RecoveringYuppy
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2006
- Messages
- 14,185
In what way are they failing to handle it?
Because it's dangerous to move it. And is it not secure now?
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
No more nuclear power for the US?
- Thread starter Policenaut
- Start date
Because it's dangerous to move it. And is it not secure now?
Dr Adequate
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2004
- Messages
- 17,766
He seems to have slipped the muzzle off for long enough to testify before the Senate Energy Committee:
In multiple answers, he sketched a plan for accelerated nuclear energy development, including improving a department loan program for new reactors and developing a long-range plan for dealing with nuclear waste.
Damn, Obama's just no good at being an anti-nuclear zealot, is he? First he wanders gormlessly round the campaign trail saying that nuclear energy is necessary to his energy policy, then he appoints a vocally pro-nuclear energy secretary, then he lets the guy off the leash long enough to say that he wants an accelerated nuclear program ... what next, Obama's going to start accidentally building nuclear powerplants? "Oops, there I go again, built another darn reactor, what was I thinking?"
Heck, if it wasn't for having you here to read his mind, I might actually start supposing he liked the things.
Where are you getting your figures from? Only I'm wondering if you're as good at predicting the future as you are at reading minds.
Because even if it was going to be built, it wouldn't be finished 'til at least 2020?
Dr Adequate
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2004
- Messages
- 17,766
Obama slips up yet again! His own Department of Energy (monsters of disloyalty all) are going about saying that "Nuclear power has an excellent operating record and generates electricity in a reliable, environmentally safe, and affordable manner", that their "key mission" is the "introduction of the next generation of nuclear power plants", and that "new nuclear plants must be built in the next decade".
Heads will surely roll for this, if he ever finds out.
Dr Adequate
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2004
- Messages
- 17,766
That may be so, but the fact is that it isn't.
Incidentally, where are all the IMBYs? Surely there's some state, presumably red as a London bus but without the atheist slogans, that's just full of unselfish patriotic citizens who'd be delighted to accept the nation's nuclear waste. Only you never see them signing any petitions, do you?
Roadtoad
Bufo Caminus Inedibilis
There's a lot of "If... Then..." to all of this. In spite of reading links and the like, I'm finding I'm more confused by much of this than I'm helped. This may be someone's goal, but I'm disinclined to accept any notion of someone's conspiracy. (Though I know of a recruiter from JBHunt who would probably inform me of my naivete in this matter.)
Sticking in under a rock is great, if you can be relatively assured that it's stored appropriately and won't leach into the soil. William Lawless, who, IIRC, worked for DuPont, revealed that his employer was using cardboard boxes to store high level nuclear waste in some facilities. In my years of hauling freight, I've seen cardboard boxes that would hold a case of beer, and I've seen boxes that were so flimsy, they wouldn't hold a teddy bear. According to Lawless, DuPont was using boxes that were inadequate to any use at all. So, yes, I think the NIMBYs have some valid concern.
By the same token, if there's a way to refine the waste, get some further use out of it, or even burn it (am I getting the gist of this right?), using the thorium technology, sticking it under a rock for a couple of years might be relatively smart, assuming, of course, (back to that old sticking point), that it's stored appropriately.
Windmills and conservation are great. I hope we continue with them. I'd like to see more cars making use of their passenger seats, and I'd like to see us get to the point where a car with one occupant is a rarity. The selfish idiocy of rush hour in our cities reveals just how arrogant and foolish we've become. Frankly, when I can catch a ride with another driver to the yard, I do. It's a damn sight cheaper in the long run. I might not feel as though nuclear power were a bad idea if the industry had 1.) Been honest with us in the first place, 2.) tried to cheap out in ways that defy common sense, (as per Lawless' revelation.)
Add in the public's perception of most nuclear power plants. Ranch Seco, here in Sacramento County, (aka "Rancho Mistake-o"), kept getting shut down for repair. We blew millions of dollars on the damn thing, and the Sacramento Municipal Utility District couldn't keep the damned thing running for any appreciable length of time. In fact, it got so bad, it was newsworthy when they got it running for any longer than a month. That might be news bias, or it simply might be that it was that badly designed and built. But in either case, it got to the point where it wasn't worth keeping. (It's been converted to a natural gas power plant, which, in the end, will wind up being every bit as expensive in the long run to operate, and will wind up using dwindling resources of natural gas from Canada.)
If we've shown that using thorium would fill our energy needs, in the way described, why not try and build it, and use it? I don't trust Congress to put anything in motion, and if anything, they've shown they'll do what they can to stop it, regardless of political affiliation. There's nothing in it for them.
On the other hand, there's lot in it for us. Maybe if we got to work on this, maybe we'd have what Eisenhower called, "Energy too cheap to meter." But I'm not holding my breath.
Sticking in under a rock is great, if you can be relatively assured that it's stored appropriately and won't leach into the soil. William Lawless, who, IIRC, worked for DuPont, revealed that his employer was using cardboard boxes to store high level nuclear waste in some facilities. In my years of hauling freight, I've seen cardboard boxes that would hold a case of beer, and I've seen boxes that were so flimsy, they wouldn't hold a teddy bear. According to Lawless, DuPont was using boxes that were inadequate to any use at all. So, yes, I think the NIMBYs have some valid concern.
By the same token, if there's a way to refine the waste, get some further use out of it, or even burn it (am I getting the gist of this right?), using the thorium technology, sticking it under a rock for a couple of years might be relatively smart, assuming, of course, (back to that old sticking point), that it's stored appropriately.
Windmills and conservation are great. I hope we continue with them. I'd like to see more cars making use of their passenger seats, and I'd like to see us get to the point where a car with one occupant is a rarity. The selfish idiocy of rush hour in our cities reveals just how arrogant and foolish we've become. Frankly, when I can catch a ride with another driver to the yard, I do. It's a damn sight cheaper in the long run. I might not feel as though nuclear power were a bad idea if the industry had 1.) Been honest with us in the first place, 2.) tried to cheap out in ways that defy common sense, (as per Lawless' revelation.)
Add in the public's perception of most nuclear power plants. Ranch Seco, here in Sacramento County, (aka "Rancho Mistake-o"), kept getting shut down for repair. We blew millions of dollars on the damn thing, and the Sacramento Municipal Utility District couldn't keep the damned thing running for any appreciable length of time. In fact, it got so bad, it was newsworthy when they got it running for any longer than a month. That might be news bias, or it simply might be that it was that badly designed and built. But in either case, it got to the point where it wasn't worth keeping. (It's been converted to a natural gas power plant, which, in the end, will wind up being every bit as expensive in the long run to operate, and will wind up using dwindling resources of natural gas from Canada.)
If we've shown that using thorium would fill our energy needs, in the way described, why not try and build it, and use it? I don't trust Congress to put anything in motion, and if anything, they've shown they'll do what they can to stop it, regardless of political affiliation. There's nothing in it for them.
On the other hand, there's lot in it for us. Maybe if we got to work on this, maybe we'd have what Eisenhower called, "Energy too cheap to meter." But I'm not holding my breath.
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2003
- Messages
- 59,856
And you think we're going to get dozens of thorium reactors online in the next 20 years? I'd be surprised if there's one or 2 online by then.
joobz
Tergiversator
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2006
- Messages
- 17,998
Depends. If we can get viable research and viable results, then, why not?
You seem to be denying the possibility for denial sake.
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2003
- Messages
- 59,856
"Develop a long-range plan", bureaucrat speak for years and years of studying the problem with no intention of solving it. Since you're a foreigner I'll cut you some slack on not knowing how to translate from American pol-speak to English. Reminds me of how Illinois politicians keep running on and giving speeches on how they will reform government and make it more efficient. They name a blue-ribbon panel to much fanfare, they take 2-3 years studying the problem, then they finally finish the study and make recommendations. The pols put the recommendations on a shelf, and at the next election cycle they once more proudly announce how they will finally, once and for all, find a way to make government more efficient. With much fanfare a blue-ribbon committee is set up to study the problem... wash, rince, repeat ad nauseum.
(WildCat snickers at Dr. Adequate's child-like naivete)
I'd bet the farm there will be no thorium reactor online in the US by 2020. Not even a shovel in the ground yet.
Last edited:
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2003
- Messages
- 59,856
No, I just know how long these things take. The environmental impact studies alone will take up 5 years minimum. Do you know it took nearly 20 years to add a runway to O'Hare airport? And you think their just going to get a new first of it's kind in the US nuclear reactor up and running in that time?
Last edited:
joobz
Tergiversator
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2006
- Messages
- 17,998
Yet nuclear reactors were built. The runway was put in. Bridges are being built. New skyscrapers are being built.
On campus, we are adding a new pharm building and a new hospital. It required massive upgrades in the down stream sewer system and upstream utilities. These were done and the building is moving forward.
Why do you act like new construction is impossible?
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2003
- Messages
- 59,856
Not impossible, and yes it will be done. But not in 20 years.
I doubt your new campus building was controversial. How many lawsuits were filed to stop it? How many government regulatory agencies had to file reports for it to proceed? Etc etc.
joobz
Tergiversator
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2006
- Messages
- 17,998
There actually was a couple. The city has a moritorium on new nuclear generating sources, and an improved cyclotron for the nuclear medicine group is part of the building. THis obviously caused some problems, but things were moved forward.
I agree it will take time, but I don't see a reason to assume that it's impossible. Like I said, the state has a 30 year plan to get 30% of our state power from nuclear. We'll see if it happens.
mortimer
NWO Janitor
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2004
- Messages
- 3,517
First Presidential debate:
Obama: "What we're going to have to do is to approach it through alternative energy, like solar, and wind, and biodiesel, and, yes, nuclear energy, clean-coal technology. And, you know, I've got a plan for us to make a significant investment over the next 10 years to do that."
Second Presidential debate:
Obama: "We're going to have to develop clean coal technology and safe ways to store nuclear energy."
Obama: "Contrary to what Senator McCain keeps on saying, I favor nuclear power as one component of our overall energy mix."
Third Presidential debate:
Obama: Zero mention of nuclear power.
Notice the trend? And all he's done so far is cut funding for nuclear. And it's going to cost us money. $10B already spent on Yucca is flushed down the loo. The government has already paid out $1B to utility companies because Yucca wasn't ready on time, and the utility companies that have paid in over $22B to have Yucca built (and hasn't been spent) may ask for that money back.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/06/science/earth/06yucca.html
Dr Adequate
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2004
- Messages
- 17,766
Well, a few questions spring to mind.
* Do Nobel Prize-winning physicists speak the same language as bureacrats?
* What would Chu have said if it really was his intention to develop a long-range plan?
* What is "new nuclear reactors" bureaucrat-speak for?
Instead of merely snickering, you might explain. Obama says that nuclear power is necessary to his energy goals. He appoints as Energy Secretary a man who goes around saying that nuclear is better than coal even with the present state of waste storage and that the US "absolutely" must increase its nuclear power generation. The website of his DoE says that "new nuclear plants must be built in the next decade". Obama is unlikely to be merely pandering to his base, many of whom are unreasonably nervous of nuclear power. Nuclear power is in fact a good idea; and Obama is not, on the face of it, an idiot.
I do not see how it is naive for me to conclude that the President is in favor of new nuclear reactors. Perhaps you could stop snickering at me for long enough to explain. If, after all, we are not to judge him by either his words or his actions, then I still do not see how it is superior to judge him on the basis of stuff that you've made up, such as the imaginary "muzzling" of Steve Chu.
I'm equally sure that they won't have built the Yucca Mountain facility ...
pipelineaudio
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2006
- Messages
- 5,092
Thats my goal!
Bring our rivers back. Not just the colorado, but the salt and verde and aqua fria as well
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2003
- Messages
- 59,856
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".
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.
If Obama was serious about nuclear power he'd put Yucca on a fast track. You know what's missing from this thread? Evidence that Yucca Mountain is unsuitable for nuclear waste storage.
Only because of politics, not because of any engineering difficulties.
mortimer
NWO Janitor
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2004
- Messages
- 3,517
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.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/marketsNewsUS/idUKN2443769620080624
Seems that when Obama says he "favor
Roadtoad
Bufo Caminus Inedibilis
That sums the whole thing up, right there. It is no longer about engineering, nor has it been for some time. It's about "What's going to keep our base?"
And since the base will not hold once it becomes clear that Nuclear power is no longer an option but a necessity, they're trying to hold it all off until they can broaden that base, so those who run off and join the Greens won't cause as big an impact.
Dr Adequate
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2004
- Messages
- 17,766
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?
Roadtoad
Bufo Caminus Inedibilis
Check the dateline on that story.