Guest viewing limit reached
  • You have reached the maximum number of guest views allowed
  • Please register below to remove this limitation

McCain calls for building 45 new nuclear reactors

Delta Force

Delta Force

PES Rep
This is great news from McCain and smart move on his part should this plan be executed it will be a big boost for our economy by creating many jobs to bring these plants online plus the added benefit of reducing our dependency on foreign oil.
I just hope the environmentalist wake up and realize we're doing great damage to our environment when we're getting 50% of our electricity from coal burning plants.

read more here:
Invalid Link Removed
 
this article changed my mind

Invalid Link Removed

it is an anti-nuclear article from Amory Lovins, so you know up front where he's going to come down on it, but still, the facts that he presents here would be pretty easy to shoot down if they weren't right. Well, I'd still rather have a nuke plant in my backyard than a coal plant, but Texas ubercapitalist T. Boone Pickens prefers wind. I think he's on to something.
 
Unfortunately with today's technologies, wind is not an economically viable option for energy production on a mass scale.

What I also find funny about that option is that while most environmentalists favor it to some degree, nearly all fail to address the thousands of birds killed from flying into the blade of the structure.
 
atjnutrition2 said:
Unfortunately with today's technologies, wind is not an economically viable option for energy production on a mass scale.

What I also find funny about that option is that while most environmentalists favor it to some degree, nearly all fail to address the thousands of birds killed from flying into the blade of the structure.
Click to expand...

I agree with you that the renewable's and other alternatives are still not economically viable to cover the increasing trends in energy consumptionthe. But the bird issue is a new one to me. do you have any links to that?
 
the nukes are the perfect option. repealing jimmy carters act about not re-processing nuclear fuel for reuse so we can explore that, get a bunch of plants online, enhance the grid, and then rechargeable electric cars become a much more feasible reality.
 
So, we're going to go overseas and blowup nuclear reactors in other countries, but we're gonna be allowed to build nuclear reactors and expect no one to have a problem with us doing so?
 
EasyEJL said:
the nukes are the perfect option. repealing jimmy carters act about not re-processing nuclear fuel for reuse so we can explore that, get a bunch of plants online, enhance the grid, and then rechargeable electric cars become a much more feasible reality.
Click to expand...


Shh...that would be too simple.


But then the electric companies would become the new oil companies and we can't have people making a ton of money. Sorry, not an option :)
 
FcuktheFDA said:
So, we're going to go overseas and blowup nuclear reactors in other countries, but we're gonna be allowed to build nuclear reactors and expect no one to have a problem with us doing so?
Click to expand...

There is a difference in finding highly enriched uranium vs lower enriched uranium used for energy.

But if you think Iran wants to build reactors for use in energy when they can't even afford their own gasoline, I have a bridge to sell you.
 
FcuktheFDA said:
So, we're going to go overseas and blowup nuclear reactors in other countries, but we're gonna be allowed to build nuclear reactors and expect no one to have a problem with us doing so?
Click to expand...

it would be really interesting for you to try and give one example of us or anyone blowing up a nuclear reactor.
 
Soup Nazi said:
There is a difference in finding highly enriched uranium vs lower enriched uranium used for energy.

But if you think Iran wants to build reactors for use in energy when they can't even afford their own gasoline, I have a bridge to sell you.
Click to expand...

Actually, they're an oil exporter some 4M barrels a day... oil should be very cheap there I'm not sure of their life standards as far as how many people have their own transportation but filling up should be very affordable.
 
there is a substantial initial cost to build a nuke power plan specially compared to coal power plans or any others like this graph shows, and most of the cost is to protect or contain the matter in case of accidents,

Invalid Link Removed

but on the other hand once built look at the environment footprint it makes compared to coal per kWh

Invalid Link Removed


these images were captured from the article link posted up above.

I really like the idea of having enough electricity that could be used to power vehicles, now we just need to figure out a clean way to dispose the nuke waste which can be re-processed many times over till its useless.
 
DormantFiber said:
Actually, they're an oil exporter some 4M barrels a day... oil should be very cheap there I'm not sure of their life standards as far as how many people have their own transportation but filling up should be very affordable.
Click to expand...


They have oil but limited capacity to refine it, thus the need to import it.
 
taken from here:

Invalid Link Removed

"One potential solution is improved technology for trapping the exhaust (gaseous emissions up the stack) from coal combustion. If and when such technology is developed, electric utilities may then be able both to recover useful elements, such as nuclear fuels, iron, and aluminum, and to trap greenhouse gas emissions. Encouraging utilities to enter mineral markets that have been previously unavailable may or may not be desirable, but doing so appears to have the potential of expanding their economic base, thus offsetting some portion of their operating costs, which ultimately could reduce consumer costs for electricity."
 
that chart says "cost of newly delivered electricity" so i wonder how the capital portion is amortized, over how many years.
 
DormantFiber said:
Actually, they're an oil exporter some 4M barrels a day... oil should be very cheap there I'm not sure of their life standards as far as how many people have their own transportation but filling up should be very affordable.
Click to expand...


They export oil but they can't refine their own oil so they have to buy back gasoline. They import almost all of it. Their government then subsidizes that gasoline to keep it cheap for their citizens and they are basically going under doing so.
 
Didn't US forces supposedly destroy nuclear reactors over in the Middle East, or was that just to make it look like we actually had a reason to be over there? Don't get me wrong, I'm glad Saddam is out of power and six feet under. He was a horrible person, but that was the way of life for the Iraqi people for decades. They would've taken Saddam out if they wanted to. I know we wouldn't like it if armed forces from another country invaded us here at home and took over our ways of life.

We were also supposed to be dropping bombs on some nuclear reactor in Syria, you know, the one that North Korea and Syria supposedly began running together. I heard about this a couple of months ago.

EasyEJL said:
it would be really interesting for you to try and give one example of us or anyone blowing up a nuclear reactor.
Click to expand...
 
FcuktheFDA said:
Didn't US forces supposedly destroy nuclear reactors over in the Middle East, or was that just to make it look like we actually had a reason to be over there? Don't get me wrong, I'm glad Saddam is out of power and six feet under. He was a horrible person, but that was the way of life for the Iraqi people for decades. They would've taken Saddam out if they wanted to. I know we wouldn't like it if armed forces from another country invaded us here at home and took over our ways of life.

We were also supposed to be dropping bombs on some nuclear reactor in Syria, you know, the one that North Korea and Syria supposedly began running together. I heard about this a couple of months ago.
Click to expand...

no, no nuclear reactors ever have been hit. Israel I believe bombed some in Iran back in the 80s that were under construction, and we've hit sites that are used for manufacturing fuel, but no body has ever (or likely will) bomb an operational nuclear plant. the risk of accidental nuclear explosion is too high, and just in terms of radioactive contamination the risk is severe. the bad part about that is how it can affect the entire planet if enough of the radioactive dust goes high enough in the atmospere
 
FcuktheFDA said:
Didn't US forces supposedly destroy nuclear reactors over in the Middle East, or was that just to make it look like we actually had a reason to be over there? Don't get me wrong, I'm glad Saddam is out of power and six feet under. He was a horrible person, but that was the way of life for the Iraqi people for decades. They would've taken Saddam out if they wanted to. I know we wouldn't like it if armed forces from another country invaded us here at home and took over our ways of life.

We were also supposed to be dropping bombs on some nuclear reactor in Syria, you know, the one that North Korea and Syria supposedly began running together. I heard about this a couple of months ago.
Click to expand...

Israel recently destroyed some nuclear shennanigans in Syria, but they didn't destroy a civilian nuclear reactor, they destroyed nuke materials. Syria has no civilian nuclear program, this was an attack on hush hush nuke materials from North Korea.
 
I'm an ardent environmentalist and I strongly support the US having nuclear as it's core electricity production until solar, tidal and wind become more feasible.

I've surveyed for uranium mine prospects that would require only 1 acre to extract enough uranium to power several plants. Compare that to coal and mountain top removal and it's a no brainer after adding in the CO2 factor.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top