I believe the thoughtful development and use of alternative energy is
Why though, is there no talk of building nuclear power plants. Yes, I
know there are dangers but it seems no one is trying to work on
it...trying to make them safer so nuclear can be used without much
Just wanted to see what you guys think about this.
In the OECD countries environmental impact rules mean that the
approval process may take a decade or more. At the end of that
approval may not even be granted. The life of a nuke plant may be at
best 40 years after which there is a long and expensive
decommissioning process. So we are looking at a 60 year or more
committment that only a clear government nuclear power policy can
provide and a government owned utility is capable of enduring. This is
where all this mantra about privatizing everything and free enterprise
has come back to haunt the US and the rich countries that bought into
the US model.
So we are looking at a 60 year or more
: committment that only a clear government nuclear power policy can
: provide and a government owned utility is capable of enduring.
I guess we better get cracking then. I only see the world demand
growing, and fast.
As noted earlier, the ChiCom solution isn't needed--there are plenty of
applications already filed to clearly refute his notions that processes
are so onerous as to prevent action by private utilities.
It will be a test of the new "streamlined" licensing process and a
telling observation of whether the C-sequestration crowd really wants to
accomplish something or are simply still just obstructionists at heart.
Okay. All major countries in the world face the same national energy
security problem and have to seek solutions. (The small countries
don't have a say.) We'll see in 10 years time which national
strategies work. The rest of this GWB year plus two presidential terms
into the next administration(s) should provide important real world
lessons and evidence. The large energy importers will be US, China,
EU, India, Japan and the Cetral European countries. That's a pretty
good mix of economic and political models from which to draw critical
"No talk"? What, I guess you haven't been watching your required minimum
daily ration of network TV lately, which certainly has covered this
subject. 20/20 recently ran a piece on it, with their usual
libertarian/free market/laissez faire take that we ought to unleash this
"clean" source of energy.
As a former anti-nuclear activist, I remain adamant in my opposition to
this basically evil form of energy production. Please educate yourself
about the dangers, which come not so much from fears of a Three Mile
Island-type accident (which, while remote, is still a real possibility)
as from the threats of radioactive exposure and contamination all
through the nuclear fuel cycle, from mining to milling to fuel rod
fabrication to plant usage to end-of-life storage (remember that we
still have no long-range solution for nuclear waste disposal), including
the dangers of transport all along the way.
My take is that we already have the world's safest nuclear fusion
technology, and we ought to take advantage of it. It's called the sun.
The best argument against democracy is a five-minute
conversation with the average voter.
that "evil" is a construct of your own twisted mind.
IMO,coal mining/burning is far more "evil".
yeah,that's been a real problem in the many years of actual use by all the
countries that use nuclear power plants.[sarcasm]
yes,we do;Yucca Mtn.
too bad the environuts keep blocking it's use.
(and then complaining there's no solution)
Only a "danger" in your own mind.
if it were PRACTICAL,it would have already been done.
heck,the environmental nuts could have financed it themselves.
But they'd never risk their own money on what they propose.
they just want to demand everybody do as they say.
I think it's the voters in Nevada.
Seems to me I remember GWB promising the Nevadians
that they'd never have to worry about Yucca Mountain being used.
I guess he's the environut you are referring to.
Anyway, I think stuffing the waste in a hole is the wrong way to go.
As I understand it, reprocessing the radioactive material can
separate the long lived wasted from the short lived waste and
reduce the volume of the dangerous stuff to almost nothing.
Carter outlawed that approach because of the plutonium produced.
However plutonium is a good reactor fuel.
Without reprocessing, I'm against reactors because the cost of
guarding something for 100,000 years is astronomical.
With reprocessing, it's clean enough and newer designs are safe enough.
The only other good disposal solution is encasing the material
and dropping it over the edge of the continental shelf where
is will eventually be subducted under the continent.
I'm certainly not against developing wind, solar, hydro,
Yucca Mountain is called a monitored, _retrievable_ storage facility for
a reason. It isn't (or won't be) "stuffed in a hole". It will be
stored in a tunnel in a manner which is both monitored and retrievable
when (and if) we can ever get at least an approach to a sane energy
policy and start reprocessing as the rest of the world already does.
Carter couldn't see the difference between commercial reactor fuel and
the weapons proliferation thing. As a result, we got neither--still an
open US fuel cycle and no effective control over rogue nuclear states.
It'll come, it's inevitable. There really is no other long term
solution for central station baseload generation.
Humans probably will not be around in 100,000 yrs.
If so,hopefully,we will have learned to live in peace by then,and also
learned how to deal with the nuclear wastes.
Besides,if you bury it so no one can get at it(without great expense and
difficulty),it doesn't need to be guarded. Guarding Yucca is easy,because
there's only ONE entrance.
any deep trench will do;there's lot of them.
I'm "not against" developing them,either. But they all have LIMITED
practicality.Nuclear gives lots of clean energy 24/7/365,doesn't harm the
environment,and can be implemented widely,*as other nations have already*.
Once we develop fusion,then we can decommission the fission reactors.
enviros are now anti-hydro,because it disrupts fish migration and spawning.
some are anti-windfarm,because it kills birds.
ahh in 100,000 years tectonic plates can move, yucca mountains
volcanoe could erupt spewing lethal radiation over the entire world
killing much of its population. future earths residents might not have
the technical ability to deal with it.... a small asteroid comes along
and sends us back to the stone age. 50 years later yuccas volcanooe
erupts and kills all the survivors......
just placing markers to war future generations yucca unsafe dont drill
here is problematic.
moving fuel to yucca might be a wise short term solution.
but this should of all been solved before all these plants were built
That doesn't change the fact it was his watch that made the decision
(for all the wrong reasons).
The comment was in response to the earlier post about "shoulda'" -- GE
had invested millions in design and pre-construction/licensing effort
and was prepared to invest a billion or so in a facility that was halted
It hasn't been a national priority since. It will _eventually_ as I
noted elsewhere become one again.
I should have qualified my words.
I was watching the debate.
Bush clearly left the impression that he would not
send waste to Yucca and Gore gave the impression he
These gyys are experts at making statements
they can back out of.
Here's what GWB said:
Bush (letter to Gov. Guinn, September, 2000): The Department of Energy
(DoE) has not completed its impact study of Yucca Mountain and
important questions of environmental protection and safety have not
yet been answered. Therefore, I would veto legislation that would
provide for the temporary storage of nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain.
President George W. Bush approves national high-level nuclear waste
dump targeted at Yucca Mountain, Nevada! Despite a Presidential
campaign promise to Nevadans that "sound science" would decide
Yucca, not politics,
Of course we all know campaign promises mean nothing.
But what I said is that it's a voter problem,
not the environuts.
I happen to know a lot about the history of the whole waste repository
project even before Yucca Mountain.
Yucca Mountain _will_ happen over whatever objections the Nevadans
continue to make imo. It is inevitable that it be there for a while
until we do finally begin reprocessing (which is also inevitable, but
somewhat farther off). It may take power going off in places where
spent fuel pools are full and there are too many constraints for
additional storage to be built, but when lights start to go off, the
pressure will ratchet. We can hope somebody will see the light so to
speak before then, but given the present irrational political climate
with no possibility it seems for serious debate w/o it becoming nothing
but a "talking points" match aimed for political advantage, it's not
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.