No more nuclear power for the US?

[Policenaut]

Um, you guys do realize that there is no Yucca Mountain waste storage?

This hardly marks the end of nuclear power.

But yes, the Democrats and Obama aren't big on it.

This is one of the cornerstones of the future of nuclear power in the US. This **** was supposed to be figured out 10 years ago but everyone's been dragging their feet and now Obama has effectively killed off any prospects of Yucca being used to store waste.

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

I...
.. Hm.
Well, I have an idea. Why don't we get a movement up to write letters to congress, the energy secretary, Obama and..
... well, I think just that. If the facts are laid up, they might consider something...

.. then again, I could be dreaming.

 

[Roadtoad]

I...
.. Hm.
Well, I have an idea. Why don't we get a movement up to write letters to congress, the energy secretary, Obama and..
... well, I think just that. If the facts are laid up, they might consider something...

.. then again, I could be dreaming.

You are.

 

[lionking]

FWIW, it's even worse in Australia. Here we are sitting on the largest uranium reserves in the world, and neither political party has the balls to build even one nuclear power plant. And most of the population supports this. When I ask critics of nuclear energy "Do you think the French are stupid?" I just get blank looks.

Stupid.

 

[MattusMaximus]

http://www.slate.com/id/2212792/

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/26/budget.departments/index.html?iref=newssearch

• It cuts funding for the controversial Yucca Mountain nuclear waste storage program. Funding for the program "will be scaled back ... while the Administration devises a new strategy toward nuclear waste disposal."

Well, the article seems to be talking specifically about the Yucca Mountain project, not nuclear power in general. However, personally, I view dropping the YM program as a bad idea. I certainly hope this isn't a harbinger of an anti-nuke policy...

So do you think this is a positive or a negative? I think we should have been building nuke plants for the last 30 years. We've been sitting on our hands because of an "accident" that didn't cause any harm to anyone.

Agreed. This is one area which I fight with fellow liberals all the time, because many are just so damned ignorant about nuclear power - the more extreme environmentalists have scared the hell out of them regarding nuke energy. Instead of "no nukes" it should be "know nukes".

If we're smart, we'll get off our collective asses and ask France for help in building our nuclear power infrastructure. They've done it right from the beginning, and now they're reaping the benefits.

If Obama drops the ball on this, to the point of not investing in nuclear power at all, I'm going to be pretty pissed off about it. I don't see any other practical way to meet our energy demands without resorting to at least more nuclear power. It will serve as a good stopgap while we research alternative energy sources, but if we don't invest in nuke energy now...

 

[Puppycow]

But it's okay! Because we're going to have windmills! And solar power! And we're going to conserve!

That's the spirit! I knew you guys would come around!

Seriously, though, this is political pandering to Nevada's NIMBYism. This is perhaps why Obama won Nevada 55% to 42% and why he will probably win it next time too.

I can't think of any logical reason (other than politics) why it's better to have this stuff stored scattered around the country in temporary facilities in high population areas. What's there to "study"?

 

[BenBurch]

The new strategy will be thorium piles pumped by neutron beams to actually transmute the waste. Was talking with several friends from a national lab about this the other day. Much better than burial.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Seriously, though, this is political pandering to Nevada's NIMBYism. This is perhaps why Obama won Nevada 55% to 42% and why he will probably win it next time too.

Or it is pragmatically realizing that it is a stone wall that has prevented it from opening and probably would forever.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

FWIW, it's even worse in Australia. Here we are sitting on the largest uranium reserves in the world, and neither political party has the balls to build even one nuclear power plant. And most of the population supports this. When I ask critics of nuclear energy "Do you think the French are stupid?" I just get blank looks.

Well, the French ARE stupid, but that's beside the point. I guess even a stopped clock is right twice a day, and nuclear power is the one thing that the French have managed to do right.

 

[Puppycow]

Or it is pragmatically realizing that it is a stone wall that has prevented it from opening and probably would forever.

Huh?

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

I've only spoken to a couple of my contacts within the group and they've made no public statements yet, but this turn by the Obama regime has the Canadian Nuclear Society PISSED.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

The new strategy will be thorium piles pumped by neutron beams to actually transmute the waste. Was talking with several friends from a national lab about this the other day. Much better than burial.

I think you mean a thorium fuel cycle with the waste treated by neutron transmutation.

Some current reactors can simply slowly have their usual fuel bundles replaced with thorium-232 packed bundles and the thorium will simply turn to fissile uranium-233 and then burn naturally. This can be done with almost no modification.

The neutron transmutation end will require a great deal of development as it has been left to stagnate since the 70s.

 

[Oliver]

Nuclear is the cleanest energy source we have today, and it's being completely ignored.

You might as well argue that coal power plants are the cleanest source for energy if you think that nuclear power is.

 

[BPSCG]

Seriously, though, this is political pandering to Nevada's NIMBYism.

The thing is, there is no "BY" for Nevada to be NIMBY about. Click here for a Google map to see what I mean. Scroll around to get an idea how remote it is.

Yucca Mountain is in the middle of the desert, including Nellis Air Force Base Bombing Range, which I bet nobody lives in. Here's a more detailed map of the area.

And yet that jackass Harry Reid has the stones to say that this is:

...our most significant victory to date in our battle to protect Nevada from becoming the country's toxic wasteland.

And:

President Obama recognizes that the proposed dump threatens the health and safety of Nevadans and millions of Americans.

It's crystal-clear what Reid is saying here: If storing nuclear waste at a place as remote, as desolate, as geologically stable as Yucca Mountain threatens the health and safety of millions of Americans, then there is no safe place to store it. And therefore, the only logical thing to do to protect unborn generations from the ever-increasing amounts of nuclear waste is to shut down the nuclear power industry completely.

Harry Reid - the mullahs' best friend.

 

[Holler Hoojer]

I hate to interject facts in here, but Westinghouse is busy working on new AP1000 units for the US. Whether we like it or not, nuclear is resuming.

 

[BPSCG]

I hate to interject facts in here, but Westinghouse is busy working on new AP1000 units for the US.

Where?

 

[joobz]

You might as well argue that coal power plants are the cleanest source for energy if you think that nuclear power is.

I should say X is cleanest if I believe Y is cleanest?

You do understand the concept of the superlative, right?

 

[joobz]

Where?

Looks like Florida.
http://westinghousenuclear.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=39


I know Kentucky's energy plan is to get ~30% of the state energy needs from Nuclear by (I think) 2030. Considering KY is a major coal state, that's a rather bold goal.

 

[NoZed Avenger]

This is disappointing.


Nuclear + Electric vehicles = rapid decrease in Oil dependancy and reduced CO2 output.

Certainly I have hopes for Solar to be the "final solution", but we need a practical approach and if we want it fast, we need something proven.

Yep. IIRC, even if solar power undergoes huge and rapid increases in efficiency, etc., there is no real way to expect it to provide more than 5% of the energy used in the US by the end of 20 years.

 

[BPSCG]

Looks like Florida.
http://westinghousenuclear.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=39

Yeah, I saw that. Georgia, too. And South Carolina.

But I searched in vain for anything that showed the plants are actually being built. And between getting a contract to build a nuclear power plant and having it actually generate power, there stands a host of people who hate any kind of power plant, but who hold a special hatred for nuclear ones.

And they have powerful friends in congress and the White House.

Westinghouse's website says that the AP1000 plant can be built in 36 months. Yet the dates I saw on the website of one of the power companies planning to build one of these proposed plants (I forget which one) said they expect it to go online in 2016 or 2017. So all the red tape of building a plant can apparently more than double the time it takes to build it.

I am not sanguine. Google "Shoreham nuclear" and see why not.