No more nuclear power for the US?

[WildCat]

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.

I never thought Obama would be pro-nuke. But I voted for him anyway.

I didn't think he'd up the budget to $3.75 trillion...

 

[Dr Adequate]

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.


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.

Let me ask you again. If we are to ignore all Obama's statements and actions as a guide to what he thinks, on what basis should we decide what he really thinks? The stuff that you've made up, after all, has turned out to be wrong whenever I've been able to test it.

I cannot see any difference between you and the people who say that whereas he talks and acts like a Christian, he must really be a Secret Muslim.

Politics.


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.

* drums fingers lightly on desk *

You have not answered my question.

Chu is the worst possible patsy if Obama is anti-nuclear. He's the best possible cover if Obama is pro-nuclear.

Assuming that Obama is sane, why did Obama choose him?

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

And yet you are in fact claiming to look beyond what Obama says and what he does and tell me what he's really thinking.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

WildCat seems intent on repeating his mantra at every opportunity so I'll just leave him to it.

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.

Biofuel - it's been a disaster.

Yes, it's likely to be impossible to make a large dent in petroleum with biofuel. But it's still likely to have a very useful niche role replacing petroleum feedstocks and possibly supplying fuel for aircraft. So biofuels are hardly comparable to ID.

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.

This doesn't appear to be true anymore. But even if it were I'd say "so what?" If solar plants are inherently small we could just build more of them. Solar power is distributed so it may be that we build more smaller solar plants around the world. How much you can build in one spot isn't the most definitiive measure of feasibility.

But I know of a project called SEGS in the Mojave desert that is putting out 350 MW from 3 locations. They've apparently achieved commercial success which is quite remarkable considering how new this technology is That early success is probably because the technology (a lot of mirrors) is fairly simple.

There are a lot of people living in spots on Earth where solar thermal makes sense. This is much less in the realm of ID than biofuel. This shows all the signs of being a commercially viable power source on a large scale in the very near future.

Debating these two ideas is hardly in the realm of the "debate" over ID.

 

[WildCat]

Let me ask you again. If we are to ignore all Obama's statements and actions as a guide to what he thinks, on what basis should we decide what he really thinks? The stuff that you've made up, after all, has turned out to be wrong whenever I've been able to test it.

Funny, you haven't shown anything I've said to be wrong.

And it's deeds, not words, that is the indicator of what he really thinks. And so far his only deed was to kill the one place available for nuclear waste disposal.

I cannot see any difference between you and the people who say that whereas he talks and acts like a Christian, he must really be a Secret Muslim.

Oh boy, getting desperate now, aren't you?

* drums fingers lightly on desk *

You have not answered my question.

Not liking the answers is not the same thing as not answering the question.

Chu is the worst possible patsy if Obama is anti-nuclear. He's the best possible cover if Obama is pro-nuclear.

Assuming that Obama is sane, why did Obama choose him?

Already explained. Chu is the perfect choice to be pro-nuclear without actually doing anything to get new nukes online.

And yet you are in fact claiming to look beyond what Obama says and what he does and tell me what he's really thinking.

No, I base my opinions on what he is actually saying and doing. I've seen this movie before. Maybe when I was as young as you I would be such a sucker for the lip service as you appear to be.

 

[Dr Adequate]

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 can see that you''re not a professional scientist. All the good ones get forced to take on executive roles. Most of 'em don't want to, but they're told that they have to. Asking me if a sixty-year-old Nobel Prize winner has executive experience is like asking if fish can breathe underwater.

Steve Chu, in particular, was director of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory until Obama picked him as Energy Secretary. Has he done a bad job of it? If so, please say.

Is it "odd" to pick a scientist, you ask. Well, I don't believe that there's ever been a Nobel Laureate in the cabinet, no. That might be what we mean by "change". Perhaps when it comes to a science-intensive job, we should pick someone who combines executive experience with having a reputable scientific mind, who has no political ties or connections, who can say a big "FU" to any politician who tells him on political grounds what to think.

Really, are you going to question Chu's knowledge or integrity or capacity on the grounds that he got his job by being a great scientist and not a political hack?

 

[WildCat]

btw, if someone can explain the scientific objections to Yucca Mtn., the floor is yours.

 

[WildCat]

This exchange on an old thread summed it up well:

Why do the US Nuclear Power plants need to be safer? They've never harmed anyone to date. It's like saying, I support hydro-power, but it needs to be made "safer" first.

It's a way of postponing it so you don't actually have to do anything or make a decision. He "supports" it, but will do nothing to further actually utilizing it because it's not safe enough. And everyone's happy.

Yeah, it sounds like he is trying to placate both those who know that nuclear power has to be a part of our future energy policy and those that irrationally fear nuclear power.

I don't think Travis and dirtywick were claiming psychic powers either. Neither did they just fall off the turnip truck.

 

[WildCat]

And let's have some more studies to add to the studies already done! http://www.nwtrb.gov/reports/reports.html

Is this stimulus via blue ribbon commissions?

 

[Dr Adequate]

Funny, you haven't shown anything I've said to be wrong.

Yes I did.

And it's deeds, not words, that is the indicator of what he really thinks. And so far his only deed was to kill the one place available for nuclear waste disposal.

No.

Oh boy, getting desperate now, aren't you?

No.

Not liking the answers is not the same thing as not answering the question.

I never said that it was. Now please answer the question.

Already explained. Chu is the perfect choice to be pro-nuclear without actually doing anything to get new nukes online.

As I have shown, this is untrue.

No, I base my opinions on what he is actually saying and doing.

This is not true.

I've seen this movie before. Maybe when I was as young as you I would be such a sucker for the lip service as you appear to be.

So let me ask you again. If we can't judge Obama's intentions on the basis of what he has said and done, on what should we base this judgement? Remember, as always, that the crap that you've made up in your head is not an option.

 

[joobz]

btw, if someone can explain the scientific objections to Yucca Mtn., the floor is yours.

transportation hazards, safety and cost.

You'd need to move all material to the silica encasing facility in georgia ( I believe). Then you need to ship it from there to Yucca. The weight of silica to nuclear material needed to provide safe encasement will be extremely high, making the cost of transport extremely high.

 

[Dr Adequate]

btw, if someone can explain the scientific objections to Yucca Mtn., the floor is yours.

I refer you once again to the statements of Nobel Laureate Steve Chu.

But you may prefer to pretend that I never said that.

 

[Dr Adequate]

And let's have some more studies to add to the studies already done! http://www.nwtrb.gov/reports/reports.html

Is this stimulus via blue ribbon commissions?

Would you summarize why this is superior to incineration in a thorium reactor?

If you cannot do this in your own words, please feel free to quote someone else's.

 

[WildCat]

I refer you once again to the statements of Nobel Laureate Steve Chu.

But you may prefer to pretend that I never said that.

Here is the totality of Chu's statement on Yucca Mtn. from your link:

Q:Should fission-based nuclear power plants be made a bigger part of the energy-producing portfolio?

Chu: Absolutely. Right now about 20 percent of our power comes from nuclear; there have been no new nuclear plants built since the early '70s. The real rational fears against nuclear power are about the long-term waste problem and [nuclear] proliferation. The technology of separating [used fuel from still-viable fuel] and putting the good stuff back in to the reactor can also be used to make bomb material.

And then there's the waste problem: with future nuclear power plants, we've got to recycle the waste. Why? Because if you take all the waste we have now from our civilian and military nuclear operations, we'd fill up Yucca Mountain. [Yucca Mountain, which sits on federal land in Nevada , is under consideration as a long-term storage facility for spent nuclear fuel.] So we need three or four Yucca Mountains. Well, we don't have three or four Yucca Mountains. The other thing is that storing the fuel at Yucca Mountain is supposed to be safe for 10,000 years. But the current best estimates - and these are really estimates, the Lab's in fact - is that the metal casings [containing the waste] will probably fail on a scale of 5,000 years, plus or minus 2. That's still a long time, and then after that the idea was that the very dense rock, very far away from the water table will contain it, so that by the time it finally leaks down to the water table and gets out the radioactivity will have mostly decayed.

Suppose instead that we can reduce the lifetime of the radioactive waste by a factor of 1,000. So it goes from a couple-hundred-thousand-year problem to a thousand-year problem. At a thousand years, even though that's still a long time, it's in the realm that we can monitor - we don't need Yucca Mountain.

So his objections are:
1. Yucca Mtn. isn't big enough. To which I'd reply "then build another once it's filled". And besides, we're talking about the waste from nuke plants, not other radioactive waste from hospitals and such.

2. The casings will only last for 5,000 years. This has nothing at all to do with Yucca Mtn., it will be an issue no matter what site is chosen.

3. We need to reduce the lifetime of the waste. Once again, nothing to do with Yucca Mtn. If a way to process the waste is found in the future the stuff in Yucca Mtn could always be removed and processed.

So I'll ask you again Dr. A, what exactly is the problem with Yucca Mtn?

 

[WildCat]

Would you summarize why this is superior to incineration in a thorium reactor?

If you cannot do this in your own words, please feel free to quote someone else's.

List the thorium reactors in the US.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

So I'll ask you again Dr. A, what exactly is the problem with Yucca Mtn?

Can you actually cite someone in this thread claiming there is a problem with Yucca mountain? Possibly I've missed something but you seem to be hallucinating a conversation that isn't happening.

The primary objection I'm hearing is that people don't want to call it waste at all because it's potentially usable fuel.

The other objections in this thread aren't to Yucca mountain per se. They are to the cost and safety issues surround moving and prepping the "waste".

There's been one citation that I noticed to a person who objects to the location itself but that person (Harry Reed) isn't posting here to answer your questions and I don't see anyone carrying on his argument.

List the thorium reactors in the US.

Cite someone claiming these exist already. Then list all the Yucca Mountain storage facilities (warning: you'll probably be tempted to list one too many on your list of one).

 

[Dr Adequate]

List the thorium reactors in the US.

There are none.

List the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repositories in the US.

Hint : same answer as mine.

 

[BenBurch]

My only objection to Yucca Mtn. is that wasting good fuel is a crime.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

BTW wikipedia lists two thorium cycle reactors in the US, five on the planet.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium_fuel_cycle

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

There are none [thorum reactors]

Are you focused on a particular thorium cycle? Wikipedia lists five thorium reactors in operation.

 

[WildCat]

Can you actually cite someone in this thread claiming there is a problem with Yucca mountain? Possibly I've missed something but you seem to be hallucinating a conversation that isn't happening.

Dr. A seems to think that there are scientific reasons to be against Yucca Mtn. He claims Chu cited them, but either Dr. A isn't much in the reading comprehension department or he lied.

See post #171 for example.

The primary objection I'm hearing is that people don't want to call it waste at all because it's potentially usable fuel.

And it could always be reused at a later date simply by removing it from Yucca Mtn.

The other objections in this thread aren't to Yucca mountain per se. They are to the cost and safety issues surround moving and prepping the "waste".

Issues that don't disappear if the waste is processed for reuse.

Cite someone claiming these exist already. Then list all the Yucca Mountain storage facilities (warning: you'll probably be tempted to list one too many on your list of one).

The only reason Yucca Mtn isn't up and running is because of political opposition. That's what this thread is about actually. Obama had a chance to shove Harry aside and do what's best for the country but he decided that partisan politics was more important.