Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Goin' Nuclear


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
45 replies to this topic

#1 Jangler

Jangler

    event horizon of chaos

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 48,047 posts

Posted 16 February 2010 - 06:28 AM

http://www.breitbart...&show_article=1

President Barack Obama will announce on Tuesday plans for the government to help finance the construction of two nuclear reactors -- the first in nearly 30 years, a top US official said.

Obama, who has advocated reducing foreign energy dependency and cutting back on greenhouse gases, will use a 2005 law that authorizes the Energy Department to guarantee loans to projects that help reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Obama "has long believed that nuclear power should be part of our energy mix," a senior administration told AFP, speaking on condition of anonymity.

The 18.5 billion dollars in existing loan guarantee authority will be used to help finance the construction and operation of two new nuclear reactors at a Southern Company plant in Burke, Georgia.

There have been no new nuclear power plants built in the United States since the 1979 Three Mile Island nuclear accident in the eastern state of Pennsylvania.

Currently only 20 percent of the country's energy needs are met by nuclear power.

The operation will result in some 3,000 construction jobs, and eventually some 850 permanent jobs, the official said, citing company figures.


So? Where is this money gonna come from?? It also said that next years budget will have $54m, for more plants to be built. I'm all for goin' Nuclear. But how is all the waste "Green"? And if you shut down Yucca Mountain, where will it all go? No, something is not right. And we should be investing in wind and solar right now, not expensive as hell Nuclear Power Plants.

#2 cookinwithgas

cookinwithgas

    Grey Poupon Elitest Trash

  • ALL-PRO
  • 23,783 posts

Posted 16 February 2010 - 07:17 AM

Jangler you are uttlerly ignorant of the economics of nuclear power. To compare it to solar and wind invenstments is laughable. There's a reason nuclear power was so popular before TMI.

Nuclear, coal; these are base load generators. Wind and solar are ways to reduce usage of these technologies - if they are available.

As far as the waste, I presume we do with it what we are doing with it now - but the newer designs should create less of it.

#3 Jangler

Jangler

    event horizon of chaos

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 48,047 posts

Posted 16 February 2010 - 07:25 AM

Posted Image

#4 The Link

The Link

    Satire Enthusiast

  • ALL-PRO
  • 3,022 posts

Posted 16 February 2010 - 07:28 AM

I agree with Jangler...kind of....

If we are going to start investing in nuclear power, we need a place to properly dispose of the waste. Why did they shut down Yucca mountain in the first place?

#5 Jangler

Jangler

    event horizon of chaos

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 48,047 posts

Posted 16 February 2010 - 07:29 AM

It hasn't been shut down, But I believe that is something Obama has mentioned in the past.

#6 The Link

The Link

    Satire Enthusiast

  • ALL-PRO
  • 3,022 posts

Posted 16 February 2010 - 07:31 AM

It hasn't been shut down, But I believe that is something Obama has mentioned in the past.


Well then I hope he backtracks again, because shutting it down when we are going to have more waste than ever would be moronic.

#7 mmmbeans

mmmbeans

    FBI SURVEILLANCE VAN

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,005 posts

Posted 16 February 2010 - 07:49 AM

I agree with Jangler...kind of....

If we are going to start investing in nuclear power, we need a place to properly dispose of the waste. Why did they shut down Yucca mountain in the first place?


it's never been finished and all it's space is already accounted for and surpassed. Since yucca was started recycling tech has skyrocketed. Putting a whole bunch of nuclear material into the ground isn't the best option anymore. Plus the DOE has 23 billion that they've been saving for waste storage that has never been used because yucca has never been operational, the argument is that that 23 bill should be used to upgrade our recycling capabilities. Pretty much everyone is in favor of pulling the plug on yucca.

Explained better than i can here...

http://www.nytimes.c...dead-59660.html

#8 The Link

The Link

    Satire Enthusiast

  • ALL-PRO
  • 3,022 posts

Posted 16 February 2010 - 07:53 AM

it's never been finished and all it's space is already accounted for and surpassed. Since yucca was started recycling tech has skyrocketed. Putting a whole bunch of nuclear material into the ground isn't the best option anymore. Plus the DOE has 23 billion that they've been saving for waste storage that has never been used because yucca has never been operational, the argument is that that 23 bill should be used to upgrade our recycling capabilities. Pretty much everyone is in favor of pulling the plug on yucca.

Explained better than i can here...

http://www.nytimes.c...dead-59660.html


Recycling is great but only as an addition to proper disposal, which they are apparently working on, and by that I mean the new disposal site will be ready in like 20 years.

#9 Kral

Kral

    Internet Legend

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,934 posts

Posted 16 February 2010 - 07:55 AM

Why are we investing in non renewable energy sources?

Solar and wind or nothing I say.

#10 The Link

The Link

    Satire Enthusiast

  • ALL-PRO
  • 3,022 posts

Posted 16 February 2010 - 07:57 AM

We need to invest in dark matter...

#11 Kral

Kral

    Internet Legend

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,934 posts

Posted 16 February 2010 - 08:04 AM

We need to invest in dark matter...


If only we had the spacecraft to go get it. Maybe one day. As long as we don't kill off our species in the meantime, we may one day in the not to far future begin to harvest resources from The Void.

#12 Kettle

Kettle

    I'm Stainless.

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,413 posts

Posted 16 February 2010 - 08:39 AM

i'm in the nuke industry so you can take this as truth. one reactor makes a million dollars a day. many sites have two reactors.

i am currently at LaSalle station in IL. they have wind turbines too. just over 200 i think. they don't make anywhere near the power that the reactors do.

#13 cookinwithgas

cookinwithgas

    Grey Poupon Elitest Trash

  • ALL-PRO
  • 23,783 posts

Posted 16 February 2010 - 08:47 AM

Nuclear is not renewable, and creates hazardous waste, but its controllable waste. Unlike coal - we are working on carbon sequestration (?) technology but it's unproven and quite expensive.

In the 70's a lot of people thought that wind and solar were right around the corner from becoming incredibly more efficient, but the reality is that we have just made it efficient enough to use in conjunction with other tech. Solar power from space beamed down to collector farms on Earth will be a lot more reliable and powerful, but there are a lot of regulatory and financial issues in the way.

I'd say in 20 years that alternative energy tech will make up 30-40 percent of our total energy use (and I'm an optimist) but if the wind is not up and the clouds are in, that goes down to zero, and people still want to run their XBOX.

#14 Darth Biscuit

Darth Biscuit

    Dark Lord

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 34,002 posts

Posted 16 February 2010 - 08:48 AM

Nuclear fusion FTW

#15 Kral

Kral

    Internet Legend

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,934 posts

Posted 16 February 2010 - 08:52 AM

Howabout tidal energy or other sources of energy that aren't being harnessed?

Posted Image


Shop at Amazon Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com