No more nuclear power for the US?

[technoextreme]

OK, I'll bite. Which half?

Wrong wording. One half of the sum is nonexistent.

Pssssssssst. spell check is your friend. nonexisistant=nonexistent

I don't take advice from people who ignore the rules of grammar themselves.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Do I have a link, no. Very little has been published. Carlo Rubbia has been talking this idea up for quite some time. The physics works.

Correct. Very little has been published on neutron transmutation. I do have at least one link:

http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-2/text/radside1.html

I had more, but the links have gone dead.

There was a long thread in the technology subforum where Dr. Buzzo (now banned, unfortunately) had a great deal of good info posted.

All that is needed is a pilot plant to demonstrate that it is practical.

Something Count Porkula could have put into is "paying off political interests" bill instead of killing Mount Yucca and leaving us with nothing to fill in the gap. But forethought has never been Obamas strong point.

 

[Beeyon]

Perhaps you people are confused as to what an election is. It's about gaining power, and so the most profitable route with that in mind is heaving out blather that people can get worked up about to get them on your side. Once you have the power, you can ease back and not do much of it because it was either stupid to begin with (hydro dam bans) or not worth the political fight. In many cases, planks are never intended to be carried out.

Where exactly did I say I was surprised? Obama's 'position' on nuclear energy during the election was not reassuring. I wouldn't really even call this a reversal on his part. Just a gentle sway in the direction of least resistance.

 

[The Painter]

Shoreham nuclear is the perfect example of moronic planning.

I live on Long Island. I helped pay the 6 billion dollars. Moronic Planning? What? Where? Are you thinking evacuation plan? No such thing on Long Island. It takes 2 or 3 hours to go 40 or 45 miles, on a good day. Huntington to Manhattan. Shoreham went down because of left wing wacko environmentalists. The key part of that word is highlighted. Now thanks to them we still have the power plant in Northport spewing crap into the air. Oh BTW a sister plant was built in Connecticut. About 20 miles away across the LI Sound. If that goes, LI will be affected. Oh yeah, one more thing. there has been an active nuclear reactor on Long Island for years and years. At the Brookhaven Labs. Nobody protests that. How come????

Wrong wording. One half of the sum is nonexistent.

Nope. Didn't clear it up. I have no idea what that means. One half of the sum doesn't exist????? What???

 

[Puppycow]

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.

Neat maps. I like.

And yet that jackass Harry Reid

Looks like they even named a geographical feature for him (in the part of the map labled 'Nevada Test Site.'

has the stones to say that this is:
And:
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.

Indeed. If it's not safe there, it's not safe anywhere. The status quo leaves the waste a lot closer to a lot more people than it would be in Yucca mountain.

Is is just a money problem? Could Nevada be bribed into accepting this? I understand the issue of irrational fears (fears matter even if they are illogical: my wife has certain phobias that I've learned to just accept and make allowances for). So we should probably make some allowances for nuclear phobias even if they are illogical, but we also need a safe place to put this stuff.

 

[technoextreme]

Oh yeah, one more thing. there has been an active nuclear reactor on Long Island for years and years. At the Brookhaven Labs. Nobody protests that. How come????

Really now? Really now? You are not a native New Yorker are you? Because no one who is a native New York would ask such a stupid question. It just screams "Im a lazy person who can't be bothered to double check anything". I know the answer because A) Im from New York, B) I bloody dam well read a newspaper while I was growing up, and C) THERE IS SOMETHING CALLED GOOGLE. And on top of that I really wouldn't use a laboratory that gave my grandpa (A security guard) a citation for rescuing a kid from their radioactive trash.

Nope. Didn't clear it up. I have no idea what that means. One half of the sum doesn't exist????? What???

Electric cars are crappy pieces of junk that would not change our dependence on foreign countries for our energy needs.

 

[BeAChooser]

Wrong? Yes. Unexpected? No. It was clear during the campaign that Obama had no interest in nuclear power.

That's right. I don't want to hear Obama supporter's claim they didn't know.

 

[joobz]

That is the stupidest thing I've read in a while.

You must not be reading the things you write.

Seriously, What part of nuclear and electric vehicles do you this is imaginary? Or do you think plug-in hybrids aren't electric?

 

[Dr Adequate]

That's right. I don't want to hear Obama supporter's claim they didn't know.

Yeah, sure, we could read stories like this:

U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said on Friday nuclear power was "not a panacea" for U.S. energy woes but it is worth investigating its further development.

During a meeting with U.S. governors, Obama noted that nuclear power does not emit greenhouse gases and therefore the United States should consider investing research dollars into whether nuclear waste can be stored safely for its reuse.​

Not to mention the fact-sheet on his website:

Safe and Secure Nuclear Energy.

Nuclear power represents more than 70 percent of our noncarbon generated electricity. It is unlikely that we can meet our aggressive climate goals if we eliminate nuclear power as an option. However, before an expansion of nuclear power is considered, key issues must be addressed including: security of nuclear fuel and waste, waste storage, and proliferation. Barack Obama introduced legislation in the U.S. Senate to establish guidelines for tracking, controlling and accounting for spent fuel at nuclear power plants. To prevent international nuclear material from falling into terrorist hands abroad, Obama worked closely with Sen. Dick Lugar (R‐IN) to strengthen international efforts to identify and stop the smuggling of weapons of mass destruction. As president, Obama will make safeguarding nuclear material both abroad and in the U.S. a top anti‐terrorism priority. In terms of waste storage, Barack Obama and Joe Biden do not believe that Yucca Mountain is a suitable site. They will lead federal efforts to look for safe, long‐term disposal solutions based on objective, scientific analysis. In the meantime, they will develop requirements to ensure that the waste stored at current reactor sites is contained using the most advanced dry‐cask storage technology available.​

But of course you can see the subtext: the man's gone mad with (non-nuclear) power. All this talk of "safe and secure nuclear energy" is a blatant attempt to whip up hysteria. And "solutions based on objective, scientific analysis" --- Ned Ludd would have said no less.

Mind you, you're not the only one who can see a subtext --- here's a man with somewhat different prejudices from yours, who explains how these same statements prove that Obama is a hired lapdog of the nuclear industry.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

All throughout my college classes on evironmental policy, the professors (citing numerous sources rather than just making things up as some professors are wont to do about politcal issues) kept harping on how nuclear power is extremely costly. I kept submitting papers making the opposite arguement (and being fairly graded too, which is also cool about politcal issues) that while nuclear plants are expensive as hell to build the cost per kilowatt/hour is quite low and properly managed modern nuclear reactors don't pollute (except for unavoidably producing a lot of heat which can be an issue if your plant is heating up the Seine, which has been an issue in France.)

Which is it? Is it fair to say nukes are so costly when we usually ignore the financial costs of the pollution coal hydroelectic, and other sources produce? Solar's touted as th savior of humanity, but it's easy to forget that solar panels are quite toxic to make.

 

[Dog Town]

That all sounds like English, but leaves me scratching my head. So as MattusMaximus asked, do you have a link?

Pilot? Is this a proven technology?

Here is something I had seen.

In India, both Kakrapar-1 and -2 units are loaded with 500 kg of thorium fuel in order to improve their operation when newly-started. Kakrapar-1 was the first reactor in the world to use thorium, rather than depleted uranium, to achieve power flattening across the reactor core.

http://kalyan97.wordpress.com/2007/08/25/thorium-nuclear-reactor/

 

[The Painter]

Really now? Really now? You are not a native New Yorker are you

I was born in Mineola. Where were you born?

Edited by Cleon: 

Personal attack removed.

 

[Dog Town]

I was born in Mineola, ... Where were you born?

Lived at 251 Raff ave.,attended Hampton elementary. Long time ago...

 

[BPSCG]

I was born in Mineola, you buttplug. Where were you born?

Lived at 251 Raff ave.,attended Hampton elementary. Long time ago...

Aw isn't this sweet. Maybe you two want to have a reunion.

 

[Dog Town]

Aw isn't this sweet. Maybe you two want to have a reunion.

Hey now! Checking thread, thought it was worth a cite.
Beeps did you find my earlier post, in thread useful?

 

[BPSCG]

Beeps did you find my earlier post, in thread useful?

It was a pretty picture. I still don't understand what the process is.

What I gather from all this is that the process is still very much in the development/experimental stage - is it being used anywhere besides India?

 

[GStan]

Edited by Cleon: 

Personal attack removed.

<tee hee>

Is there a list of words somewhere around here where one can identify what you are not allowed to say, under the no profanity rule?
[/ot]

 

[Cleon]

It was a pretty picture. I still don't understand what the process is.

What I gather from all this is that the process is still very much in the development/experimental stage - is it being used anywhere besides India?

Given the lack of nuclear development in the US over the past couple of decades, any new technology developed here is unlikely to move past the development/experimental stage.

 

[Dog Town]

What I gather from all this is that the process is still very much in the development/experimental stage - is it being used anywhere besides India?

Has been used in the past, in US and Germany.

One of the earliest efforts to use a thorium fuel cycle took place at Oak Ridge National Laboratory in the 1960s. An experimental Molten Salt Reactor technology to study the feasibility of such an approach, using thorium(IV) fluoride salt kept hot enough to be liquid, thus eliminating the need for fabricating fuel elements. This effort culminated in the Molten-Salt Reactor Experiment that used 232Th as the fertile material and 233U as the fissile fuel. Due to a lack of funding, the MSR program was discontinued in 1976.

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

The first commercial nuclear-power producing reactor (the Sodium Reactor Experiment) inside the United States was built at SSFL. The SRE came online in April 1957, and began feeding electricity to the grid on July 12, 1957.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Epithermal_Thorium_Reactor#Advanced_Epithermal_Thorium_Reactor


Google is your friend.

 

[WildCat]

In terms of waste storage, Barack Obama and Joe Biden do not believe that Yucca Mountain is a suitable site. They will lead federal efforts to look for safe, long‐term disposal solutions based on objective, scientific analysis.

What a load of crap. If Yucca Mtn. isn't good enough, no place is. This is just a way to assure there will be no further nuke plants built while pretending you support them.