http://www.theskyiscrape.com/phpBB2/viewt ... 240#378240



Maybe not, but I guess it hasn't stopped him, as I thought:

====

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050622/ap_ ... lear_power

Bush: U.S. Needs More Nuclear Power Plants

By NEDRA PICKLER, Associated Press Writer 1 hour, 1 minute ago

LUSBY, Md. - Pushing for the construction of nuclear power plants,
President Bush on Wednesday pressed Congress to send him an energy bill, though he acknowledged that even when he signs the legislation, gasoline prices at the pump won't fall overnight.

Bush is promoting nuclear power as a way to take the pressure off fossil fuels — oil, natural gas and coal.

"It's time for this country to start building nuclear power plants again," said Bush, who noted that while the U.S. gets 20 percent of its electricity from nuclear reactors, France meets 78 percent of its electricity needs with nuclear power.

While Bush's speech was focused on energy, he also spoke about economic concerns like
Social Security, medical liability insurance, education, permanent tax relief and trade. It was part of a White House effort to focus on economic security for Americans as well as national security in the war on terrorism.

"Listen, I understand parts of our country are still struggling from the effects of the recession and the attacks," he said, ticking off Americans' worries about jobs going overseas and the need to learn new skills, health care costs and retirement security.

"So even though the numbers are still good, there are still worries out there in the country," Bush said.

"We're not taking the good numbers for granted — we're moving aggressively with a pro-growth, pro-worker set of economic policies that will enhance economic security in this country."

Before he spoke, Bush, wearing a white hard hat and shirt sleeves, walked through the plant's sweltering turbine building and its control room, where he thanked workers for "taking time to explain all the dials and gauges." Executives from the plant, operated by Constellation Energy Group Inc., also showed Bush their confidential plans for building a third reactor onsite — if they can get a federal license.

Calvert Cliffs is a candidate for the construction of the first nuclear energy reactor in the United States in 30 years. It is one of six sites that a consortium of nuclear power companies, including the Baltimore-based Constellation Energy, is considering as a location for a new type of advanced reactor.

"The energy bill will help us expand our use of the one energy source that is completely domestic, plentiful in quantity, environmentally friendly and able to generate massive amounts of electricity and that's nuclear power," Bush said.

"I look forward to signing that bill and it's going to be an important part of developing a national energy strategy," he said. "I recognize, and you recognize that when I sign that bill, your gasoline prices aren't going to drop. This problem has been long in the making."

Not since 1973 has an order been placed for a new reactor. Two events helped end, for a time, any U.S. interest in reactors beyond those already under construction: the partial meltdown at Three Mile Island nuclear plant in Pennsylvania in 1979 and the 1986 explosion at the Chernobyl plant in the Ukraine.

Even some environmentalists have abandoned their opposition to nuclear power, arguing it is needed to address climate change because reactors do not produce "greenhouse" gases as do fossil fuels. Other environmentalists are not convinced, citing worries about reactor waste and safety.

Without some government help, no new reactors are likely to be built before 2025, according to the Energy Information Agency, the government's energy statistical agency. Congress is considering loan guarantees for new-design reactors, and lawmakers are expected to come up with other tax breaks. But a Bush proposal to provide "risk insurance" to protect the industry against licensing or legal delays has attracted little interest on Capitol Hill.

Oh, I get it. America only cares about how France does things when it's convenient for our agenda.

I think Bush (or any American politician) needs to start a push for cleaner, renewable energy sources like wind and solar.

Ha! That's great!

That’s a two-way street and is the standard for all nations through out history. France's hipocrisy in keeping nuclear power out as a fufillment of the Kyoto deserves a mention here.



I agree. But, nuclear is cheaper (per watt) and doesn't fuck up the environment like giant wind farms. I think solar is the future, but we need better battery technology before that can happen. What happens if there is a large Mount St Helens style eruption? Our solar collectors would be crippled for months. wind has many many drawbacks too, outside of the huge amount of land it takes to make a "wind farm". Methane could also be an excellent enegery source for the future.

Nuclear is safe and doesn't cause global warming and is ready for use now, when we need it to stop the progress of glabal warming. Best of all we can use it without sending money to despots in the ME and elected dictatorships like Venezuela. "Pebble bed" reactors are melt down free and all we need to do is shot all the environemntalists who keep them from being built and mantain our reliance on coal and oil for electricity.

Energy independence should be the goal in the war on terror, not "spreading democracy" to people who can't handle it.

How do wind farms fuck up the environment?

They take up a hell of a lot of room.


I'm glad we're considering more nuclear power. After all, isn't it better to have some convenience now even if later generations are completely fucked?!

They also create a lot of noise and a unreliable producers of electricity. If we had a new generation of battery technology this would be a better long-term option.

I detect sarcasm in your comment, yet I don't get where it comes from. How are later generations f**ked by ending energy dependence now? We could have saved thousands of lives by spending $300 billion on nuclear power plants and mandating all new non-commercial vehicles to be hybrids rather than invading Iraq. This also buys us decades to develop renewable sources and cuts massive amounts of CO2 from the atmosphere. There is no downside except the stigma of nuclear power.

Now that you have it all figured out, riddle me this batman. Who's going to pay for it all?

Hybrids don't pay for themselves unless you keep them for 10 years+.

Who pays for all these new plants? Who pays for the land to build these new plants? Ever hear of NIMBY? I'm sure you wouldn't mind a new nuke plant in your neighborhood.

What do you suggest we do with all of the spent uranium, etc? Eat it?

Not to mention about 5 miles south of where I live is a place called Rocky Flats. Its where uranium use to come from. It only took 20+ years to clean that place up.

They're trying to figure out what to do with the Hanford Reservation in central Washington. The waste from a bunch of power plants was dumped into underground storage tanks..that are now leaking...into the groundwater....and the Columbia River.

The argument that Nuclear power is safe and clean is very amusing to me.

Do they take up more room than other power stations (or whatever you'd call them)? I mean, they might take up a whole field, but most ot the ground would remain in tact for deer to frolick, wouldn't it?



Is noise really an environmental hazard? I mean, we're comparing this to generation of nuclear waste, toxic smoke, and fucking up ecosystems by damming rivers.

I remember a story about birds flying through them, but we had a few ideas for keeping birds away.

Especially when opposed to wind farms. Especially when the concern about solar energy is that Mt St Helens might blow and cripple the solar panels, lord knows we're lining up solar panels in areas of active volcanism.

Who pays for the land to build hundred of wind turbines? Nuke plants are small and can be well insulated. We don't need to build in peoples backyards, we could replace the existing power plants with them. Also, there are over 100 new coal plants beginning construction in the US. Why replace these with nuclear. It's not the 70's anymore, nuclear power plants are far safer and more efficient.

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

If we can cough up $300 billion for the Iraq war, we can spend that much for new power plants, which will actually provide the US with economic value outside of the MIC.



Modern nuke plants don't use as much fuel as past designs, but waste is still a problem. Burying under a mountain sounds good to be. We could dump it into a trench in the Ocean. Anything will have draw backs, but ending dependence on foreign nations for power (esp. terror sponsoring states) is a powerful motivator and we have the ability in our hands now. If it's safe enough for France and Japan, it's safe enough for us.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste#Disposing_of_high-level_wastes



I am familiar with that event. Again it's like comparing the crash test ratings of a Pinto and a Lexus. Of course the plants made in the 60's and 0's were more likely to break down as time went on and pollution is always a concern. Pebble bed reactors moderate this risk.



Why? How else are we going to cut CO2 emissions to level we need to?



Volcanic eruptions deflect sunlight all over the world dude. They induce global cooling. And if you read what I said, I think solar is the way to go. It's just the technology is so far off, we need a stop gap. A treatment before we reach the cure. Wind farms (and solar for that matter) are highly susceptible other natural disasters called "tornados" and "hurricanes".

Also, wind is not constant and almost nonexistent (in usable forms) in places like the southeastern US. They require 30 square miles for each 1GW of power. The most usable locations are mountaintops, beaches, and places like Oklahoma and Nebraska (tornado alley). You need powerful, constant, and predictable wind for them to work. A good solution would be to build wind platforms on the ocean. Like oil derects.


-------------------------------

All I am saying is that nuke power should be the staging step to renewable energy sources because America needs to take that step now. It would be like hooking up a hospital patient to life support before triple bypass surgery.

I'm sorry but I disagree with 95% of what you said and don't have the time to point by point you right now.
Dumping nuke waste into the ocean? Ho-kay. Under a mountain? You mean like Hanford?

Like Yucca. Or in Siberia. And not "into the ocean". Into a miles deep trench in the ocean, where it cannot escape.

That's cool, I am not trying to convince u of anything. I just don't know of any other realistic alternative (as opposed to cold fusion) that can be implemented now. If you have one, I'd love to see it.

I'd choose 1000 coal plants over 1 nuclear plant, for starters.

Are you sure about that? Coal plants are pretty fucked up, even these new 'clean coal' ones. Nuclear power is much cleaner, it's just that the waste is so radioactive and volatile.