No more nuclear power for the US?

[WildCat]

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

I'm not reading anybody's mind. I'm looking at their actions, not their words. And their actions are they ended any hope of using the only candidate for waste storage we have now, in favor of studying other candidates that don't actually exist at the moment.

And funny how you keep mentioning 2020. Do you know when Yucca was supposed to open? 1998! And it isn't because of any engineering problem, it is 100% political.

And say all you want how Chu isn't a political guy, but he is noiw in a political position. And a pre-requisite for the job was being against Yucca:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, among the dump's strongest opponents, is confident Obama and Chu will stop the dump, a spokesman said Thursday. Reid had vowed to try to block any nominee for energy secretary who didn't oppose Yucca Mountain.

And remember my earlier post about blue-ribbon committees to study the problem to death? I asure you I hadn't even seen this yet:

Obama has repeatedly said that he will not pursue Yucca Mountain to store spent fuel. Discussions are under way for a national blue-ribbon commission that could consider alternatives to Yucca Mountain that would be acceptable to both the industry as well as lawmakers in Washington.

~snicker~ There's that blue-ribbon commission you claimed I'd have to have psychic powers to foresee!

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

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?

http://www.cfo.doe.gov/budget/09budget/Content/Volumes/Volume3a.pdf

I don't know if it's a new goal or not but this budget contains plans to license 30 nuclear power plants in the US over the next 10 years. I also don't know if this budget will be approved.

 

[BenBurch]

Don't look for it in the Stimulus. Look for it in next year's science budget. Its coming. But only once the footwork of deciding what is wise to look at is done.

 

[Skwinty]

http://www.cfo.doe.gov/budget/09budget/Content/Volumes/Volume3a.pdf

I don't know if it's a new goal or not but this budget contains plans to open 30 nuclear power plants in the US over the next 10 years. I also don't know if this budget will be approved.

I work for a nuclear consultancy and we subcontract to Westinghouse amongst other nuclear conglomerates and as I understand, orders for at least 2 new builds in the states have been signed. Not to mention those in china.

 

[WildCat]

I agree completely with BPSCG on this particular point. It seems to me that both Reid and Obama are simply kowtowing to the NIMBY sentiment in Nevada for political reasons.

Of course it is. Reid is a Dem from a primarily GOP state, opposition to Yucca is about the only thing that keeps him in office. Get Yucca up and running and he very well could lose his seat to a Republican, and that trumps all else in the decision on Yucca Mtn.

Remember when the claim was that Obama wouldn't let politics get in the way of science?

 

[WildCat]

http://www.cfo.doe.gov/budget/09budget/Content/Volumes/Volume3a.pdf

I don't know if it's a new goal or not but this budget contains plans to license 30 nuclear power plants in the US over the next 10 years. I also don't know if this budget will be approved.

Any thorium reactors in that plan? No? Well then, we still ned a place to store the waste, don't we?

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

Any thorium reactors in that plan? No? Well then, we still ned a place to store the waste, don't we?

The waste is currently stored. And thorium reactors are "spiffy" but they aren't the only option for recycling the stuff.

 

[Dr Adequate]

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?

Well, snark is good too.

But, stop me if I'm wrong. My impression was that the federal government does not take it on itself to decide that such-and-such a power plant should be built, in some particular place, using some particular form of power. I take it that you're in favor of this approach.

So, you mention research. Will you tell me what sort of research is needed? Will you tell me why we can't just BUILD THE ******* THINGS?

I mentioned research earlier: Harry Reid wants research into thorium reactors, good on him. But is there anything stopping us from just building more totally normal nuclear power plants? If you want more federal dollars spent on research, what exactly is it you want to know? It must be something fairly crucial, or you wouldn't want it specifically mentioned in the budget. So what is it?

I'm not asking this contentiously ... well, I am, a bit ... but if you can tell me where research in utterly conventional nuclear reactors needs more tax dollars than this subject is getting already, then I'll be interested to hear your views. But this is a concept that we have not as yet heard in this debate.

 

[WildCat]

The waste is currently stored. And thorium reactors are "spiffy" but they aren't the only option for recycling the stuff.

So it's OK to store nuclear waste all over the country in relatively unprotected above-ground locations in populated areas but it's unsafe to store the waste deep underground in a desert wasteland where nobody lives which is already scarred by nuclear weapons testing?

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

@Wildcat,

Yes, the current storage is safe enough IMO. And I didn't say anything about Yucca being unsafe. My objections to Yucca aren't primarily safety. Of course you could know that if you weren't obsessed with equating opposition to Yucca as opposition to nuclear power.

 

[WildCat]

So, you mention research. Will you tell me what sort of research is needed? Will you tell me why we can't just BUILD THE ******* THINGS?

Because people are ignorant about nuclear power and think they can explode like a hydrogen bomb mostly. And the Greens are against it for much the same reason. And then there's the NIMBY syndrome.

And people like Harry Reid make their political bones by playing to these fears.

More research is needed they say, that's rich! Yucca Mtn. has been extensively researched for over 20 years. And every time a blue-ribbon commission studies one problem the critics sue (and anyone can sue for anything in this country) and force them to study another potential problem... rather, rinse, repeat. Whack-a-mole on steroids.

It's not science holding things back, it's politics. And unfortunately there are politicians in power (yes this means you Harry Reid) who owe their position entirely to playing on irrational fears in opposition to Yucca Mtn. Harry Reid isn't interested in alleviating these irrational fears, indeed he is interested in reinfocing them. And the Dems will go along because keeping his seat in Dem hands is more important than anything else.

No psychic ability was needed to construct that post btw.

 

[WildCat]

@Wildcat,

Yes, the current storage is safe enough IMO. And I didn't say anything about Yucca being unsafe. My objections to Yucca aren't primarily safety. Of course you could know that if you weren't obsessed with equating opposition to Yucca as opposition to nuclear power.

Security at nuclear plants has been found to be severely lacking. Government agents assigned to test security have repeatedly been able to enter/sneak into areas they weren't supposed to be in. Far easier to secure one location than it is to secure hundreds scattered all over the country.

And yes, opposition to Yucca is indeed a back door method to halt the construction of more nuclear power plants.

 

[BPSCG]

Because people are ignorant about nuclear power and think they can explode like a hydrogen bomb mostly. And the Greens are against it for much the same reason. And then there's the NIMBY syndrome.

And people like Harry Reid make their political bones by playing to these fears.

More research is needed they say, that's rich! Yucca Mtn. has been extensively researched for over 20 years. And every time a blue-ribbon commission studies one problem the critics sue (and anyone can sue for anything in this country) and force them to study another potential problem... rather, rinse, repeat. Whack-a-mole on steroids.

It's not science holding things back, it's politics. And unfortunately there are politicians in power (yes this means you Harry Reid) who owe their position entirely to playing on irrational fears in opposition to Yucca Mtn. Harry Reid isn't interested in alleviating these irrational fears, indeed he is interested in reinfocing them. And the Dems will go along because keeping his seat in Dem hands is more important than anything else.

No psychic ability was needed to construct that post btw.

Thanks. I was going to say much the same thing.

For DA: You're right, it's not government's job to build power plants. But government can allow anti-nuclear groups to throw legal roadblocks in front of every new nuclear plant - roadblocks which dramatically drive up the costs of construction - at which point the anti-nuclear people trot out their complaint that nuclear power is just as expensive as anything else.

I know I've seen something akin to this business about how the issue needs more interminable research.

"We're not opposed to the teaching of evolution in schools. But evolution doesn't answer everything. We need to study all the theories of how life arose, including intelligent design. We need to teach the controversy..."

"We're not opposed to nuclear power. But nuclear power doesn't answer all our energy needs. We need to study all the energy alternatives, including solar-generated electricity and biofuels."

 

[Dr Adequate]

I'm not reading anybody's mind. I'm looking at their actions, not their words. And their actions are they ended any hope of using the only candidate for waste storage we have now, in favor of studying other candidates that don't actually exist at the moment.

And your magical mind-reading powers say that if Obama's against Yucca Mountain, he's against nuclear power.

And funny how you keep mentioning 2020. Do you know when Yucca was supposed to open? 1998! And it isn't because of any engineering problem, it is 100% political.

And round and round we go ...

I've said it a zillion times ... I'll say it again. It may be for completely political reasons that Yucca Mountain couldn't open before 2020. It may be for completely bad, lousy political reasons that it couldn't open before 2020.

I'm not saying that the NIMBYs in Nevada were right,

I'm just saying that this is a fact that we have to deal with. That's all I'm saying.

And say all you want how Chu isn't a political guy, but he is noiw in a political position. And a pre-requisite for the job was being against Yucca:

I guess. And Chu was against Yucca in 2005, as you'd know if you'd followed my link. So were lots of people. But Obama picked Chu. Why?

You have not answered my point. Let me state it again. If Obama is secretly anti-nuclear, then Chu is the worst possible front-man. If Obama is sincere, then Chu is the perfect front-man.

So the appointment of Chu should lead us to believe ... what? On the hypothesis that Obama is not insane.

And remember my earlier post about blue-ribbon committees to study the problem to death? I asure you I hadn't even seen this yet:

~snicker~ There's that blue-ribbon commission you claimed I'd have to have psychic powers to foresee!

I made no such claim, which is, of course, why you can't quote me doing so.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

"We're not opposed to the teaching of evolution in schools. But evolution doesn't answer everything. We need to study all the theories of how life arose, including intelligent design. We need to teach the controversy..."

Which of the alternatives approaches to nuclear power and fuel recycling have as little credibility as intelligent design?

BTW The DoE budget I posted earlier doesn't seem to be claiming that implementation and research can't go on simultaneously.

 

[WildCat]

And your magical mind-reading powers say that if Obama's against Yucca Mountain, he's against nuclear power.

Doesn't matter really whether he is personally for it or against it. What is apparent is he will do what's good for the Democrats, even if that goes against the interests of the country as a whole. And right now a policy of "no nukes" is good for the Democrats. He'll pay lip service to the subject to attract pro-nuke voters, but that's all it is - lip service. Ride the thin line.

There is no intention to actually find a waste disposal site or to add new nuclear power plants.

I'm not saying that the NIMBYs in Nevada were right,

I'm just saying that this is a fact that we have to deal with. That's all I'm saying.

Then the fact we have to deal with is there will not be any new nuke plants built in the US, because the storage issue will be used to block them.

I guess. And Chu was against Yucca in 2005, as you'd know if you'd followed my link. So were lots of people. But Obama picked Chu. Why?

Politics.

You have not answered my point. Let me state it again. If Obama is secretly anti-nuclear, then Chu is the worst possible front-man. If Obama is sincere, then Chu is the perfect front-man.

So the appointment of Chu should lead us to believe ... what? On the hypothesis that Obama is not insane.

The appointment of Chu allows Obama to say he is for nukes while giving him cover to keep new nukes from being built. Politics 101.

It appears that Obama is for what is good for the Democrats, and right now the status quo is good for the Dems.

I made no such claim, which is, of course, why you can't quote me doing so.

Likewise, you will find me making no claims of psychic abilities. Funny how that works, isn't it?

 

[WildCat]

Which of the alternatives approaches to nuclear power and fuel recycling have as little credibility as intelligent design?

The claims that Yucca Mtn. is not a safe place to store nuclear waste. Just as the ToE is not perfect, neither is Yucca Mtn. But because Yucca Mtn. isn't perfect doesn't mean we should throw it out for some mystery place no one can name. Likewise, just because the ToE isn't perfect doesn't mean we should just attribute things to a magical invisible sky fairy.

 

[BPSCG]

Which of the alternatives approaches to nuclear power and fuel recycling have as little credibility as intelligent design?

Biofuel - it's been a disaster. The couple of dozen solar electrical power plants around the world typically put out about 20 megawatts peak DC power - the biggest put out about 60 megawatts. Meanwhile, the typical French nuclear plant puts out 800 to 1500 megawatts.

Okay, solar and biofuel don't have as as little credibility as ID, which has zero. But they're not far up the ladder from ID.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Thanks. I was going to say much the same thing.

For DA: You're right, it's not government's job to build power plants. But government can allow anti-nuclear groups to throw legal roadblocks in front of every new nuclear plant - roadblocks which dramatically drive up the costs of construction - at which point the anti-nuclear people trot out their complaint that nuclear power is just as expensive as anything else.

I know I've seen something akin to this business about how the issue needs more interminable research.

"We're not opposed to the teaching of evolution in schools. But evolution doesn't answer everything. We need to study all the theories of how life arose, including intelligent design. We need to teach the controversy..."

"We're not opposed to nuclear power. But nuclear power doesn't answer all our energy needs. We need to study all the energy alternatives, including solar-generated electricity and biofuels."

Yes, I know how it works.

But, look at what's happened. Obama cautiously said on the campaign trail that he guessed nuclear power would have to be part of the solution. Then he pledged in his inaugural speech that he'd govern on the basis of sound science. Then he appointed as his Energy Secretary a Nobel Prize winning scientist who's spent years saying that on an environmental basis the US needs more nuclear power. And now the DoE is saying that nuclear power is safe and environmentally friendly, and that we "must" build more nuclear reactors in the next decade.

Who's was being set up? You and WildCat seem to think that it's you and him, but you weren't going to vote for him anyway.

Who was being set up?

Again, I invoke the "Obama is not an idiot" clause.

 

[BPSCG]

Then he appointed as his Energy Secretary a Nobel Prize winning scientist who's spent years saying that on an environmental basis the US needs more nuclear power.

Doesn't it strike you as a little odd that he appoints a research scientist to be the head of an executive department of the US government?

Eric Clapton may be a wonderful guitarist. Bur does he own and manage a guitar-building company?

I don't feel like wiki'ing Chu (Mrs. BPSCG and I are going out to a concert in a bit). What executive and administrative experience running a large enterprise does he have?

What I'm asking is, is it possible that Chu is simply political window-dressing? "Look, I appointed this great physicist to my cabinet! I like science! (aside) Okay, Rahm, have Chu go out and make all kinds of speeches saying pretty much nothing but giving the impression we like nuclear energy. If he actually promises anything, fire the SOB..."