The Nuclear Obama

[Turboswede]

If Obama is going to get us off 4-rN oil in ten years he will have an all of the above plan to do so... water, wind, Coal, Fission, Fusion, breeder, and geothermal, etc.. I'd like to see static generators attached to space tethers myself...

I am sure my grandkids will have hot fusion, but that’s a ways down the road. I am worried that there is a step people are overlooking in the nuclear/oil equasion, nuclear can not replace oil in transportation, lubrication and as a Raw material. Nuclear is only applicable for electricity generation and only 1.6% of our current electrical needs (ha ha, get it…current) are met buy petroleum. In addition, the petroleum we use for electrical production is sourced localy.

So my question is:

If we do not use foreign oil for power production, how will nuclear power reduce our dependence on foreign oil?

To reduce our dependence on foreign oil we would need to develop more non-petroleum based lubricants, only use recycled plastics and (most importantly) stop burning so much in our cars. In all honesty the US is not “dependent” on foreign oil, we just like burning and using it. As the OPEC embargo showed the world in the 70’s, we can live (fairly easily) without foreign oil, but the OPEC members can’t live without US dollars.

Nuclear could offset petroleum use but it would require a radical shift in our national logistics system. If we are making a change for strategic purposes forget having the public switch to electric cars, we should probably insulate our transportation sector by converting to electric and GNG trucks and trains. Trust me, the transportation industry would fight that change kicking and screaming because of the costs involved.

Even if we all agree that, for the national interest, we should convert our transport system to electric, Nuclear still isn’t the way to go because it is still WAY TOO EXPENSIVE. It’s too expensive… It’s too expensive… It’s too expensive… It’s too expensive…

Its less capital intensive to produce a fully self contained coal plant where all waste products are solidified and broken down to pure carbon and sulfur (both useful for industry) than producing a Nuclear plant with similar output.

Nuclear power does have its place, but not in a country with 300 years of proven natural gas and 500 years of proven coal reserves. I support Nuclear powered space and defense applications but for domestic power production it just doesn’t make any sense at all.

Just ask the Washington Public Power Supply System (WPPS or “Whops” for short) bond holders about that one.

From Wikipedia:

"Satsop is known for the unfinished Satsop Nuclear Power Plant, a facility designed to house two 1250 megawatt pressurized water reactors. Construction of the Satsop Nuclear Power Plant began in 1977 and was halted in 1983 after a $961 million budget shortfall, leaving the plant 76% complete. The plant was maintained, ready for construction to be resumed, until 1994, when it was finally canceled. In 1995, a demolition plan was finalized that eventually turned the site into the Satsop Development Park."

What a waste…

 

[Jeepers]

It isn't the United States that is going to initiate the talks dumbass.

The recommendation calls for the talks to be led by the Afghan central government, but with the active participation of the U.S.


Not like Bush is having a sit down in the oval office with the leader of the Taliban

You Douche

Why wouldnt he.. Bush and the taliban go way back.. they can sit around and talk about the good ole times...

 

[doeton]

As I stated earlier, if you were to build a 3.2Gw windfarm that serviced 4 million people and factored in the the cost of the land and the sheer size of land it would take, as well as the on-going costs to keep the wind farm running, in terms of breakdowns in wind generators etc. You will see that from a cost standpoint, simply by saying a reactor costs 5 billion is not a valid enough argument against the construction of a Nuclear facility. It is a matter of how much energy you wish to generate. Any program to get this nation off of sources of foreign energy must include all sectors of energy consumption like transportation, housing, etc. In order to accomplish this goal you do not leave resources on the table, instead you use the ones you have at hand. As I have shown the technology exists, it takes a commitment to use it.

and obama didn't say nukes are off the table...

course they do make make tempting targets for terrorism no?

 

[Navy1960]

and obama didn't say nukes are off the table...

course they do make make tempting targets for terrorism no?

DOE, Obama has said that he will increase funding on reseach in Nuclear power, but that he does not see it as a viable option until such time as there is something done about the storage of waste. As for a Nuclear power facility being a terror target, I will submit that is true, however so is every other power generating station in this country.

"Now, with respect to nuclear energy, what I have said is that if we could figure out a way to provide a cost-efficient, safe way to produce nuclear energy, and we knew how to store it effectively, then we should pursue it because what we don’t want is to produce more greenhouse gases. And I believe that climate change is one of the top priorities that the next president has to pursue.

Now, if we cannot solve those problem, then absolutely, John, we shouldn’t build more plants. But part of what I want to do is to create a menu of energy options, and let’s see where the science and the technology and the entrepreneurship of the American people take us. " Barack Obama

Problem is, there are several plants doing just that.

 

[DavidS]

Dear David,

We already have one running...Feel free to visit it when Mr. Obama gets elected and meets with us with no preconditions.

Signed,
Ahmadinejad

Dear Andrew

No problem. Last time we did that, it worked pretty well.


Signed,
North Korea