Nuclear energy becomes pivotal in climate debate

[fgarvb1]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091025/...VjbGVhcmVuZXJn


Nuclear energy becomes pivotal in climate debate


By H. JOSEF HEBERT, Associated Press Writer H. Josef Hebert, Associated Press Writer – Sun Oct 25, 10:36 am ET
WASHINGTON – Nuclear energy, once vilified by environmentalists and facing a dim future, has become a pivotal bargaining chip as Senate Democrats hunt for Republican votes to pass climate legislation.

The industry's long-standing campaign to rebrand itself as green is gaining footing as part of the effort to curtail greenhouse gases.

Nuclear power still faces daunting challenges, including the fate of highly radioactive reactor waste. Reactors remain a tempting target for terrorists, requiring ever vigilant security measures.

But 104 power reactors in 31 states provide one-fifth of the nation's electricity. They also are producing 70 percent of essentially carbon-free power and are devoid of greenhouse gas emissions.

It's something the nuclear industry has hammered away at in advertising and in lobbying on Capitol Hill for nearly a decade. Only recently, however, has the message begun to resonate among both industry supporters and skeptics.

"If you want to address climate change and produce electricity, nuclear has got to be a significant part of the equation," Marvin Fertel, president of Nuclear Energy Institute, the industry trade group, said in an interview.

Not unexpected from a top industry lobbyist. But the same is heard from Republicans and Democrats in Congress, from a growing number of environmentalists and from the White House, where nuclear power otherwise has received tepid support.

The Senate this week will kick off three committee hearings on legislation to cap greenhouse gases from m power plants and large industrial facilities. The goal is to cut them about 80 percent by 2050.

The House has already passed a bill. Its chances in the Senate could hinge in part on whether demands by a few GOP senators, including Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and John McCain of Arizona, that the legislation provide help to build new reactors.

"Nuclear power is pivotal to both a low carbon economy and to generate a bipartisan coalition to pass a carbon cap," says Jason Grumet, executive director of the National Commission on Energy Policy, a bipartisan group of experts created in seven years ago to advise government officials on energy matters.

He says all economic models on climate legislation "assume significant increases in nuclear power" — an expansion binge unseen since the 1970s, before the Three Mile Island nuclear accident brought new reactor orders to a halt.

A study by the industry-supported Electric Power Research Institute says 45 new reactors are needed by 2030. The Energy Information Administration puts the number at 70. An analysis by the Environmental Protection Agency assumes 180 new reactors by 2050 for an 80 percent decline in greenhouse gas emissions.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has applications for 30 new reactors. Only a few probably would be built over the next decade, the earliest in 2016 — and then only with the government guaranteeing the private financing.

Democratic sponsors of the climate bill are far short of the 60 votes needed to overcome a GOP filibuster. They hope a compromises could bring along uncommitted centrist Democrats and some Republicans. Along with talk of opening more waters to oil drilling, support for nuclear energy is seen as the carrot that might attract Republicans.

The prospects of such a compromise appeared to brighten recently when Sens. John Kerry, D-Mass., the climate bill's principle sponsor, and Graham collaborated on a new bid to build consensus.

"Nuclear power needs to be a core component of electricity generation if we are to meet our emission reduction targets," they wrote. They called for ending "cumbersome regulations that have stalled" new reactors, measures to help utilities secure financing and expanded research to resolve the waste problem.

They outlined a framework that other Republicans might follow. GOP senators such as McCain, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Lamar Alexander of Tennessee and independent Sen. Joe Lieberman of Conn., have shown an interest in climate legislation — if nuclear energy plays a greater part.

To many environmentalists, it remains a choice of dealing with one overriding environmental problem, while accepting another, to some degree.

"You can't dismiss nuclear power's potential as a climate solution," says Susan Vancko of the Union of Concerned Scientists. Yet, she says, with reactors costing upward to $10 billion apiece, "this is one of the most expensive options out there" to cut greenhouse gases.

Vancko cautions against providing "almost unlimited loan guarantees" for reactors that could go bust.

A group of 14 environmental and anti-nuclear groups expressed concern in a recent letter to senators that easing licensing requirements and rushing to build new plants "would fatally undermine public confidence in the safety of U.S. reactors."

Atop the nuclear industry's wish list — 26 items covering two single-line typewritten pages — is an expansion of loan guarantees for new reactors. But it also mentions eliminating some speed bumps in the road to reactor licensing, new efforts to deal with reactor waste and an array of other items.

Some are in the Senate bill; others are likely to be added.

The goals of those calling for aggressive action on climate change have become intertwined with those pushing for more nuclear energy.

"I don't think it gets you there alone," industry official Fertel says about nuclear's role in combating global warming. "But you can't get there without it."

___

[rosco rathbone]

I'm with Lindsey Graham on this. Nuke is the future.

[fgarvb1]

Originally Posted by rosco rathbone

I'm with Lindsey Graham on this. Nuke is the future.

You sir are one fast reading fucker!

[rosco rathbone]

Originally Posted by fgarvb1

You sir are one fast reading fucker!

I am a skimmer. I skim for meaning.

[trysail]

Houston, we are gonna have one mother of a problem if some of the folk out there don't learn some mathematics ( and economics ) damn fast.

[fgarvb1]

Originally Posted by trysail

Houston, we are gonna have one mother of a problem if some of the folk out there don't learn some mathematics ( and economics ) damn fast.

Mathematics without common sense is a dangerous thing.

[thør]

Originally Posted by rosco rathbone

Nuke is the future.

maybe

but not on the Yukon

[KRCummings]

The only reason we haven't been edging towards total nuclear power are the stupid people who don't understand it have managed to slow it down. Fucking idiots.

[TurdFergeson]

Originally Posted by KRCummings

The only reason we haven't been edging towards total nuclear power are the stupid people who don't understand it have managed to slow it down. Fucking idiots.

Nuclear is not as great as the lobbyists claim.

For one look at all the energy use that has to go in to Uranium ore mining.

Then all the energy used to process and refine it.

Then you have the astronomical construction costs of a nuke plant.

Then you have to add on the high costs of plant maintenance and regular "checkups".

Most nuke plants emit "metered" amounts of tritiated water right in to the enviroment.

Then you have the spent fuel waste problem. Yucca Mountain still isn't ready.

And finally, you have the costs of decommissioning nuke plants at the end of their service lives. Those containment buildings and many components will be glowing for a long time after the plants close down.

I think all these drawbacks are the actual reason new plants have not been built. If nuclear power was so profitable, they would have built more despite enviromentalists and people complaining.

[woody54]

Originally Posted by TurdFergeson

Nuclear is not as great as the lobbyists claim.

.

Nuclear fission is the only major easy source of power available within the technology we have available but as a long term saviour, it is a nightmare in the making.
What do you do with the contaminated cooling water for a 100,000 years? I know the military has found a cheap way of disposing of spent rods but 30% of that ends up in the global atmosphere to kill for millenia.

For humanity to progress and not die like an over polluted bacterial colony, we need massive technology advancement which demands huge increases in power availability to make the changes.

By 2050, the world will be demanding more power than all the uranium in the world can produce through nuclear power.

Luckily the beauty in the makeup of the Cosmos can provide unlimited power through the knowledge of Quantum Physics but Capitalist dominated world shapers have a philosophical problem of how to restrict the technology so the profiteers dont miss out on something that is free everywhere for the taking.

[TurdFergeson]

Originally Posted by woody54

Nuclear fission is the only major easy source of power available within the technology we have available but as a long term saviour, it is a nightmare in the making.
What do you do with the contaminated cooling water for a 100,000 years? I know the military has found a cheap way of disposing of spent rods but 30% of that ends up in the global atmosphere to kill for millenia.

For humanity to progress and not die like an over polluted bacterial colony, we need massive technology advancement which demands huge increases in power availability to make the changes.

By 2050, the world will be demanding more power than all the uranium in the world can produce through nuclear power.

Luckily the beauty in the makeup of the Cosmos can provide unlimited power through the knowledge of Quantum Physics but Capitalist dominated world shapers have a philosophical problem of how to restrict the technology so the profiteers dont miss out on something that is free everywhere for the taking.

I read that Uranium itself is scarce, and at the current pace will be completely mined and gone in 50-60 years.

[JohnnySavage]

Originally Posted by woody54

Nuclear fission is the only major easy source of power available within the technology we have available but as a long term saviour, it is a nightmare in the making.
What do you do with the contaminated cooling water for a 100,000 years? I know the military has found a cheap way of disposing of spent rods but 30% of that ends up in the global atmosphere to kill for millenia.

For humanity to progress and not die like an over polluted bacterial colony, we need massive technology advancement which demands huge increases in power availability to make the changes.

By 2050, the world will be demanding more power than all the uranium in the world can produce through nuclear power.

Luckily the beauty in the makeup of the Cosmos can provide unlimited power through the knowledge of Quantum Physics but Capitalist dominated world shapers have a philosophical problem of how to restrict the technology so the profiteers dont miss out on something that is free everywhere for the taking.

The cooling water is not radioactive and the contaminates can be filtered. Water can't be made to become radioactive via irradiation in a nuclear reactor.

[KRCummings]

Originally Posted by TurdFergeson

Nuclear is not as great as the lobbyists claim.

For one look at all the energy use that has to go in to Uranium ore mining.

Then all the energy used to process and refine it.

Then you have the astronomical construction costs of a nuke plant.

Then you have to add on the high costs of plant maintenance and regular "checkups".

Most nuke plants emit "metered" amounts of tritiated water right in to the enviroment.

Then you have the spent fuel waste problem. Yucca Mountain still isn't ready.

And finally, you have the costs of decommissioning nuke plants at the end of their service lives. Those containment buildings and many components will be glowing for a long time after the plants close down.

I think all these drawbacks are the actual reason new plants have not been built. If nuclear power was so profitable, they would have built more despite enviromentalists and people complaining.

That's a lot of bullshit.

[KRCummings]

Originally Posted by woody54

Nuclear fission is the only major easy source of power available within the technology we have available but as a long term saviour, it is a nightmare in the making.
What do you do with the contaminated cooling water for a 100,000 years? I know the military has found a cheap way of disposing of spent rods but 30% of that ends up in the global atmosphere to kill for millenia.

For humanity to progress and not die like an over polluted bacterial colony, we need massive technology advancement which demands huge increases in power availability to make the changes.

By 2050, the world will be demanding more power than all the uranium in the world can produce through nuclear power.

Luckily the beauty in the makeup of the Cosmos can provide unlimited power through the knowledge of Quantum Physics but Capitalist dominated world shapers have a philosophical problem of how to restrict the technology so the profiteers dont miss out on something that is free everywhere for the taking.

Who the fuck told you the cooling water is contaminated?
That's the kind of ignorant shit I'm talking about.

[TurdFergeson]

Originally Posted by KRCummings

That's a lot of bullshit.

Yes, you can just snap your fingers, and voila, a nuclear power plant appears completely fueled and ready to go. Oh, and it lasts forever and produces no waste.

:P

[KRCummings]

Originally Posted by TurdFergeson

I read that Uranium itself is scarce, and at the current pace will be completely mined and gone in 50-60 years.

You read wrong.

[TurdFergeson]

Originally Posted by KRCummings

Who the fuck told you the cooling water is contaminated?
That's the kind of ignorant shit I'm talking about.

I think he meant the water used in the spent rod cooling ponds.

[KRCummings]

Originally Posted by TurdFergeson

Yes, you can just snap your fingers, and voila, a nuclear power plant appears completely fueled and ready to go. Oh, and it lasts forever and produces no waste.

:P

It's not cost prohibitive, the waste is not the issue that people make it out to be, decommissioning is not the issue it's made out to be (and no, the plant isn't radioactive once it's decommissioned. The whole radiation thing is so misunderstood), the water is not dangerous, mining is no more expensive than any other kind and maintenance of the plant is relative to other power plants.

[TurdFergeson]

Originally Posted by KRCummings

You read wrong.

"As of 2008, known uranium ore resources which can be mined at about current costs are estimated to be sufficient to produce fuel for about a century, based on current consumption rates.[2]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_mining

I was close.

[KRCummings]

Originally Posted by TurdFergeson

"As of 2008, known uranium ore resources which can be mined at about current costs are estimated to be sufficient to produce fuel for about a century, based on current consumption rates.[2]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_mining

I was close.

No you weren't. That says known resources that can be mined at current cost. You said it's completely gone in 50 years.
That's not close.

[TurdFergeson]

Originally Posted by KRCummings

It's not cost prohibitive, the waste is not the issue that people make it out to be, decommissioning is not the issue it's made out to be (and no, the plant isn't radioactive once it's decommissioned. The whole radiation thing is so misunderstood), the water is not dangerous, mining is no more expensive than any other kind and maintenance of the plant is relative to other power plants.

Certain parts of plants will be radioactive. The cooling pond water will be. Nuclear waste is extremely dangerous.

Uranium ore mining is usually done open pit style because it's very volume intensive. As in, the actual uranium is in very low concentrations in the ore.

[JohnnySavage]

Originally Posted by TurdFergeson

Certain parts of plants will be radioactive. The cooling pond water will be. Nuclear waste is extremely dangerous.

Uranium ore mining is usually done open pit style because it's very volume intensive. As in, the actual uranium is in very low concentrations in the ore.

Water can't become radioactive.

[JohnnySavage]

I think I'm fucking talking to myself here.

[KRCummings]

Originally Posted by TurdFergeson

Certain parts of plants will be radioactive. The cooling pond water will be. Nuclear waste is extremely dangerous.

Uranium ore mining is usually done open pit style because it's very volume intensive. As in, the actual uranium is in very low concentrations in the ore.

You are the people I'm talking about. You don't know as much about it as you think. Either from misinformation or misunderstandings.
It's not dangerous or cost prohibitive but those against it want everyone to believe so and that has worked to a point.

[KRCummings]

Originally Posted by JohnnySavage

I think I'm fucking talking to myself here.

I'm about to give up, myself.