Nuclear energy

[stonebreakerwasgod]

Let's say we all believe the shrill cries (and movie) that global warming is here. Along those lines, most politicians are consistent (yea, I'm shocked too) with the fact that one of our main goals should be energy independence from foreign oil, and alternative fuels.

Is there a valid reason that we should not be adding nuclear power plants like the French and Chinese are doing? It has been virtually clean (barring some accidents), and has little environmental impact. Wouldn't this be the right course of action to take, since we are funding alot of nations/people who use oil money against our interests.

It appears to me that the democrats are afraid to go against the extremist 'green' groups in their party, who for some reason, equate nuclear power with evil. I have a hard time understanding why the republicans have not been more insistent on new drilling and nuke plants. Both parties need to grow some cajones, and do more than pay lip service to the problem, and nukes are the way to go!

 

[LOVEMYIRISH]

Let's say we all believe the shrill cries (and movie) that global warming is here. Along those lines, most politicians are consistent (yea, I'm shocked too) with the fact that one of our main goals should be energy independence from foreign oil, and alternative fuels.

Is there a valid reason that we should not be adding nuclear power plants like the French and Chinese are doing? It has been virtually clean (barring some accidents), and has little environmental impact. Wouldn't this be the right course of action to take, since we are funding alot of nations/people who use oil money against our interests.

It appears to me that the democrats are afraid to go against the extremist 'green' groups in their party, who for some reason, equate nuclear power with evil. I have a hard time understanding why the republicans have not been more insistent on new drilling and nuke plants. Both parties need to grow some cajones, and do more than pay lip service to the problem, and nukes are the way to go!

This is an awesome post...we are on the same track here.

I fully support Nuclear Power. It is clean and would solve MANY air quality problems.

That being said, it needs to be HIGHLY regulated...and long term storage must be SERIOUSLY SERIOUSLY SERIOUSLY researched.

If the gov't and industry commits to safe disposal of Nuclear Waste I would GLADLY see my energy bill increase 25%...just to know that it was Nuclear Power which powered my home.

The hippies who oppose it drive me nuts...ugh.

 

[ACamp1900]

 

[ACamp1900]

hijacked

 

[Vince Young]

You want "hijacked"? I'll give you "hijacked".







NUKE THE WHALES.

 

[notredomer23]

Nuclear power is a good thing that may become a bad thing.

 

[stonebreakerwasgod]

Nuclear power is considered clean and environmentally friendly. How many accidents aside from Chernobyl have you heard about in the past 20 years? We need to get serious about energy, and this would go a long way in cutting dependance, and helping the environment (damn, I sound like a lib).

 

[Junkhead]

For the most part, I support Nuclear power. The lack of a waste storage solution is what bothers me. There are few accidents, but they can be devestating. Check this site out on Chernobyl. Creepy, but interesting. http://www.kiddofspeed.com/chernobyl-revisited/chapter1.html Its probably not feasible to keep them further away from population centers either. Either way, they would have to be tightly regulated and somehow safeguarded from terrorists....

 

[LOVEMYIRISH]

Nuclear power is considered clean and environmentally friendly. How many accidents aside from Chernobyl have you heard about in the past 20 years? We need to get serious about energy, and this would go a long way in cutting dependance, and helping the environment (damn, I sound like a lib).

One accident is bad enough... HOWEVER, if Safety is highly regulated I am all for it.

Cutting dependence on foreign energy sources is in the National interest...I am all for that. Limited air pollution will at bare minimum lower rates of asthma and respiratory diseases...that will save us healthcare money.

There are so many benefits to Nuke Power...

 

[Newc]

I don't know, I'm not convinced that there aren't other means to create power than could be much safer than nuclear power. The money that would be spent in order to research and ensure that nuclear power was contained in a safe manner could probably be better used in the development of safer while still clean power alternative. The only problem we face is that oil is a big dollar business, and while I am all for a free capital market, I still can't help but face the reality and see that alternative energy is soon going to become a necessity (though I still think Gore is a giant douche).

 

[Freeman Ara]

The problem with nuclear power, even if you can regulate it enough to make it safe is getting one built. You can tell John Q. Public its safe but when it comes to down to getting it voted by local citizens to have it placed in or even remotely close to their town that proposition would get rejected so fast your head will spin. No one wants a reactor anywhere near them no mater how safe you tell them it is.
And as far as being dependent on foreign oil goes, thats not the problem. Even if we doubled or tripled the number oil rigs in the gulf and tapped ever oil reserve in the US (by the way we have a oil reserve under Utah,Colorado, and Wyoming about 3 times as big as what Saudi Arabia has) we don't have the means to refine it all fast enough to get it out on the market to lower the prices. We haven't built a new refinery here in the US in like 30 years because the US government has put such stringent regulation on oil and gas refineries (thank you President Clinton) it isn't cost effective to build new refineries. and also who wants a refinery in their backyard(see nucler power).
As far as biofuels go, yeah they seem like a great option but you want to talk about gas prices being high now. You start using biofuels not only will the price of fuel probably rise but the price of everyday items such as bread,beef, softdrinks, flour will all go through the roof as well. So now we get screwed twice.
I think the best think that could happen is for the politicians in Washington to quit listening to the freaking tree huggers, lower regulations on oil drilling and refining drill into ANWR (because you know heaven forbid we misplace some wildlife in the middle of freaking nowhere) put more rigs in the gulf and build refineries like crazy.

 

[Junkhead]

The problem with nuclear power, even if you can regulate it enough to make it safe is getting one built. You can tell John Q. Public its safe but when it comes to down to getting it voted by local citizens to have it placed in or even remotely close to their town that proposition would get rejected so fast your head will spin. No one wants a reactor anywhere near them no mater how safe you tell them it is.
And as far as being dependent on foreign oil goes, thats not the problem. Even if we doubled or tripled the number oil rigs in the gulf and tapped ever oil reserve in the US (by the way we have a oil reserve under Utah,Colorado, and Wyoming about 3 times as big as what Saudi Arabia has) we don't have the means to refine it all fast enough to get it out on the market to lower the prices. We haven't built a new refinery here in the US in like 30 years because the US government has put such stringent regulation on oil and gas refineries (thank you President Clinton) it isn't cost effective to build new refineries. and also who wants a refinery in their backyard(see nucler power).
As far as biofuels go, yeah they seem like a great option but you want to talk about gas prices being high now. You start using biofuels not only will the price of fuel probably rise but the price of everyday items such as bread,beef, softdrinks, flour will all go through the roof as well. So now we get screwed twice.
I think the best think that could happen is for the politicians in Washington to quit listening to the freaking tree huggers, lower regulations on oil drilling and refining drill into ANWR (because you know heaven forbid we misplace some wildlife in the middle of freaking nowhere) put more rigs in the gulf and build refineries like crazy.

That might lower the price of oil (or maybe not), but it doesnt address the long term. Oil will not last forever, we should be working on a solution now. As for that oil field in Co,Utah, etc....isn't that the "oil shale" that costs more to remove and refine than it is worth? At least with current technology.

 

[Newc]

NDBCS, you are dead on with your points. The only reason the current refineries in the USA are in operation is because they are grandfathered in. With the current regulations in place, oil companies are handcuffed in their attempts to create a more efficeient and lower cost flow of gas to consumers. The CEO of Exxon Mobil was on CNBC about two weeks ago (i have it one all day long at work) talking about the same issues you brought to light. The oil is there, its the refining that produces the problems.

All in all, I agree with what you are saying. We need to develop some off-shore drilling (don't worry Mr. Clooney, you won't see the drilling towers from your loverly avish Miami condo, while writing your next movie about how greedy the US citizens are) and allow the construction of some new high-tech, more efficent refineries.

 

[Freeman Ara]

That might lower the price of oil (or maybe not), but it doesnt address the long term. Oil will not last forever, we should be working on a solution now. As for that oil field in Co,Utah, etc....isn't that the "oil shale" that costs more to remove and refine than it is worth? At least with current technology.

The technology isn't quite where it needs to be to extract it at the same cost efficiency as pure drilling but its not that far off, and at current prices its almost worth it anyway. And my main point was that basically we have enough oil to make it through my lifetime which I would hope is long enough to produce a cost effective and clean source of energy. I just don't believe we will run out of oil with in the next 25 to 50 years.

 

[stonebreakerwasgod]

I think long term disposition would have to be carefully weighed, as would safety concerns. Here in Cincy, we had a nuke plant ready to go before the whole 3 mile island incident pretty much put public opinion against it. We would be having cheap, clean, energy right now if that didn't occur.

It is not right for the environmentalists to criticize our oil and energy consumption and not provide viable alternatives. We have got to drill, go after alternatives (ethenal I believe is talked about, and nuclear power. What else can we do, sit back and watch terror states control our energy needs? Talk about the need for a strong military if they start doing that! It reminds me of '3 days of the condor' movie, when at the end, the cia guy says that Americans would demand action if it was cut off. Let's not allow the situation to arise.

 

[stonebreakerwasgod]

As far as oil goes, it seems that we do need more refineries, and states like Kalifornia need to stop the excessive regulations on gas. This is one case where the feds should dictate gas production standards.

 

[MirageSmack]

"The problem with nuclear power, even if you can regulate it enough to make it safe is getting one built. You can tell John Q. Public its safe but when it comes to down to getting it voted by local citizens to have it placed in or even remotely close to their town that proposition would get rejected so fast your head will spin. No one wants a reactor anywhere near them no mater how safe you tell them it is. "

Correct-a-mundo. Even worse tough is what they want to do in KY. They don't want to put the reactor here, just the waste product. They want to bury it, with it's half life of a million years, or something. The natives are restless. For one thing, they won't even make a lot of money on the deal. Will it leak? It'll be there for thousands of years! And we don't like the implication as well I suppose. We get the waste. Just like years ago when NY city has a sanitation strike. So they loaded up their garbage, stuck it on barges, and sent it down to.........Kentucky! I can't remeber what we did with it. Hopefully, we sent it back!

 

[stonebreakerwasgod]

Can we put it in Louisville? They seem to be beating up my bearcats fairly regularly. We need to make a choice, gas getting higher and higher, and affecting our economy, or go to something that most people think is cleaner, and much cheaper.

 

[IRISHDODGER]

The technology isn't quite where it needs to be to extract it at the same cost efficiency as pure drilling but its not that far off, and at current prices its almost worth it anyway. And my main point was that basically we have enough oil to make it through my lifetime which I would hope is long enough to produce a cost effective and clean source of energy. I just don't believe we will run out of oil with in the next 25 to 50 years.

You took the words right out my mouth. Now if you're talking the year 3000, even the most ardent oil supporter is out of luck, but for now; there's plenty to give us time to come up w/ a cleaner & more cost effective alternative.

BTW, I've noticed gas is up to $2.30 where I live (in the southeast) & about a buck more per gallon in California. The funny thing is that since the Dems have retaken Congress, you don't hear the whining about the increased cost of gas although it's gotten worse since they've taken control. Just further proof that it's all politics of convenience. The new budget is another example: Bush was rightfully criticized for his spending but the new budget promises worse: increased spending w/ no tax cuts. In fact the tax hikes will be the highest since Clinton's in '93.

 

[ShivaIrish]

Does anybody know anything about the new coal-energy production process? In know now they can even convert it to liquid fuel. The governor of Montana, Brian Schweitzer, who was trained as an agronomist and worked over in Saudi Arabia on an irrigation project, seems to think that the new developments are a vast improvement on past productions. Personally I don't know--just wondering if anybody knew about the viability of this option.

I think it's pretty fair to say that no single one energy source is going to provide the solution. Biofuel may be able to help, but you certainly can't have it affect our food supply (as some one alluded to earlier). It probably has to be a combination effort. However, I certainly don't trust what the CEO of Exxon is telling me when they made record profits while gas prices were going up.

 

[stonebreakerwasgod]

LOL I read an article in American Scientist magazine (of course the media isn't liberal, and neither are scientists) that badmouthed EVERYTHING about coal and the processes used to convert it. Although I believe it did mention that there were advancements being made. I agree with Shiva, it will take a mulititude of ideas/technologies to solve an AMERICAN problem. We should be working together on this, and deciding what is in our long term interest.

 

[notredomer23]

Is ethenol anywhere in the mix besides nuke energy

 

[stonebreakerwasgod]

Sure, that and coal is one thing we have an abundance of, I believe. Although I heard once that ethanol would not be cheap at the pump. I can't remember, but it does seem attractive. The good thing, is that the experts are researching all of this right now. They are probably 7-10 years away from pretty good advancements in that technology, but who knows.

 

[LOVEMYIRISH]

Is ethenol anywhere in the mix besides nuke energy

Ethanol is being killed by the god damn corn farmers. It takes more energy to MAKE ethanol that we get from it...WHEN MADE FROM CORN.

When Ethanol is MADE FROM SUGAR CANE it is effective. Of course American farmers don't grow sugar cane, thus is it being EXCLUDED from the American market.

The damn farmers had the last Congress in their back pocket and are effectively screwing America for their own good. They are being welfare queens and it is sickening.

Now that the Democrats have taken control of Congress my hopes have dramatically stayed the same. I can't imagine a Republican or Democratic Congress doing the right thing by Ethanol. I hope I am wrong. I hope the Dems tell the corn farmers to go to hell...but I would not bet much on it.

 

[portlaNDgal]

Is ethenol anywhere in the mix besides nuke energy

One of the problems with past producion of ethanol is that a lot of the crops used to generate it are produced with petroleum-based fertilizers. Plus, ethanol is used in CA gasoline for improved air quality, but its production actually causes more air pollution than it saves. If ethanol is a viable alternative fuel, we have to make sure its production doesn't burn more fuel than it saves.

I agree nuclear power can be a viable alternative if we figure out long-term storage. Whoever mentioned the NIMBY issue is right though; no one wants any kind of power plant in their neighborhood. I worked on the certification of a natural gas power plant in CA during the energy crisis. It was near a somewhat affluent neighborhood in San Jose. The locals were strongly against it, and this was an extremely clean plant.

 

[kjones]

Well here's a subject I actually know a little on the inside about. I almost took a job at the Knoll's atomic power plant in New York running prototype nuclear reactors for training Navy submariners. Basically, Chernobyl was over 20 years ago. Think about how much technology has changed in 20 years. New plants are basically fool-proof. There is so much redundancy and multiple layers of safety, it is all but PHYSICALLY impossible for such a thing to happen again. Fourth generation nuclear reactors are light-years ahead of the second generation one in Chernobyl. They don't run as hot, they have sophisticated computer systems and safety requirements ad nauseum.
And they don't even DO anything with them in power plants. At the job i turned down they run them as high as they can safely go, shut them off mid operation and do cold starts. Run them up and down as fast as they can. It's training people for crises on subs, and they manufacture their own crises for training. And they are still safe. In a power plant you just turn in on and let it run for like, forever. Boring as hell for anyone working there. The only issue left at all is waste, and by the time that becomes serious, we'll probably just be able to launch it into the sun or something. :rocket:

 

[kjones]

Ethanol is being killed by the god damn corn farmers. It takes more energy to MAKE ethanol that we get from it...WHEN MADE FROM CORN.
.

Actually, this is not true. I've been to at least 2 seminars that I can think of on the topic, as part of graduate school, and this is not the case. The studies that were used to come by those results were biased and made assumptions that were misleading or false. There are competing studies that show opposite results for energy consuption in making ethanol from corn, but if you looked at the assumptions next to each other, I think you'd change your stance on this one.

Either way, this is a hot topic in research right now and a lot of people are doing things to make ethanol production faster and cheaper. They don't need Corn only either, one of the talks i attended is working on making it from GRASS. Yes, that's right, freaking GRASS. The major problem with Ethanol is NOT scientific, or energy dependent, but is actually the lack of a distribution network that is economically viable on a large scale. They can't put it through existing oil pipelines, and building new infrastructure is going to require a large amount of capital. When and if it becomes necessary, it'll happen, but right now there isn't enough money in it. (we can be honest, nobody in business really cares about the environment unless it helps their pockets. And as long as all the people who say they care, still buy gas and don't do anything but talk, why should they care?)

here's a link, and there's a lot more where this came from
http://journeytoforever.org/ethanol_energy.html

 

[stonebreakerwasgod]

Ethanol is being killed by the god damn corn farmers. It takes more energy to MAKE ethanol that we get from it...WHEN MADE FROM CORN.

When Ethanol is MADE FROM SUGAR CANE it is effective. Of course American farmers don't grow sugar cane, thus is it being EXCLUDED from the American market.

The damn farmers had the last Congress in their back pocket and are effectively screwing America for their own good. They are being welfare queens and it is sickening.

Now that the Democrats have taken control of Congress my hopes have dramatically stayed the same. I can't imagine a Republican or Democratic Congress doing the right thing by Ethanol. I hope I am wrong. I hope the Dems tell the corn farmers to go to hell...but I would not bet much on it.

In Brazil, the president is under criticism for hailing the producers of sugarcane as national heroes. What goes under the radar, is the meager payments given to the workers. The product and profits are being subsidized by the backs of those who earn substandard wages. Thus making them unfairly competitive. I support the fact that tariffs are a good idea, for social and economic reasons.

 

[cclanofirish]

Nuclear power is considered clean and environmentally friendly. How many accidents aside from Chernobyl have you heard about in the past 20 years? We need to get serious about energy, and this would go a long way in cutting dependance, and helping the environment (damn, I sound like a lib).

Sounding like a lib, and actually being a lib are two different things. One requires serious thought, the other relies on Big Al to do all their thinking.

 

[stonebreakerwasgod]

Ha Ha!