No more nuclear power for the US?

[RecoveringYuppy]

Whoopsie!

http://uk.reuters.com/article/marketsNewsUS/idUKN2443769620080624

Seems that when Obama says he "favor nuclear power as one component of our overall energy mix," he really means that he doesn't intend to get rid of every single nuclear reactor already in operation. But he certainly doesn't intend to build any more.

Why would Obama be in favor of developing nuclear waste recycling if we aren't going to build more nukes?? The current generation of nukes don't really neeed it.

 

[mortimer]

Ah, someone else with psychic powers.

Or are you claiming that this "real" meaning can be derived in some way from Obama's statements, where he said nothing of the sort?

No, you're right. Obama just said that it's stupid to build nuclear plants without a plan for where to store the waste.

Obama doesn't have a plan for where to store the waste. He killed the one plan that was already being worked on. I suppose there are actually two ways to read this. Either he is against building new nuclear plants or he is stupid.

 

[mortimer]

Check the dateline on that story.

Has Obama changed his position in the last 9 months?

 

[mortimer]

Why would Obama be in favor of developing nuclear waste recycling if we aren't going to build more nukes?? The current generation of nukes don't really neeed it.

The next generation of nukes don't really need it, either.

 

[BenBurch]

Obama favors more RESEARCH before building new plants. And I agree. We would be foolish to build new Uranium-fueled PWRs when you can build a safer, more reliable and cheaper plant that burns a more available fuel.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

Obama doesn't have a plan for where to store the waste. He killed the one plan that was already being worked on. I suppose there are actually two ways to read this. Either he is against building new nuclear plants or he is stupid.

Or you can't read the part where the article says he favors recycling.

The next generation of nukes don't really need it, either.

So putting your thinking cap on and try to figure out why Obama favors recycling nuclear waste back in to fuel. It's not really that hard to figure out.

 

[mortimer]

Obama favors more RESEARCH before building new plants. And I agree. We would be foolish to build new Uranium-fueled PWRs when you can build a safer, more reliable and cheaper plant that burns a more available fuel.

How long will that research take? Can we afford to wait?

 

[mortimer]

Or you can't read the part where the article says he favors recycling.

You mean the part where he says that we haven't figured out how to recycle it, and that he favors "federal research and development dollars to explore whether nuclear waste can be stored safely for reuse"?

 

[joobz]

I thought the breeder reactors were the next gen.

 

[Roadtoad]

How long will that research take? Can we afford to wait?

How much research has been done so far? And how quickly can we get things online?

My oldest son worked for a foundry that built parts to nuclear reactors. Nearly everything was custom built, though there was a great deal that was pretty much "standard." Up until he left last year, they were running at near capacity. (They have called several times asking him to come back.) It seems to me we have some of the infrastructure to build this stuff. I don't have all the information I'd need, but I would think if things were approved, and the courts simply told the EcoFreaks, "Enough," it wouldn't take as long as such structures have in the past. Whether that's fast enough, I haven't a clue.

 

[BenBurch]

How long will that research take? Can we afford to wait?

4-5 years if done properly.

Can we afford NOT to wait if the gains will be, as I expect, enormous?

 

[Travis]

If we are going down this road to more nuclear power plants wouldn't it be wise to finally streamline the design and approval process? There have to more efficient and economical ways to get reactors built than what happened in the 60's and 70's.

 

[Roadtoad]

If we are going down this road to more nuclear power plants wouldn't it be wise to finally streamline the design and approval process? There have to more efficient and economical ways to get reactors built than what happened in the 60's and 70's.

One might have thought so. IIRC, there was no "standard design," and each power plant had to be designed from scratch. I realize it was largely new technology, but at the same time, had we pressed for one good design to work with and used that as a jump-off point, we'd have been further ahead.

 

[Furcifer]

Nuclear is the cleanest energy source we have today, and it's being completely ignored. I said during the campaign that Obama was against nuclear energy, his strategy will be to commission study after study on it until he leaves office.

I'm in the process of obtaining my 3rd Class Power Engineering certification. Despite what I thought was a clear cut case, Nuclear as the cleanest energy source is under question. Although the actual process of generating energy is very clean, from enrichment to disposal isn't.

Oddly enough, all of the texts we have read point to coal as being the cleanest and most economical method of energy generating. Fluidized Bed Combustion and other new technologies reduce emissions and improve efficiency. These technologies also allow for the combustion of other materials such as biomass.

In a presentation by Ontario Power Generation, with both the Fossil Fuel and Nuclear Divisions present, this point was reiterated. I should also note, despite this, several coal plants are slated for closure by 2012. Meanwhile the Ontario Government mulls over construction and commissioning of a Westinghouse AP1000 an Areva EPR or an EC-6 at the Darlington site. As usual, politics play a major part in these decisions.

I think it very prudent of Obama not to jump onto one technology before studying all the options carefully. As I begin to see all of the factors involved with power generation I'm not as convinced Nuclear is the end all and be all.

That being said, I very recently began the testing process for an internship at the Darlington Nuclear facility. It might not be the end all and be all of power generation but it will be around for the next 25 years

 

[Roadtoad]

But if we don't consider ALL of the options, we consign ourselves to years of further submission to the middle eastern thugtatorships.

 

[Travis]

But if we don't consider ALL of the options, we consign ourselves to years of further submission to the middle eastern thugtatorships.

Not to mention all the carbon that gets pumped into the air.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Chu may actually believe that the Obama admin. is serious about developing nuclear power. He wouldn't be the first person tapped by a US pol to "build the bridge over the River Kwai".

Remember, it's Obama's mind you're meant to be reading, not Chu's.

Now, Chu is beholden to nobody. He's not a career politician. He's a Nobel Prize winning physicist, and if at any time he wants to flame Obama for being a big phony about nuclear power and go back to his actual profession, he can do so. And he's very pro-nuclear. So, if Obama isn't serious, why the heck would he appoint a guy like that as Energy Secretary rather than a compliant political stooge? Isn't Chu the worst possible guy to make a patsy?

On the other hand, let's say that I'm right and that Obama does actually want more nuclear power, but knows that his base has qualms. How does the Chu appointment fit in with that picture? It fits in perfectly.

'Cos then he can say: my Energy Secretary is independent of vested interests. He's independent of politics. He has a Nobel Prize. He's passionately environmentalist. I said while campaigning that we'd probably have to use nuclear power to achieve my green goals. I pledged in my inaugural speech that I'd govern based on sound science. And now this green scientist is saying, let's build more nuclear power stations. And look, the science supports him (which you, Mr WildCat, agree that it does).

If Obama's secretly anti-nuclear, Chu is the worst possible patsy. If he's genuinely pro-nuclear, Chu is the best possible cover.

Once more, I invoke the "Obama isn't stupid" clause.

No, he's not an idiot. That's why he'll put it off for his entire term(s) as POTUS, because he knows a large portion of his base are against nuclear power and he doesn't want them to vote for the Green Party if the next election is a close one. Nuclear plants aren't a winning strategy for a Dem politician.

But, my dear WildCat, political hypocrisy works the other way round. To hypocritically pander to your base, you tell them what they want to hear but secretly do the other thing. For example, you stand up for clean government but secretly take bribes.

What you're accusing Obama of is telling his base what they don't want to hear while secretly planning to do what would delight them.

This makes no sense.

If Obama was serious about nuclear power he'd put Yucca on a fast track.

Isn't this where we came in?

You're just back to equating support for Yucca Mountain with support for more nuclear power, even though this obviously isn't true.

You know what's missing from this thread? Evidence that Yucca Mountain is unsuitable for nuclear waste storage.

Did you read the link I supplied to the interview Chu gave in 2005?

You know what's missing from this thread? Evidence that Yucca Mountain is the best solution, even though times have moved on since 1987.

Only because of politics, not because of any engineering difficulties.

You keep saying that. So? The fact remains that it hasn't been built, and if it was built, it wouldn't be ready 'til at least 2020. You may think that this state of affairs has come about for bad reasons, but that doesn't change the fact that this is the state of affairs, and that this, therefore, is what we have to plan for.

 

[BPSCG]

Obama favors more RESEARCH before building new plants. And I agree. We would be foolish to build new Uranium-fueled PWRs when you can build a safer, more reliable and cheaper plant that burns a more available fuel.

How long will that research take? Can we afford to wait?

How much research has been done so far? And how quickly can we get things online?

My oldest son worked for a foundry that built parts to nuclear reactors. Nearly everything was custom built, though there was a great deal that was pretty much "standard." Up until he left last year, they were running at near capacity. (They have called several times asking him to come back.) It seems to me we have some of the infrastructure to build this stuff. I don't have all the information I'd need, but I would think if things were approved, and the courts simply told the EcoFreaks, "Enough," it wouldn't take as long as such structures have in the past. Whether that's fast enough, I haven't a clue.

4-5 years if done properly.

Can we afford NOT to wait if the gains will be, as I expect, enormous?

I went and looked at the stimulus law and the new budget.

Both documents have plenty in them about money and research and tax credits and such for solar, wind, geothermal, and carbon sequestration.

I searched in vain for the word "nuclear" in the stimulus law. Ditto for "atomic."

The most frequent use of the word "nuclear" in the budget refers to nuclear terrorism and things like that. With regard to nuclear power, the only reference in the budget is as follows:

The Yucca Mountain program will be scaled back to those costs necessary to answer inquiries from the Nuclear regulatory Commission, while the Administration devises a new strategy toward nuclear waste disposal.

But there's nothing in the budget appropriating funds towards that "strategy."

Here is the anti-nuke people's strategy: Announce that nuclear power is a viable option, but that it just needs more research and study, never mind that nuclear power has been around for half a century and the French have it down to a routine. BenBurch demonstrates this strategy beautifully: pretend your only objection to nuclear today is that there's something better four or five years down the road. News flash: In technology, there's always something better four or five years down the road. The same reasoning says we should stop building wind turbines today because there will be better ones four or five years from now.

The nuke-haters don't dare say they flat-out oppose nuclear energy, period. So they just say they approve in principle, but that it "needs more study," and hope it gets "studied" to death.

And the cheering continues in Tehran, Riyadh, and Caracas.

 

[Dr Adequate]

I went and looked at the stimulus law and the new budget.

Both documents have plenty in them about money and research and tax credits and such for solar, wind, geothermal, and carbon sequestration.

I searched in vain for the word "nuclear" in the stimulus law. Ditto for "atomic."

The most frequent use of the word "nuclear" in the budget refers to nuclear terrorism and things like that. With regard to nuclear power, the only reference in the budget is as follows: But there's nothing in the budget appropriating funds towards that "strategy."

Here is the anti-nuke people's strategy: Announce that nuclear power is a viable option, but that it just needs more research and study, never mind that nuclear power has been around for half a century and the French have it down to a routine. BenBurch demonstrates this strategy beautifully: pretend your only objection to nuclear today is that there's something better four or five years down the road. News flash: In technology, there's always something better four or five years down the road. The same reasoning says we should stop building wind turbines today because there will be better ones four or five years from now.

The nuke-haters don't dare say they flat-out oppose nuclear energy, period. So they just say they approve in principle, but that it "needs more study," and hope it gets "studied" to death.

And the cheering continues in Tehran, Riyadh, and Caracas.

Could you also use your psychic powers to tell us where Bin Laden is?

 

[BPSCG]

Could you also use your psychic powers to tell us where Bin Laden is?

Could you actually look at the budget or the stimulus law and see if there is any mention of research for nuclear power?

Or is snark your preferred rhetorical weapon here?