Posted on 07/01/2007 7:58:38 PM PDT by posterchild
BOSTON - Thanks to global warming, nuclear energy is hot again. Its promise of abundant, carbon emissions-free power is being pushed by the president and newly considered by environmentalists. But any expansion won't come cheap or easy.
The enormous obstacles facing nuclear power are the same as they were in 1996, when the nation's last new nuclear plant opened near the Watts Bar reservoir in Tennessee after 22 years of construction and $7 billion in costs.
Waste disposal, safe operation and security remain major concerns, but economics may be the biggest deterrent. Huge capital costs combine into an enormous price tag for would-be investors.
There is also fervent anti-nuke opposition waiting to be re-stoked. Jim Riccio of Greenpeace said nuclear advocates are exploiting global warming fears to try to revive an industry that's too risky to fool with.
"You have better ways to boil water," Riccio said.
But environmentalists aren't in lockstep on the issue. Bill Chameides, chief scientist for Environmental Defense, said anything that helps alleviate global warming must be an energy option.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
Warming and cooling cycles last roughly thirty years. There’s little statistical doubt we are now into the cooling period. According to an AP Newswire story I saved, 2001 was the coldest winter in the 150 year US recorded history, and this year will certainly be the coldest summer in decades.
But if it makes the global warming adherents relent and not fight against nuclear power I’ll get out of their way:)
Name one.
bump
Well, the easiest way is to burn fossile fuels. Natural gas is quite attractive in that it burns clean.
When you get right down to brass tacks, it’s really hard to beat plain old fashioned fire. Carbon bonds are awesome.
I’m not saying I dislike nuke plants. I’d like to see more of them. I’d like to see more of everything in terms of energy production. I’d prefer we use a fuel that doesn’t require strip mining. But of course pipelines require steel, which requires mines for iron ore and coal. I don’t know what’s better. Maybe atomic fuel is best. How destructive are the mining activities for nuclear fuels?
I’m actually surprised no one has suggested that we boil water using electric heat...LOL!
That fellow from Greenpeace is unlikely to promote fossil fuels. (Carbon dioxide causes global climate change, you know.) Of course, nuclear power is out. (It's icky.) Hydroelectric power is out too. (It's bad for the fish.)
We could go back to muscle power. However, PETA would complain if we were to use animals, unless they were unionized and given the right to vote.
Solar and wind power are OK, but they have not been shown to be practical. (If ever they are, Greenpeace will find some reason to oppose them as well.)
Solar and wind power are OK,
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I oppose them on the grounds that they look stupid and waste space.
Fossile fuels rule! I’ll never give up my harley. When I’m a hundred years old and everyone is driving electric golf carts and segway scooters, I’ll be running a still in my basement and burning moonshine in my hundred year old harley and chuggin around going slow in the fast lane with no mufflers and the turn signal stuck on.
I’m still waiting for a car that has a mini-windmill farm under the hood to charge a fuel cell. And maybe four alternators, on at each wheel to add additional charging. But wait, then how will anybody make money?
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.