:56:11pm

re: #221 SanFranciscoZionist

Who said that?

Sorry, I should have linked it when I posted it-- as far as I can tell the original source was that KungFu Monkey blogger. It spread widely this spring though while some of the wingnuts were muttering about Going Galt.

227 austin_blue  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 5:56:27pm

re: #213 Thanos

They can if you have baseload power like nuclear energy. If you put them up without baseload you actually increase use of coal and oil. That's been the experience in Europe where they've put up large wind and solar plants.

Ding ding ding! Alt power works bets when the sun is shining. Power needs peak when the sun is shining. We do love our AC. We do like to make money during the day.

228 Political Atheist  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 5:57:22pm

Okay I finished editing the video of Chuck Devore a candidate running against Barbara Boxer. He made a major endorsement of nuclear power.
In among all this technical discussion-One good endorsement.
BTW thanks to those of you who went o my blog to see the still images I took there. LGF was the first referral source to beat out rock band Juke Kartel for visits. This video will not appear in my blog as its way off topic for it. My blog is about photography, not politics.
I'll leave that subject to Mr C. Johnson.

229 ryannon  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 5:57:35pm

re: #213 Thanos

They can if you have baseload power like nuclear energy. If you put them up without baseload you actually increase use of coal and oil. That's been the experience in Europe where they've put up large wind and solar plants.

There is so much conflicting/contradictory information that in the end one doesn't know what to believe:

[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]

230 austin_blue  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 5:58:37pm

re: #206 Thanos

The energy moguls in fifty years will not be Exxon or BP, they will be the companies who build the best nuclear reactors.

And the best energy storage systems (say it with me now, "workable molten salt sinks").

231 BARACK THE VOTE  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 5:59:45pm

re: #204 Jimmah

Rand was right about one thing - the need for the GOP to distance itself from the religious maniacs. On other issues I find her to be rather creepy.

And that film "The Fountainhead" was hilarious. It must be stupendously funny to watch while stoned.

heh. I know what I want to do on Halloween now...

232 Cheechako  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 5:59:48pm

I'd like to see more smaller nuclear power plants and we have the technology right now. Think of the fleet of nuclear powered submarines and aircraft carriers currently in the Navy. One small nuclear power plant similar to one powering an aircraft carrier should produce enough power for a remote Alaska village for a long time. This would eliminate barging and burning thousands of gallons of diesel that now powers their electrical generators.

233 nmdesertrat  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 6:00:03pm

re: #144 Odahi

Two quick ideas. Don't sell or build any plants in places other than the US- that completely absolves us of the responsibility for weapons proliferation. If we don't sell it or build it for anyone else, it ain't OUR fuel being turned into weapons. Then we take up the issue with other nations who DO sell/build for Iran, Norks, etc.

Except that Westinghouse was bought byToshiba years ago, the French don't exactly follow our lead, and neither do the Russians. Besides, Obama says that every nation has the right to peaceful nuclear power, but here in the US, it has to be "safe" nuclear power.

234 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 6:00:38pm

re: #209 Kilroy

I live in SE Alaska and there's so much water ,salt and fresh, moving around in narrow channels it's hard to believe it's ignored.
I think cold fusion provided some famous universities big grants.

OK, short form on cold fusion... I wrote this here before, but I'll happily give a quick physics primer.

There was a joke when Pons and Fleishman came out with their announcement:

Q: Did you hear about their lab tech?
A: Yes, he's just fine!

Now why is that funny to physics people? It is because a fusion reaction, any fusion reaction, gives off a lot of fast neutrons. In fact, a neutron bomb is just a very efficient fusion bomb.

In otherwords, if there had been any fusion going on in Utah, everyone in the lab would have been killed.

There is nothing to it.

I could go into a lengthy discussion about overcoming potential wells and pointing out that there is no way that apparatus could possible impart enough energy on the nuclei to cause fusion as well. Nuclei do not like to fuse. They repel each other. Positives repel other positives right? So you have to push them together really really hard to get them close enough that the nuclear forces take over from the EM repulsion.

There are four ways this happens:

1. Get enough hydrogen together that gravity does the work for you, i.e. a star.

2. Super compress heavy water, or another source of light elements with the shock wave of an atomic blast.

3. Strip hydrogen or isotopes down to plasma and super compress them with a magnetic field. This is a tokomak.

4. Use really really big honking lasers to impart the energy onto fuel pellets.

There is not enough energy in the system for cold fusion to work. Game over. Done. Finished. Energy conservation always wins.

The short form of it was that what was claimed with cold fusion was not physically possible.

235 watching you tiny alien kittens are  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 6:01:47pm

re: #210 Racer X

"The Grid" is the battery.

It lightens the load on other power generators.

Even with a nationally interconnected "smart grid" that still will not be true, it is dark over all of the U.S. for many of the same hours every day. Transmission of power over long distance loses a significant portion of the power to line loss and transformer inefficiency.

Sorry but as someone who works in the electrical trade I can tell you that you are very much mistaken.

236 flywheel  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 6:02:32pm

re: #177 LudwigVanQuixote

upding...too few comments to be able to press the button yet.

237 simoom  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 6:03:59pm

re: #204 Jimmah

re: #205 iceweasel

I tried to find this clip on Youtube, but it only seems to be at southparkstudios.com. It's the last segment of the "Chickenlover" episode of South Park from Season 2 (so probably NSFW :P):

Officer Barbrady: Yes, at first I was happy to be learning how to read. It seemed exciting and magical. But then I read this - Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand. I read every last word of this garbage and because of this piece of shit I'm never reading again!
238 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 6:05:05pm

re: #225 Taqyia2Me

If we let AGW go unchecked we will eventually not have coastal cites anymore. That, respectfully, needs to be taken into account.

239 Cato the Elder  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 6:05:47pm

re: #205 iceweasel

I love that picture of Rand in Sanford's article.

Wait, back up...did I really just read an article by Mark Sanford, Special Person and public-expense adulterer, about Ayn Rand? Now we know where he gets his "I'm exceptional and screw the rest of you" attitude.

But anyway, that picture: she's trying to hyoopnotize yoo vif dose Rrrrussian eyes.

Ayn Rand: the Madame Blavatsky of the crypto-fascist right.

240 Ayeless in Ghazi  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 6:06:02pm

re: #193 iceweasel

This...this creature appeared. And its attitude was decidedly hostile!

Alas, with my tenth-rate mind and potty-mouth, I'm incapable of comprehending the sheer brilliance of the 'verse' and the 'essays', as well as recognising what a treasure Gilbert and Sullivan parodies are.
Hola, Jim-ski. :)

First, your use of italics impresses me. Some gratuitous use of bolds wouldn't go amiss though if you are really serious about coming across as interlekchewal - keep in mind for future posts.

I did hear that there was a massive disturbance in the force recently whereby - calamity - the entire canon of mutilated G&S verses - constituting as they did the very zenith of western civilisation - were lost to humanity. However, in one of those ironic 'history repeating' episodes, it seems they were saved for posterity by a certain mullah, who painstakingly preserved this magnificent opus so that man could be spared the agony of it's loss.

They say he now lives alone in a grief hole of his own making, his only solace the pavlovian applause of the mindless turds that now surround him. Brave Sir Mullah.

241 Racer X  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 6:06:22pm

re: #235 ausador

Even with a nationally interconnected "smart grid" that still will not be true, it is dark over all of the U.S. for many of the same hours every day. Transmission of power over long distance loses a significant portion of the power to line loss and transformer inefficiency.

Sorry but as someone who works in the electrical trade I can tell you that you are very much mistaken.

There are millions of solar panels on homes and buildings right now - with no batteries. More of that would be good.

242 Dark_Falcon  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 6:07:09pm

re: #238 LudwigVanQuixote

If we let AGW go unchecked we will eventually not have coastal cites anymore. That, respectfully, needs to be taken into account.

Quite Concur.

243 Bagua  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 6:08:30pm

re: #238 LudwigVanQuixote

If we let AGW go unchecked we will eventually not have coastal cites anymore. That, respectfully, needs to be taken into account.

But... do you not see how meaningless that one universe is in a larger context?

244 Political Atheist  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 6:09:26pm

re: #234 LudwigVanQuixote

Are you saying the laser based fusion is a no win? Lasers are getting more efficient, but are they still way short?

245 Dark_Falcon  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 6:09:33pm

re: #243 Bagua

But... do you not see how meaningless that one universe is in a larger context?

What do you mean?

246 Randall Gross  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 6:09:40pm

re: #229 ryannon

There is so much conflicting/contradictory information that in the end one doesn't know what to believe:

[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]

One of the guys I trust on nuclear energy is Rod Adams, he's got a blog. I've been debating the anti-nuclear advocates with him since the 1980's. We were lone voices in the wilderness back then on alt.sci.energy and other forums.
He's a lefty, but he's honest
[Link: atomicinsights.blogspot.com...]
Good place to bookmark and check by on occasion.

247 A Man for all Seasons  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 6:12:00pm

re: #238 LudwigVanQuixote

If we let AGW go unchecked we will eventually not have coastal cites anymore. That, respectfully, needs to be taken into account.

Buy technology from the Dutch.. They have lived below the Ocean for Centuries...
I can't believe what people think about Nuclear Power plants...
Jeez lets just built us some without 5 to 10 years of training..Weee!

248 Dark_Falcon  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 6:12:11pm

re: #244 Rightwingconspirator

Are you saying the laser based fusion is a no win? Lasers are getting more efficient, but are they still way short?

I've talked to people who follow such projects. It's not a no-win, but it's not a technology that's ready for use yet. Laser tech still has a good ways to go before such Fusion is practical. There's also the matter of designing the magnetic field 'bottle' to contain the the reaction, which also not a mature enough technology.

249 Ayeless in Ghazi  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 6:13:10pm

re: #231 iceweasel

heh. I know what I want to do on Halloween now...

Ayn Rand definitely deserves to be a lot higher up the stoner charts :)

"Stand back - my name is Howard Roark, and I am about to announce my philosophy at you"

250 austin_blue  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 6:13:50pm

re: #246 Thanos

One of the guys I trust on nuclear energy is Rod Adams, he's got a blog. I've been debating the anti-nuclear advocates with him since the 1980's. We were lone voices in the wilderness back then on alt.sci.energy and other forums.
He's a lefty, but he's honest
[Link: atomicinsights.blogspot.com...]
Good place to bookmark and check by on occasion.

I like it very much that Thanos and I, who come from very different political philosophies, agree so much on this board. Refreshing. I'm going to wander on up to the next thread, where there be insanity.

251 Bagua  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 6:15:31pm

re: #245 Dark_Falcon

What do you mean?

On the "GW hasnt stopped" thread, that argument was made, it's irrefutably funny.

So you think that a climate system only exists within one universe, and that other universes (preceeding, or simultaneous) are irrelevant? Or is it that you think that this is the only universe that will ever exist?

252 Political Atheist  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 6:16:37pm

re: #248 Dark_Falcon

Thanks. Sometime maybe Hydrogen will be worth kicking around. I have some experience with that. I'm off to the next topic. From hot cores and water to Hot Air. See ya there.

253 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 6:32:38pm

re: #244 Rightwingconspirator

Are you saying the laser based fusion is a no win? Lasers are getting more efficient, but are they still way short?

It is interesting you mention this. In some sense, fusion research is very much like what I do now, with a big honking EM field thrown on top.

In the ultimate long run - assuming that we avert an ecological collapse- fusion would be the real way to go. It is vastly more powerful (@2000 times more powerful to be exact, look at the curve of binding energy) than fission. It produces much less in the way of hard waste. And lastly, it is renewable as we are always getting more heavy water produced by cosmic ray interactions.

However, there is a great deal of technical hurdle to be overcome as yet. Fusion has always been the victim of congressional start and stop, hurry up and wait with the funding. There has been a longstanding war between DOE, DOD and the various fossil fuel interests over it.

As it is, laser induced fusion is one way to go, that is currently its infancy. It has not achieved break even to the best of my knowledge and is not close to doing so.

Tokamak fusion did achieve break even (where the amount of power you put in to start the reaction, is equal to what you get out) But the next phase of the Princeton Tokomak project, and related projects suffered from funding woes and we are still a ways off from being able to be ready for prime time.

Tokomaks need to be scaled up to achieve better input/output ratios, but scaling up brings containment (of the plasma) issues. The research continues on, however, it is difficult research and it is plagued by Washington stupidity.

254 jvic  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 6:59:13pm

re: #226 iceweasel

Sorry, I should have linked it when I posted it-- as far as I can tell the original source was that KungFu Monkey blogger. It spread widely this spring though while some of the wingnuts were muttering about Going Galt.

Hi, Ice! I see you've left the thread, but hopefully you'll read this sometime.

You may recall Kung Fu Monkey as the author of the classic "I Miss Republicans", which was followed by "I Still Miss Republicans" and, recently, by a leftist blogger's "I Miss Sane Republicans".

255 MR_J  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 7:03:08pm

re: #223 Thanos

I don't think we're actually arguing or in disagreement Thanos, as I didn't and won't make the claim that Nuclear is expensive in terms of Kilowatts per hour. In fact it's not really a post about efficiency at all, merely the upfront cost of building a nuclear power plant. Due to fuel costs, the nuclear plants win out in the long haul. But a lot of companies would and I believe have found it difficult to shell out for the initial investment.

And Big Oil is just fine with record profits and the status quo, even if it will ruin the world for our children and grandchildren.

256 funky chicken  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 7:09:40pm

re: #255 MR_J

If they want to stay in business long term, they should invest their record profits in nuclear and other technologies, instead of paying their executives tens of millions of dollars a year, and buying ridiculous private jets, etc. They don't invest for a different future, so I really don't give a damn about them.

257 Randall Gross  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 7:16:51pm

re: #255 MR_J

I don't think we're actually arguing or in disagreement Thanos, as I didn't and won't make the claim that Nuclear is expensive in terms of Kilowatts per hour. In fact it's not really a post about efficiency at all, merely the upfront cost of building a nuclear power plant. Due to fuel costs, the nuclear plants win out in the long haul. But a lot of companies would and I believe have found it difficult to shell out for the initial investment.

And Big Oil is just fine with record profits and the status quo, even if it will ruin the world for our children and grandchildren.

If you take the upfront cost of building the oil/gas/coal plant and factor in the costs of the fuel over their lifetimes compared to the same for a nuclear plant, the nuclear plant still wins in costs. Rod Adams has done the math, visit his blog which I linked upthread.

258 funky chicken  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 7:32:57pm

re: #257 Thanos

We also keep hearing about the critical shortage of refineries, and how they cost millions to build...

259 Mich-again  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 7:37:42pm

re: #257 Thanos

If you take the upfront cost of building the oil/gas/coal plant and factor in the costs of the fuel over their lifetimes compared to the same for a nuclear plant, the nuclear plant still wins in costs. Rod Adams has done the math, visit his blog which I linked upthread.

How many years is the break-even point?

260 lostlakehiker  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 7:59:37pm

re: #2 Walter L. Newton

And this is what we are up against...

Nuclear Power is the Problem, Not a Solution

There is a huge propaganda push by the nuclear industry to justify nuclear power as a panacea for the reduction of global-warming gases.

[Link: www.commondreams.org...]

Nuclear power is at any rate part of the solution. It's emphatically not a "problem". We should make a big move to nuclear power AGW or not, because our dependence on foreign oil is dangerous.

261 lostlakehiker  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 8:06:39pm

Question for Ludwig and the other scientists: I have a friend who argues that more CO2 is irrelevant because the CO2 already in the atmosphere has effectively blocked all thermal re-radiation to space in its absorption spectrum already. That is, CO2 is a blanket that covers part of the bed, and making that blanket thicker still won't keep us any warmer because we're not losing any heat through that blanket as it is.

This strikes me as most unlikely, even preposterous, but it would be nice to have a solid refutation backed by links and evidence.

262 Randall Gross  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 8:06:40pm

re: #259 Mich-again

How many years is the break-even point?

I don't know, but we are well beyond it already for every active plant in the US.

263 nmdesertrat  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 8:08:00pm

There are several excellent sources of info about nuclear power. Start with The Capacity Factor at [Link: uvdiv.blogspot.com...] and then follow the links on the right side.

For those people who think that all thermal (rankine-cycle) power plants need gobs of cooling water, go here [Link: my.epri.com...] and brush up on Heller dry cooling. This presentation includes lots of example from around the world, including a Russian nuclear plant above the arctic circle: [Link: mydocs.epri.com...]

For excellent analyses of why wind and solar (either PV or thermal) just won't cut it, visit [Link: bravenewclimate.com...] . Also go to [Link: www.windpowerfacts.info...]

Chernobyl is not an example of why nuclear power plants are unsafe, because its design was rejected for power reactors by the West. It was only used in the Soviet Bloc, because it was easy to remove spent fuel for reprocessing for the Pu-239. The only major reactors in the US to use that design were in Hanford, WA. Using Chernobyl is akin to offshore drilling opponents using the Santa Barbara oil spill of 1969. No matter what happens, they always extend their charts and spreadsheets back far enough to include this spill, because it skews all the numbers.

TMI is an example of how safe the currently operated plants are designed, not unsafe. Even after melting half the core into the bottom of the reactor vessel, only radioactive noble gasses were released, and in such low quantities as to be essentially background exposures.

I think we should be in a crash-program for Thorium-based reactors, which were discarded after being proven to work because you cannot reprocess the spent fuel for weapons material. (at least, not without really massive shielding.) Go to [Link: thoriumenergy.blogspot.com...]

264 ryannon  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 8:16:51pm

re: #246 Thanos

One of the guys I trust on nuclear energy is Rod Adams, he's got a blog. I've been debating the anti-nuclear advocates with him since the 1980's. We were lone voices in the wilderness back then on alt.sci.energy and other forums.
He's a lefty, but he's honest
[Link: atomicinsights.blogspot.com...]
Good place to bookmark and check by on occasion.

I appreciate that, Thanos.

I also have to add that Craig A. Severence, the author of the report I linked to

[Link: climateprogress.org...]

has been dealing with the subject of the economic feasibility of nuclear power for something like 30 years. He does not seem to be either a home-grown charlatan or a politically-driven bot. In short, the man makes sense, appears to be objective, and is credible in my book

[Link: www.google.com...]
hl=en&source=hp&q=craig+a.+severance&aq=0&oq=craig+a.+se&aqi=g1

When I posted that "one does not know what to believe" I immediately regretted doing so. As with all important issues, there is tons of information, disinformation and outright lies. One needs to sift through, make sense of it, and ultimately, make up one's mind in one direction or another. After seeing the information I've seen, I can't accept the idea of nuclear power as a viable solution to our energy needs. That doesn't mean that I think that we can replace existing solutions by 'alternative' sources either. Essentially, I think we're in a quandary until such a time as the issues of the dangers and economic feasibility of nuclear power have been definitively resolved. Up to the present, no proponent of nuclear energy either here on LGF or elsewhere has been able to demonstrate that with any credibility. It's a tough pill to swallow for the energy-independence people, but it's the actual state of affairs. I sincerely hope that we do find a solution - or a series of solutions - to the overall problem. The energy needs of the entire planet are going to be increasing, and nothing we have at the present time will be able to satisfy that in the long-term.

265 ryannon  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 8:42:00pm

re: #246 Thanos

When I wrote that (regrettable) "one doesn't know what to believe" it was in relation to the Wikipedia link

[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]

to what Germany has been doing. Among other things, generating 15 percent of their energy by alternative ('renewable') means and progressively phasing out all their nuclear plants. What they will be replaced by they dont say, but in the meantime, they've created nearly a quarter of a million new jobs in the renewable energy sector and are meeting reduced Greenhouse Gas quotas.

I read that Wiki entry, liked what I saw and would like to believe that it's on the level.

266 nmdesertrat  Tue, Oct 27, 2009 9:19:16pm

re: #265 ryannon

Read The Capacity Factor's take on German nuclear power vs renewables:
[Link: uvdiv.blogspot.com...]

then read Brave New Climate's analysis of the cost of Germany's subsidies of solar PV. [Link: bravenewclimate.com...]

The amount of money being throw at wind and solar is outrageous. We would get much better bang for the buck using the money following Dr. Chu's "white roof" idea (true white roofs, like tile, not "white" asphalt shingles), improving home insulation and installing solar water heating. It would also generate lots of local jobs. But wind farms that get 25% capacity factor (uncontrollable and undispatchable) and solar PV that gets 16-20% capacity factor are big, press-release-worthy projects.

267 Randy W. Weeks  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 4:56:29am

My city is looking into going into partnership to build another two nuke plants.

In a little more than two years projected costs to build them have gone from 5.4b to 13b and possibly as high as 17b.

268 PAUL_MACDONALD  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 7:15:28am

re: #88 ryannon

Nope, I read the link. The link was a thumbnail of the report. I had no idea I had to read the entire report when I was under the impression I was supposed to read what that guy thought of the report.

Regardless, I didn't find what was linked to be a compelling rebuke of going nuclear when it looked as though what was put before me had no mention of other costs that are included when using clean clean coal and carbon capture.

The snark is intentional, as I return it in kind.

269 Quilly Mammoth  Wed, Oct 28, 2009 10:42:52am

The Republicans should be all over nuclear power. Regardless of the climate argument carbon fuels are a dead end...sooner or later we will run out of fuel. The arguments for it outside of climate are very compelling. Secure power outside of the sway of foreign nations and stable prices are the biggest.

If we look at the Clean Air Act we see that cap and trade has resulted in a significant reduction in acid emissions, however it comes at an additional cost of about $3B per year and has not resulted in any truly impressive changes in how power is produced.


This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT
LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal
Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh
Once Praised, the Settlement to Help Sickened BP Oil Spill Workers Leaves Most With Nearly Nothing When a deadly explosion destroyed BP’s Deepwater Horizon drilling rig in the Gulf of Mexico, 134 million gallons of crude erupted into the sea over the next three months — and tens of thousands of ordinary people were hired ...
Cheechako
Yesterday
Views: 74 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
Texas County at Center of Border Fight Is Overwhelmed by Migrant Deaths EAGLE PASS, Tex. - The undertaker lighted a cigarette and held it between his latex-gloved fingers as he stood over the bloated body bag lying in the bed of his battered pickup truck. The woman had been fished out ...
Cheechako
5 days ago
Views: 172 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1