News, Republicans push nuclear energy to lower costs. (legal, solution, rating)

[JD59]

WASHINGTON (AP) — The U.S. should build 100 more nuclear plants rather than spend "billions in subsidies" for renewable energy if it is truly committed to lowering electric bills and having clean air, the Republicans say.


Republicans push nuclear energy to lower costs - USATODAY.com

[ergohead]

Originally Posted by John1960

WASHINGTON (AP) — The U.S. should build 100 more nuclear plants rather than spend "billions in subsidies" for renewable energy if it is truly committed to lowering electric bills and having clean air, the Republicans say.


Republicans push nuclear energy to lower costs - USATODAY.com

They haven't finished cleaning up Hanford.

Nuclear Safety Columbia River at Risk (http://www.oregon.gov/ENERGY/NUCSAF/HCleanup.shtml - broken link)

[golfgod]

Odd that the "sound business principles" Republicans would push the most expensive option for generating electricity. Yet NO ONE is talking about the cheapest, CONSERVATION.

golfgod

[GregW]

GG - Conservation does not create a return on investment for the suppliers of electricity. Republicans do not support conservation because there is no profit to be made by conserving electricity.

BTW - I agree with building more nuclear power plants but only if they are part of a full fuel recycle and reuse system. Using fuel rods once and storing the used rods forever is senseless. There is as much or more energy available in the used fuel than they started with. We need to use that energy not throw it away.

I suggest we stop building coal, oil or natural gas base load power plants and start converting our grid to nuclear, wind, solar and other renewable power sources. We could pay for it by stopping our senseless wars of empire.

[CharlottePirateFan]

Originally Posted by golfgod

Odd that the "sound business principles" Republicans would push the most expensive option for generating electricity. Yet NO ONE is talking about the cheapest, CONSERVATION.

golfgod

Conservation doesnt generate energy. It should be practiced always but it certainly doesnt generate energy.

[CharlottePirateFan]

Get rid of cars...give everyone horses. And grow a lot of hemp.

[NewToCA]

Originally Posted by GregW

GG - Conservation does not create a return on investment for the suppliers of electricity. Republicans do not support conservation because there is no profit to be made by conserving electricity.

BTW - I agree with building more nuclear power plants but only if they are part of a full fuel recycle and reuse system. Using fuel rods once and storing the used rods forever is senseless. There is as much or more energy available in the used fuel than they started with. We need to use that energy not throw it away.

I suggest we stop building coal, oil or natural gas base load power plants and start converting our grid to nuclear, wind, solar and other renewable power sources. We could pay for it by stopping our senseless wars of empire.

Do you have a link concerning an analysis of the fuel rod issue? I'm not familiar with this, and would like to read more about it.

[fatchance2005]

Originally Posted by John1960

WASHINGTON (AP) — The U.S. should build 100 more nuclear plants rather than spend "billions in subsidies" for renewable energy if it is truly committed to lowering electric bills and having clean air, the Republicans say.


Republicans push nuclear energy to lower costs - USATODAY.com

Of course in presenting this as an alternative to the "billions in subsidies" for renewable energy he's leading us to believe that no taxpayer money would be involved in the 100 new nuclear plants. Anybody buy that? Do we get like this guy's personal guarantee or something? Can I have it on the back of a post toasties box top, so that if he's wrong I'll still have something of value?

Nuclear surely has a role, but isn't some plug and play black box solution. Nuclear is not a net energy producer, so it isn't going to "solve the energy problem". That was true in the 1970's and it's true today. It's also not "nonpolluting" Uranium mining is a very polluting process, besides being energy intensive. There is energy consumption and pollution in the refining process and fuel delivery. Mining is a regulatory nightmare, with overlapping jurisdictions by three federal agiencies, with contradictory regulations. State an local laws apply also. The waste disposal issue has been solved on paper, but not in practice. We don't have a functional system to handle the wastes from 100 new nuclear plants and it would take years to construct. The real problem is that even with such a system local governments don't want the wastes transported through their jurisdiction and have the legal right to block it. While Greg and the people who point to breeder reactors as a solution are right, we've banned that solution by treaty. Treaties can be unmade, but we'll want to ask ourselves, "do we really want to do that right now?", given the geopolitics that prevail. Another option might be building plants closer to disposal sites, rather than closer to customers.

When you read this consider a few other things.

Sen. Lamar Alexander said the United States should follow the example of France, which promoted nuclear power decades ago.

It takes billions to build a nuclear plant, and billions to decommission one. They have a design lifetime of about 25 years. that can be extended, but costs rise. France is facing that issue now. Yes they have low electric bills and clean air, but they have a huge infrastructure issue with a ticking clock and escalating costs.

Even Michael Moore agrees with Senator Alexander that nuclear works as well as it always has and we could use a few more, but it would be nice to see some cost/benefit figures before opening one's mouth and risking adding to what has been a decade of shame for the Republicans.

[golfgod]

Charlotte Pirate fan wrote;

Conservation doesnt generate energy. It should be practiced always but it certainly doesnt generate energy.

Well duh. But it does eliminate the need to generate electricity. I used to have the link to an article from either the Rocky Mountain Institute of The National Renewable Energy Lab; the title of the article is "why we never need to build another polluting power plant", or something to that effect.

Google that and see what can really be done with conservation. Unfortunately too many people confuse conservation with Jimmy Carter and "freezing in the dark", it ain't that way at all.

golfgod

[NewToCA]

Originally Posted by golfgod

Charlotte Pirate fan wrote;

Well duh. But it does eliminate the need to generate electricity. I used to have the link to an article from either the Rocky Mountain Institute of The National Renewable Energy Lab; the title of the article is "why we never need to build another polluting power plant", or something to that effect.

Google that and see what can really be done with conservation. Unfortunately too many people confuse conservation with Jimmy Carter and "freezing in the dark", it ain't that way at all.

golfgod

How do you differentiate conservation from the Carter sentiments?