Posted on 05/04/2005 4:44:49 AM PDT by ricks_place
n his sketchy speech on energy policy last week, President Bush placed a high priority on nuclear energy, which he described as "one of the safest, cleanest sources of power in the world." The president had good reason to suggest an important role for this much-feared energy source.
The price of natural gas ... has risen sharply...global warming may dwarf any environmental risk posed by nuclear power. It is therefore critical to keep nuclear power as part of the nation's energy mix. But Mr. Bush will have to address some crucial concerns before the public will follow him down the nuclear path with much enthusiasm.
For starters, there is the awkward fact that nuclear power plants pose a risk of proliferating the materials and skills to make nuclear weapons...
Beyond that, Mr. Bush will need to ensure that the pools holding spent fuel at domestic nuclear plants can be made safe from terrorists...
Finally, one familiar impediment to nuclear power - the high capital costs required...
None of these concerns need rule out this promising source of power. But they will need to be addressed forthrightly.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Gotta wonder what the subtext is for this sudden conversion on the part of the Times. It can't be that they've come to their senses. I'm waiting for the other shoe to drop.
What we really need is lots of nice clean windmills, not those filthy dirty nukes.
Mea culpa that should read S6G reactors.
I just sailed past one of those clean windmills in Hull MA yesterday. It was generating power, no noise and no dead birds. But Phat Teddy Kennedy, and houseboy Kerry are fighting them being put within eyesight of their multi million dollar abodes.
I like your idea of using old Nuclear subs, I have some room at my dock and wouldnt mind docking it there for a slight fee.
That's so cool because I just recently read about that particular windmill and how successful it has been. The big new modern ones are beautiful and it's quite ironic that you sailed past it. Usually when developers put a few windmills in a location, within a short time the people like them so much that they want more. I think that in Hull they have a Vestas V47 which is about the smallest you could get a couple years ago, now it's a V52. Since the V47 has worked so well they are going to erect a V80 next.
The best place to build more nukes is here in Arizona, where the political climate is more suitable. At the Palo Verde site, we have three reactors on a stable site that could accommodate 20. This would provide the energy that California needs, and the jobs that Arizona needs.
I'll take windmills.
Since using nuclear power is so critical, I think we need to addss the irrational fears that probably developed in those being schooled during the "duck and cover" post WWII days.
If I were in President Bush's position I'd be out there talking about the French and their "clean power," energy independence and other rah-rah stuff.
Then I'd tell some stories about mankind first taming fire and making it safe, now, finally succeeding in making the atom safe ...all warm and fuzzy stuff to hit the emotions rather than the head. Thinkers have already figured out nuclear is safe.
Thats should be "newcular"!
Seems like a major cost, at least in the past, was that incurred having to deal with the litigation brought on by the environmental and anti-nuke wackos!
We took the kids on a tour at the Seabrook Nuke plant in NH a couple of years ago. They had actually built TWO containment vessels, but only ever opened one because the court cases for the first plant dragged on for 10 years, and they didn't want to have to go through the same thing trying to bring the second plant on line.
Not as much as trucks, cars, planes and buildings, and not at all at sea. The unique thing about wind power types is that they actually get concerned about it which makes us easy targets for people to manipulate.
Windmills suck, plus they chop up all the birds.
That's a bit condescending. I think a lot of it is sheer ignorance. For example, one poster here talked about the dangers of radioactive waste. That's ignorance speaking. If you use breeder reactors and reprocess the fuel, the final products when you are finished are all very low-level.
Disposal is another item of ignorance. The best disposal method is to drop the waste into an oceanic trench and let subduction pull it into the mantle
Reactor melt-down is another item of ignorance. Pebble bed reactors can't melt down. The pebbles already have the proper control elements mixed in with the fuel. The pebbles simply radiate a fixed amount of heat until the fuel is used up. You toss a bunch of them in a heat exchanger and create electricity.
Toxicity. This is another item of ignorance. People think radioactive materials are the most toxic substances on the planet. Simply not true.
All this is one more thing we can thank Jane Fonda for with her asinine film The China Syndrome. I still remember getting in an argument with my teacher over that film when they showed it in class. First, I asked her why the crap were they showing a hollywood movie as a documentary? Then I told her that automatic release systems would simply drop the control rods in should the water levels get too low, and the reactor would shut down automatically. She wouldn't hear any of it. She said that even though it was hollywood, it was factually accurate (yes, I did stare at her in google-eyed disbelief), and she came up with some hysteria about how if the rods failed, the resulting death and destruction would be global.
Two wrongs can make a right.
Windmills rock!!! plus they save all the birds from nukes.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.