You know, it’s kind of sad that no one is willing to invest in nuclear energy anymore. Wait, what? NuScale Power celebrated the news of its company-saving $30 million investment from Fluor Corp. Thursday morning with a press conference in Washington, D.C. Fluor is a design, engineering and construction company involved with some 20 plants in the 70s and 80s, but it has not held interest in a nuclear energy company until now. Fluor, which has deep roots in the nuclear industry, is betting big on small-scale nuclear energy with its NuScale investment. "It's become a serious contender in the last decade or so," John Hopkins, [Fluor’s group president in charge of new ventures], said. And that brings us to NuScale, which had run into some dark days – maybe not as dark as, say, Solyndra, but dire enough : Earlier this year, the Securities Exchange Commission filed an action against NuScale's lead investor, The Michael Kenwood Group. The firm "misap...
Comments
He told me that Obama is supportive of nuclear technologies, but that he has toned down that support while working on getting the nomination from the Democratic Party. It seems that he has continued to reduce the volume on his support knob to the point where it is reaching the fiducial level.
It is a strategy that does not please me at all, but it seemed to work for him in Iowa. I just hope that people who lean towards the liberal side and who vote as Democrats will work to make it possible for candidates on that side of the aisle to speak more openly and more supportively about the importance of nuclear power.
I think it is absurd to allow anyone to assert that wind and solar are going to make any impact at all. Their potential production is trivial no matter how must subsidy they get. We need to say that over and over again. At least with nuclear subsidies - which make me a bit uncomfortable - America gets a return on its investment.
Now there are other areas where the Democrats are popular like raising the minimum wage.. but I feel their resistance to things like new nuclear power plants is really costing them support.
STOP BEING SUCH YUPPY IDIOTS.
AMERICAN NUCLEAR TECHNOLOGY IS FAR BEHIND JAPAN, FRANCE AND THE REST OF THE WORLD. We need to use breeder reactors, they produce about 5% the ammount of waste as a normal plant, thought the downside is that that 5% is purified, and can easily be put into a bomb. So tighter security, and more funding is what the industry needs.
Sure there is waste, but that shouldn't prevent us from falling behind. If Obama support nuclear energy then I will vote for him, because as of now, the other "alternative" sources can't help us as much as nuclear (though diversifying the sources is good, just saying nuclear energy should be on the top of the list)
A) Nuclear power is not safe from natural disasters or large airborne objects and could easily pollute the atmosphere if damaged.
B) There is absolutely no safe way to dispose of nuclear waste or even recycle it thus far. It has a 50 year half-life. And who wants it in their backyard polluting the environment? Nobody.
C) Making nuclear bombs with it is stupid. You detonate a nuclear bomb somewhere else in the world and the fallout will travel for hundreds if not thousands of miles and pollute and kill everything in it's path, potentially you.
D) As far as Obama is concerned and listening to what he has to say regarding nuclear and coal power; he is leaving himself an open door to change his mind later on by what he said in this speech. Only using nuclear and coal as last resorts in his words and only when the utilities tell him it's safe leaves the door wide open for him to ok the technology as he sees fit.
McCain is much more of a straight talker, but I don't agree with him on issues.
I am a democrat. I don't trust Obama because he is wishy washy from debate to debate. "No, what I said was........." seems to be his favorite line in debates whenever confronted on something he said at an earlier time.
I voted for Clinton. She's already been President, LOL. I trust her to try (depending on congress and senate) and do what she says.
These are just my opinions. No offense toward anyone with differing viewpoints.
Is nuclear energy completely safe? Certainly not but how many people have been killed by it in the US or even France compared to coal or electricity? Since the rich don't die in coal mining accidents, the elites and yuppies don't care about the direct deaths from those energy sources. The benefits of nuclear power -- given the currently available alternative solutions -- is well worth the very minimal risks since it's not like the energy sources that we are relying upon the most right now are truly safe. The goal of the US should be to catch up to and then surpass countries like France in the efficient use of nuclear power until something better comes along.
Liberals usually consider themselves supporters of science. I'm a moderate but I love science too and nuclear power is obviously a major scientific breakthrough and revolution of the 20th century. While it is a different form, we would ALL be dead fairly quickly without nuclear energy from the sun.
I won't let the selfish conservatives off the hook either. They are willing to send young soldiers off to war in large part directly or indirectly fighting for oil but are unwilling to support a major increase in the gas tax. Whether its a $1-$3 increase in gas tax or truly enforcing dramatically higher fuel efficiency standards, the US has to dramatically curb it's use of oil. (Taxes in another area should be cut but folks would finally drive a lot less or buy more efficient cars if it was $5-6 per gallon) Nearly all of the 911 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia and the US shouldn't have an energy policy that just indirectly makes them richer and richer. They then uses some of this money to build mosques in the US when churches can't be built in Saudi Arabia! Saudi Arabia is a country that obviously represses women and religious minorities. If Saudi Arabia revenue from oil was decimated from a very strong energy policy in the US and in China as well....they may have to begin to modernize and become a less repressive society.
Human caused "global warming" may end up being incorrect. But, the US shouldn't need the threat of global warming to realize that we do have to dramatically become more efficient with the use of energy and create massive amounts of new energy that doesn't cause major amounts of pollution.
As for nuclear waste... that is overblown. If you have new plants, the amount of waste doesn't add up to much area. This is more about NIMBYism then anything else. Give the residents who live closest to the nuclear storage site a massive tax break and all of a suddent communities might be fighting to store the nuclear waste. As long as the nuclear waste doesn't take up that much room and it is protected from terrorists, I don't care if the byproducts lasts another million years!
The common sense policies I'm espousing are what some forward looking countries in Europe currently do. And they are also something that I think someone like FDR would do today.
To the anonymous commentator that wrote "Here is the bottom line in my opinion," I must strongly disagree with most points made.
For lack of the time to explain this in any detail that would keep interest, I must insist that you read more on the points made because I do not believe you fully understand the facts and widespread debate behind your statements.
I would speak differently if you didn't sound like you are regurgitating information that was obviously fed to you by those with anti-nuclear agendas. I mean no offense by sounding condescending, which I must, but those that provide this information use pseudo-science and fear tactics to gain supporters for their agendas, and will find a reason not to do anything if it has the word nuclear in it. There is a legitimate hope in nuclear solutions that should not be ignored. Apprehension is natural and positive, but outright denial no matter the advances gains us nothing.
Nuclear is not the perfect solution, but your facts remain misinformed. Please do some more research into the counterpoints to your points. You may already have heard them, and if you have still accepted this perspective as truth that's respectable (if regrettable), but it sounds like you are just preaching what you have been told as to the counterpoints of nuclear solutions.
A) Nuclear power is not safe from natural disasters or large airborne objects and could easily pollute the atmosphere if damaged.
B) There is absolutely no safe way to dispose of nuclear waste or even recycle it thus far. It has a 50 year half-life. And who wants it in their backyard polluting the environment? Nobody.
C) Making nuclear bombs with it is stupid. You detonate a nuclear bomb somewhere else in the world and the fallout will travel for hundreds if not thousands of miles and pollute and kill everything in it's path, potentially you.
D) As far as Obama is concerned and listening to what he has to say regarding nuclear and coal power; he is leaving himself an open door to change his mind later on by what he said in this speech. Only using nuclear and coal as last resorts in his words and only when the utilities tell him it's safe leaves the door wide open for him to ok the technology as he sees fit.
[quote]
is this guy retarded?
A: It would take something on the scale of several bunker busters to damage a containment dome. And whens the last time a large airborne object or natural disater destroyed a reactor anyway?
B: There IS a safe way to recycle nuclear power. most nuclear waste can be reprocessed and used as fuel. Plus, theres this nuclear waste site in Nevada that could hold all the worlds nuclear waste far more securely than anything in use today. Bu considering how there has not been a single release of dangerous materials at any nuclear waste site in the US ever, I would certainyl have no qualms about living next door to one.
C: This thread is about nuclear POWER, not nuclear BOMBS. Big differnce there buddy. Try staying on topic. Plus, a lot of nuclear warheads are being decomissioned and they provide the nuclear power plants with plenty of high quality fuel.
That said, I see nothing wrong with using nuclear power again, the only reason we stopped building new ones was because the U.S was to afraid after what happened in Russia, Which as history can tell you, was a sub-optimum power plant, that even our power plants in there WORST conditions were no where near that bad! And the closet we had to a melt down, came from a faulty meter! I believe they 'fixed' that by having redundant meters...
I do have to disagree with someone else though, Wind and Solar energy may not make as big of a dent, unit per unit, but get enough of them, your talking about Free Energy, Little Maitnance, No fuel to replenish, Unlike coal which needs to be constantly mined, hauled to the power plants, burned, and waste shipped away.
The way I see it, Nuclear power would let us get rid of all our 'coal' plants, power our nation, sell our energy to canada and mexico, And in the mean time, give us enough time to replace power plants, with solar farms, wind farms, and hopefully in the near future, Wave Farms. ;)
(Scientists are trying to figure out how to capture the energy of Waves, and it can be potentially huge, as like in certain states, sunlight/wind is a 24/7 thing, its free energy, just waiting to be exploited, little harm to the environment, unlike other things out there. Plus we don't have to worry about the whole waste issue! :P
On a related note, Why don't we just send all our nuclear waste to the moon, or the sun? Its not like we 'need' that waste anymore!
And if you consider thats its a long time commitment to store it, where it can be potentially used for other things, or contaiment could be lost... Sending it out of earths orbit, to the moon or the sun, where no one could get there hands on it, just seems like the cheapest (long term) and most secure option!
1.) European Breader Reactors
-There are virtually no breader reactors being operated. We do have the technology to create them, yet we have not mastered them. In simple terms, a breader is a reactor which produces fuel during its lifecycle. France has an advanced nuclear system, but because they RECYCLE fuel, not because they are running breaders. And yes, a closed cycle produces 4% of the waste of an open cycle (US). The current cost to build/design a breeder would dwarf the cost of a typical PWR or BWR.
2.)Wind/Solar = free energy
-NO. Wind farms are incredibly inefficent. A windmill is cable of generating a small amount of electricy, and after considering the capacity factor(~10-15%) it's extremely small. Consider the amount of fossil fuel necessary to construct a wind farm (manufacture, transportation, etc.) and you're now in the red.
3.)Nuclear Energy can completely replace fossil fuels.
-This is just not going to happen. Nuclear reactors are expensive - extremely. Are they capable of replacing fossil fuels? Yes. Will they? No. Although the lifetime cost of producing electricity by fission is competitive with production by combustion, the intial risk of building a nuclear plant is a major factor. Investors are hesistant to fund the construction of a nuke plant even though the NRC will garuntee their loans. Also, the coal and oil industries have a significant influence on congress - in cash.
4.)We should dump our radioactive waste into space.
-Not a bad concept, but highly impractical. The cost of building any vehicle to travel into space is huge. Now, build a vehicle that can withstand a catastrophic disaster without releasing any radioactivty - the cost is staggering. Besides, introducing a recycling program and storing our high-level waste in Yucca mountain is far safer, cheaper, and easier.
Finding safe and sustainable energy is not nearly as easy as you would think. However, I encourage you to continue studying nuclear power. It is the safest, most sustainable, and most efficient form of power generation that we have.
--------------------\
This sounds like it was said by someone with the mentality and maturity of a child. The level of intelligence demonstrated is also of a childish level.
We KNOW what happened when nuclear weapons were used on Japan over a half century ago; and the effects did NOT kill people in the USA.
The childish person that posted the original comment is ignorant of the fact that less than 0.03% of the average background radiation is due to fallout. Courtesy of the Physics Dept. of Idaho State University:
http://www.physics.isu.edu/radinf/
radrus.htm
Why can't people get the scientific facts before they peddle their ill-considered scare tactics?
-----------------
In WHAT "certain states" is sunlight a "24/7 thing". Please, even in Arizona and Nevada; the sun goes down at night!!!
Must be some eco-wacko so enthralled with the "green" energy du jour; that such obviously false statements are trumpeted in a public forum. This shows what type of pablum passes for rational discourse of late.