I can hardly believe this... (US environmental policy)

[Yoshi525]

From what I can read there are many contradicting informations. At least with scientists here. Some say the "area" is save. others say it might become instable in the future. Who knows.

This really ain't complex science. You have three types of radiation emitted from nuclear material/waste - alpha, beta, gamma. Alpha is potentially by far the most dangerous but, as with beta, can be *fully* contained by any number of basic materials - iron, wood, lead, concrete whatever, even for beta containment it need only be a couple of inches of almost anything. Alpha is a particle, beta a subject of duality, gamma a wavelength of the E.M. spectrum, hence it's harder to contain (but the least dangerous by far). You can never entirely contain gamma rays, however a pretty cheap reinforced concrete container can do so to the extent that exterior radiation levels around it will be virtually background. The problem is longevity, as such a container (if it's on the cheap side) can only be guaranteed for 30 odd years.

Still, containment that will be secure for 100+ years isn't expensive, for small amounts of material anyhow. The ideal solution would be a large underground facility that would provide containment for 100+ years and cater for very large quantities of waste. Admittedly such a facility would cost a bob or two.

I agree that energy source diversity is required and that technological developments concerning fossil fuel combustion are promising. This doesn't detract from my point, that being many Western nations could benefit environmentally and financially from a greater level of nuclear fission (and waste disposal facilities) reliance than we currently see.

 

[DammitBoy]

let's build nuclear power plants and eliminate the need for coal fired energy. Oh wait, Obama and the tree hugging loons say no way.

Obama renews commitment to nuclear energy
His pledge may help spur building of first U.S. plant in nearly three decades

LANHAM, Md. — Promising "this is only the beginning," President Barack Obama announced more than $8 billion in federal loan guarantees Tuesday for the construction of the first nuclear power plant in the United States in nearly three decades.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35421517/ns/business-oil_and_energy/

He's sooo anti-nuclear energy

A whole 8 billion dollars for one plant. That's great, except we need twenty new plants started tomorrow. Maybe if he quit bailing out banks and starting bullet train projects - we could afford a few more energy plants.

 

[fedaykin]

Yeah, just don't pretend like Obama's anti-nuclear energy when he's not.

 

[DammitBoy]

Yeah, just don't pretend like Obama's anti-nuclear energy when he's not.

You're missing the point, again, as usual, go figger.

* billion thrown at oneplant is chickenfeed and does nothing but give lip service to addressing the real problem which needs real solutions right now.

He's not going to propose 3 more plants or 12 more, or the 20 we need - because his left wing handlers don't want to solve the problem.

 

[.Pixote.]

How about new factories in the US pumping out billions of solar cells for every home and factory roof tops...and eventually shut down the coal industry. Anyway the US's masters (China) are already leading the way...again.

In 2010, China became the largest wind energy provider worldwide, with the installed wind power capacity reaching 41.8 GW at the end of 2010. According to the Global Wind Energy Council, the development of wind energy in China, in terms of scale and rhythm, is absolutely unparalleled in the world. The National People's Congress permanent committee passed a law that requires the Chinese energy companies to purchase all the electricity produced by the renewable energy sector

 

[Ilosar]

It's much easier for China to enforce that kind of measures, of course. One of the only benefits of that kind of regimes, it seems, even if I much prefer vicious debates to enforced solutions.

@DB; what the hell does this have to do with ''left-wing loons'' anyway? There has been no new nuclear plants for 30 years (that's several Conservative Presidents, including freaking Reagan, who I strongly doubt was influenced by said ''loons'' in any way). It seems like they are easy, vague and instant targets for anything you do not like. This is a political strawman that does not help your credibility in any way.

 

[valcik]

Just for a matter of interest, there is nice flash schema on this site:
http://www.breathingearth.net/

 

[Crni Vuk]

Buys. Havnt you realized it yet ? DB is Hoovers spiritual son. Left = Bad!

 

[SimpleMinded]

Buys. Havnt you realized it yet ? DB is Hoovers spiritual son. Left = Bad!

Aye, it seems best to continue debate amongst the rest while letting him shout every now and then.

Unless others actually believe the reason the United States hasn't had a new nuclear reactor since the 1970s is because of Obama, it seems silly to entertain him.

Even with

On February 16, 2010, President Barack Obama announced loan guarantees for two new reactors at Georgia Power's Vogtle NPP.

Constellation Energy has "pulled the plug" on building a new reactor at its Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant despite a promised $7.5 billion loan guarantee from the Department of Energy".

Nothing has come to light.

And coal as our plan for the future? Because even if you could make coal magically reduced to a significant level in its CO2 emissions, it still destroys the mountains we mine it from.

 

[DammitBoy]

Your lack of understanding probably stems from not understanding how our system works.

Companies have tried to start nuclear power plants for decades in the U.S. - they have always been stopped by the tree hugging left because they keep them in courts for years.

No company can build a plant because of the legal financing it takes to beat the left wing loons in court.

Obama can announce loan guarantees for power plants all day long every day and rest assured nothing will come of it - unless he also guarantees to eliminate the legal roadblocks his left-wing backers use to stop any nuclear power plant being discussed.

You have to use the French model if, and only IF you are making an honest effort to solve the problem.

 

[SimpleMinded]

I understand in almost every case when they push for power plants, they get held up because nobody wants to live near a power plant. But what exactly makes these people left wing backers and loons?

And so to make sure I have this right, you're saying it's not actually Obama's fault that nuclear power has been held up because no president before him has ever said that a nuclear power plant could go through without any legal hurdles. So if it's Obama's fault, it's also every other President's fault too?

 

[Crni Vuk]

You have to use the French model if, and only IF you are making an honest effort to solve the problem.

All they do is replacing one problem with another one. Geting most of your energy out of nuclear plants is no solution.

 

[DammitBoy]

I understand in almost every case when they push for power plants, they get held up because nobody wants to live near a power plant. But what exactly makes these people left wing backers and loons?

And so to make sure I have this right, you're saying it's not actually Obama's fault that nuclear power has been held up because no president before him has ever said that a nuclear power plant could go through without any legal hurdles. So if it's Obama's fault, it's also every other President's fault too?

Obviously. How many past wrongs do you need to make a right? Unless you have a time machine, I find it more useful to remain focused on who can make the changes required to solve real world problems in real time.

Unless you somehow can explain to me how pointing out previous administrations failings make Obama's failures somehow more acceptable. Is it because he's half-black?

 

[fedaykin]

Yeah, just don't pretend like Obama's anti-nuclear energy when he's not.

You're missing the point, again, as usual, go figger.

* billion thrown at oneplant is chickenfeed and does nothing but give lip service to addressing the real problem which needs real solutions right now.

He's not going to propose 3 more plants or 12 more, or the 20 we need - because his left wing handlers don't want to solve the problem.

No, I'm not missing the point. You are misrepresenting Obama as anti-nuclear energy when the facts say he's not. That's the point.

And how about you actually address this part of Simple's post?

I understand in almost every case when they push for power plants, they get held up because nobody wants to live near a power plant. But what exactly makes these people left wing backers and loons?

 

[.Pixote.]

Where's beautiful fusion when we need it...now I wonder if the coal and oil industries would buy any company that develops fusion, and sink it, just like the motor industries and the electric car in the early 1990s.

The numbers boggle the mind...

I'm with DammitBoy with this one - lets go nuclear crazy, and drop the waste into active volcanoes.

 

[DammitBoy]

Addressing the environmentalists that are opposed to nuclear power, the president said that the one plant in Georgia will cut carbon pollution by 16 million tons each year when compared to a similar coal plan, similarly to taking 3.5 million cars off the road he said.

Environmentalists = tree-hugging, commie, pinko-fag, left wing loons

On the other side, the president said that there are those who have long advocated for nuclear power – like Republicans

Republicans = greedy corporate neocon warmongers

---

If you don't understand the terminology, you really need to educate yourself if you intend to argue about america and it's policies.

 

[Crni Vuk]

do you love thinking in stereotypes

So technicaly if I would have the oppinion that it is important to preserve our "enviroment" that makes me some kind of liberal tree loving pink-commie-bastard ?

Sorry if I prefer to live in a "green" city compard to a industrial backyard. But hey. Each to his own I guess.

 

[DammitBoy]

do you love thinking in stereotypes

I love poking fun using stereotypes.

So technicaly if I would have the oppinion that it is important to preserve our "enviroment" that makes me some kind of liberal tree loving pink-commie-bastard ?

Not at all. As long as common sense is applied to saving and perserving the environment in conjunction with furthering the needs that help our economy, national interests and quality of life.

If we can't build a hydro-electric dam that will provide clean energy because of the left-wing loons wanting to protect the yellow-spotted snail dart - we're doomed.

Nancy Pelosi and Barbara Boxer helped shut down plans for a huge solar energy farm in the middle of the desert, because it would ruin the view of said desert. Wtf?

Wind farm off the coast of New England? No way fucker, who wants their view of the ocean marred by frikken windmills!

Nuclear energy replacing all our coal fired plants, meaning a massive reduction in carbon emmisions? Not a snowballs chance in hell.

 

[JohnnyEgo]

I'm about as biased as one can get on this issue. In my young adult years, I spent quite a chunk of time at the Naval Nuclear Power Training Command, learning all the nuances of 1970s finest military reactor technology in the 1990s. I've also got family that works in the civilian nuclear power industry. I am pro nuclear power.

It is not honest to call President Obama 'pro nuclear'. He certainly was not pro nuclear when he was Senator Obama. It is also hard to be 'pro nuclear' in regards to new reactors while simultaneously looking to eliminate funding for Yucca Mountain, the proposed site for secure waste storage in the US.

US politics are such that while everyone pretty much thinks the current solution of 'temporary on-site storage' (which in some cases has been going on for 50+ years, stretching the definition of 'temporary') is a really bad idea, the current Senate Majority Leader, Harry Ried, really doesn't want the waste disposal repository in his state. He's managed to keep the site from being active for many years now, and having survived his reelection bid, is likely to do so for many more.

So what about the President's advocacy of new commercial plants? There is a saying in the nuclear power industry - 'Everybody wants to be the first guy to build the second reactor.' The process of licensing for new commercial plants is extremely arduous, and nobody wants to lock up their capital on a decade long series of environmental and legal challenges before they can turn the first shovel of dirt. $8 Billion in loan guarantees does very little to mitigate either of these issues.

So you have a situation in which it is easy to appear to be 'pro nuclear' without having to spend to spend the actual political capital to address the actual litigation, regulation, and waste disposal issues. And the industry has recognized this. In early 2010, there were 17 license applications pending approval to begin construction of a new plant. Several had been pending for three years or more. As of late 2010, they were down to 13.

I don't hold President Obama to a higher standard then any other president. I find it amusing that the realities of the office and the politics behind it often find him in the exact same position as his much maligned predecessor. I do believe that this is President Obama's 'Mission to Mars'; a politically derived plan that plenty of people applaud, but few take seriously, and none see any real progress.

 

[Crni Vuk]

I guess many people are simply selfish. I mean if someone would get the idea to place a huge plant directly to your house. Would you not protest ?

It is not that I dissagree with you. There are many grazy goons out there which do nothing else but sabotage such "green" projects. But I dunno. Many times people have quite practical reasons to protest. (most of the time practical for them of course)