where obama is against that. Mccain says building those nuclear plants will increase jobs, but um... what about the affect on our environment? This doesnt seem to be a good move on global warming either. What are your thoughts on this.


-- Modified on 9/26/2008 6:34:02 PM

I would realize it is the cleanest most efficient non global warming energy available..and it takes more people and parts to build a nuclear plant than a coal fired plant..

concerning global warming for the production of elecric power.

Also, the technology available today is much different than that used in our newest nuke plants.

Spent fuel is still an issue. The only real issue.

http://money.cnn.com/2008/08/07/news/economy/nuclear/?postversion=2008080714

McCain kept mentioning on the debate how Obama is wanting to spend this large amount of money, which is exactly what America DOESNT need, yet his plan for nuclear power is very fucking expensive! And the results of McCain's plan, could wear destructive to our environment and health, where Obama's plan for spening a large amount of money is to help the middle class families and provide health care.... therefore improving the health of Americans, rather then possibly causing us more harm, as Nuclear Power makes us susceptical to.

It's waste that state governments don't want in their states.

Another problem is the expense, and the insurance. It's impossible that the plant makes a profit without government subsidies.  

-- Modified on 9/26/2008 6:47:35 PM

McCain says: "We will need to recover all the knowledge and skills that have been lost over three stagnant decades in a highly technical field," he conceded.

McCain did not say what steps, if any, he would propose to ease the permitting process for nuclear plants. Nor did he say how he would dispose of the waste, other than to say "he will need to solve complex problems of moving and storing materials that will always need safeguarding."

Sorry lads, but do we have the time, money, natural resources, or a back-up earth in line, just in case there's a fuck up while "we are recovering the knowledge and skills that have been lost over three stagnant decades"?

-- Modified on 9/26/2008 6:46:46 PM

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1766365.stm

Or will we find a use for the black holes in space?

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0309-01.htm


-- Modified on 9/26/2008 7:00:33 PM

What if the government allowed you to burn only 25 percent of every tank of gas? Or if Washington made you pour half of every gallon of milk down the drain?

What if lawmakers forced us to bury 95 percent of our energy resources?

That is exactly what Washington does when it comes to safe, affordable and CO2-free nuclear energy. Indeed, 95 percent of the used fuel from America’s 104 power reactors, which provide about 20 percent of the nation’s electricity, could be recycled for future use.

To create power, reactor fuel must contain 3-5 percent burnable uranium. Once the burnable uranium falls below that level, the fuel must be replaced. But this “spent” fuel generally retains about 95 percent of the uranium it started with, and that uranium can be recycled.

Over the past four decades, America’s reactors have produced about 56,000 tons of used fuel. That “waste” contains roughly enough energy to power every U.S. household for 12 years. And it’s just sitting there, piling up at power plant storage facilities. Talk about waste!

The sad thing is, the United States developed the technology to recapture that energy decades ago, then barred its commercial use in 1977. We have practiced a virtual moratorium ever since.

RelatedColumn Archive
Heritage Foundation: Security Gone WildHeritage Foundation: DA Faces a Fielder�s ChoiceHeritage Foundation: High Gas Prices: Fuel for ThoughtHeritage Foundation: Mind the Homeland Security Gap Heritage Foundation: Evangelicals � and Justice From All Full-page Heritage Foundation Archive
Other countries have not taken such a backward approach to nuclear power. France, whose 59 reactors generate 80 percent of its electricity, has safely recycled nuclear fuel for decades. They turned to nuclear power in the 1970s to limit their dependence on foreign energy. And, from the beginning, they made recycling used fuel central to their program.

Upon its removal from French reactors, used fuel is packed in containers and safely shipped via train and road to a facility in La Hague. There, the energy producing uranium and plutonium are removed and separated from the other waste and made into new fuel that can be used again. The entire process adds about 6 percent in costs for the French.

Anti-nuclear fear mongering has proved baseless. The French have recycled fuel like this for 30 years without incident: no terrorist attack, no bad guys stealing uranium, no contribution toward nuclear weapons proliferaton, and o accidental explosions.

France meets all of its recycling needs with one facility. Indeed, domestic French reprocessing only takes about half of La Hague’s capacity. The other half is used to recycle other countries’ spent nuclear fuel.

Since beginning operations, France’s La Hague plant has safely processed over 23,000 tones of used fuel—enough to power France for fourteen years.

Their success has sparked plenty of interest abroad. The French company AREVA has already helped Japan with its reprocessing facility and is currently looking at the feasibility of building a similar plant in China.

The British, Japanese, Indians, and Russians all engage in some level of reprocessing.

Of course, there is still waste involved. But recycling produces much lower volumes of highly radioactive waste, and the French deal with it effectively—placing some waste in short-term, interim storage or preparing the rest for long-term storage in their version of Yucca Mountain.

All is not perfect in France. They are still working to open a permanent geologic storage facility. But the critical issue is that they have an organization to handle used nuclear fuel that allows their program to advance without being held hostage to the politics of geologic storage.

If the United States is serious about reducing CO2 and energy dependence, it must get serious about nuclear power and begin recycling used nuclear fuel.

A viable reprocessing capability not only would give the United States a valuable energy resource, it would reduce the amount of material going to Yucca Mountain. The U.S. has already produced enough waste to nearly fill Yucca’s legal limit of 70,000 metric tons—subsequent studies estimate that its actual capacity is about double that amount and some believe that it is even greater.

It would also put the United States back on the map as a leader in commercial nuclear technology, which today it is not.

Nuclear fuel reprocessing is a safe activity that should be part of America’s nuclear energy program. It can be affordable and is technologically feasible. The French are proving that on a daily basis. The question is: Why can’t oui?

Jack Spencer is a research fellow for nuclear energy policy in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies.

Just because we 'may' need to catch up technically does not mean that the technology is not available or already 'out there'.

the Sun would gladly eat it for lunch.

http://www.mrtoxiehead.com/index2.html

Well at least our children are learning the right lessons these days: "Eat lots of candy and think Nuclear waste is really fucking cool"



-- Modified on 9/26/2008 7:10:02 PM

Building one is a long process, and it's hard to find investors, so it ends up being subsidized.

I'm not opposed to them, but you have to look at the trouble of it.

-- Modified on 9/26/2008 7:14:33 PM

And we know how badly that works.

So do we copy them.

-- Modified on 9/26/2008 7:13:18 PM

straight down to the cooks who made it. More then likely, the smoke that fills the kitchen, will also blast it to oblivion. No more cooks in the kitchen and no more yummy nuclear pies. *Oh how sad*

"The sun is already stable with its own fuel and even a small imbalance in its core or outside magma could really make it unstable and make it either a supernova or a pulsar either of the cases it will not be world war 3 that will destroy our planet."

-- Modified on 9/26/2008 7:20:32 PM

They flock like hungry vultures whenever Nuclear Sludge Pies are baking. Strangely, however, they tend to throw those pies at Americans rather then eat them for themselves.

The U.S. government builds and operates nuke plants quite well. Just ask the Navy. If that's what it takes to suspend the 'red tape', I'm all for it. It's a matter of national security.

Your claim of high costs and long lead times is based on 25 year old experiences. Technology has changed, but I'm sure the environmentalist wackos won't care.

Hey 9-man, did you used to be Zinmonster?  I promise I will call you 9-man.

Nuclear energy is the cleanest.

McCain didn't say the Federal Government is going to build them with tax payer dollars and hand it over to Electric Utilities. Instead, he is going reduce the bureaucracy and lift regulation against building nuclear plants so, private industry can build them.

Spent fuel can be recycled and reused leaving only 3% of wast instead of 97% today.  Go lookup MOX in  Wiki.

One 1000 MWE plant creates ~ 250, 000 jobs on average. It is not just building the building. High paying jobs at that.

What in the hell are you talking about effect on the environment. Nuclear plants does not emit carbon as matter of fact it does not emit.  

Uranium+Thorium powered plants is an important aspect of energy independence.

Do some Googling!

You know very little. There is plenty of knowledge around the world and in the US. GE, Westinghouse, Areva, and ABB have been building nuclear power plants all over the world.

France is 79% nuclear power. EU is close to ~55%. and the Earth hasn't blown up yet. May be the European and Asian continent is part of this Earth.

Continue drinking KoolAid and talk rubbish.

We will sent $536 billion this year overseas for oil. 1/3 of that goes to Mexico and Canada. Rest goes to?

Building nuclear plants are expensive but it is just great to pour $536 billion in the toilet.

Again, how many nuclear plants have been subsidized?

ASTOUNDING.

Europe, Japan, and Russia reprocesses their nuclear fuel and reuses it. Reprocessing and reuse reduces the waste by 97%. Remaining waste is much less radioactive than the fuel that is not reprocessed.

By the way, if can figure a way to blast waste closer to the son, it would be great because the Son is nothing more than a huge Nuclear Reactor.

Fucking ignorance is our critical problem.

Everything you stated is the scientific truth.

There 2 nuclear reprocessing countries; France and UK. They reprocess all of the spent fuel from European countries. Japan uses the same technique.

None of the countries in Europe or Asia have the vast land mass we have so, they cannot bury the spent fuel and had to come up with a practical approach to reduce waste and they did. On the other hand, our politicians decided to create political storm with storing spent fuel for 1000's of years.

We have got to get our head out of 1950's and stop fighting scientific advances.

also there is a huge carbon signature involved in building these plants and providing fuel for them.

She is probably worried that we will cause man made global warming of the sun. Hey don't laugh, apparently we are already causing it on Mars. Now you can laugh. lol

-- Modified on 9/27/2008 9:37:49 AM

Zin was worried about disturbing the equilibrium of the fusion reaction processes of the Sun. He wisely deleted his thoughts.

Several hundred (or even thousand) kg of plutonium and uranium would vaporize and be ejected back into deep space long before it even got close to the Sun.

I've grown to expect stupid shit like that from ZIn, I am so glad it's not contagious.

The "greenest," most environmentally contintent on earth is Europe, and specfically Western Europe.  They are more environmentally aware than anywhere else, and do more to protect the environment.

Funny, how they have the most nuclear plants of any place on earth.  

Maybe they think it is good for the planet.