Listening to the hearings...nuclear power will be the Repub. compromise

[cally]

I'm listening to all the hearings with Gore. I'm very interested in what the less crazy Republicans are saying. Everyone of them pushes nuclear power. I'm beginning to suspect that any compromise bill to addrss global warming will include a significant nuclear power push.

At least, most of them acknowledge that there is a crisis and it's manmade.

[rurallib]

1. $$$$$$$$$ thanks from the Nuclear Power Lobby $$$$$$$$$$

will be forthcoming. What should they give as a thank you gift?
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

[jpak]

2. Did Gore mention the N-word in his testimony???

n/t

[cally]

9. He replied to questions about it

He doesn't advocate it but sees it as a small part of the solution.

[jpak]

25. Also - Did any of the republics that were skeptical of global warming

advocate nuclear power as a solution to this "non-problem"????

(thanks)

[cally]

31. I didn't hear any but I could have missed it

I didn't pay attention to the total loons.

[bananas]

40. yes - it came up several times - Waxman was hilarious

I just reviewed the recording, around 9:10 am PST, Waxman said,
"I also hear people say, well they've got a magic solution, nuclear power, <snip>
Nuclear power is an option, you don't want to rule it out, but it's certainly no magic solution.
It almost becomes a theological expression whenever I hear discussion of these environmental issues."

That was during thread #3 from this morning http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=463405&mesg_id=463888
I haven't listened to the afternoon session yet.

(edit to fix link)

[fooj]

3. Do you happen to have a link to the Committee page?

[cally]

10. I heard to comments but here's a link

http://epw.senate.gov/public/

[Guaranteed]

4. Yup, Craig was big on it- and made a very convincing speech, actually. nt

[GreenPartyVoter]

5. Unacceptable. We can do better.

[Occulus]

23. Go to Google videos and check out what Dr. Bussard has to say about

fusion.

He needs $200 million to develop a viable prototype fusion reactor.

NOT a tokamak. This reactor, unlike the unworkable tokamak toroid core, is spherical. And I believe he did say in that video that there is a net energy gain- all that needs to be done is make it viable; the technology has already been proven and the designs patented.

Unlike fission reactors, fusion reactors aren't nearly as dangerous. At least, that was what I gathered from his 1.5 hour speech to the Google employees...

edit: the video is here.

[MadHound]

37. Key word is prototype

Certainly not suitable for commercial use, or to hook up to the grid. Normally a lag time between prototype and widespread commercial application is ten to twenty five years.

We can't afford to wait that long.

[Atman]

6. Cheney and "fast tracking" nuclear plants play heavily into this

Very early on in the Bush "presidency," nuclear power was a big issue. Cheney managed to get bills passed -- probably as part of his secret energy meetings -- which "fast tracked" nuclear plant construction, and curtailed inspections of plant construction. Cheney made it possible to build the entire n-plant and wait until after it is finished before any safety/QC inspections were done. Of course, at that point cost/benefit analysis kicks in...is it worth the cost to shut down a faulty plant instead of bringing it online and fixing it later?

Brilliant move by Cheney and his Energy Task Force. Brilliant for HIM..."fucked" for everyone else.

.

[cally]

12. Yep, the hopeful part is

that maybe we'll get what we need. Nuclear power plants take a long time to build and maybe we can stop them later.

[phantom power]

7. That would be great news.

[ComerPerro]

8. great, does this mean we get to hear from suburban, RW, NIMBY morons again?

"sure, I love nukeular power, but don't drop the waste here. Send it off somewhere else, just not here"

[cally]

14. we'll shoot it into space

:sarcasm: I have heard some wild ideas about this.

[ComerPerro]

20. cause that will be cost effective and safe

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

11. Who builds nuclear power plants?

Halliburton?

UAE?

Who stands to make the money?

[cally]

15. I'm not sure but they are very large companies

[paparush]

13. Wasn't it Cheney and Rumsfeld who PUSHED Iran into developing

nuclear power plants?? I read that somewhere last week.

[cally]

17. I think I read that also...nt

[zulchzulu]

16. As long as we can dump nuclear waste in red states...

If they want nuclear so bad, perhaps they can pay for it in their states and keep the waste right there in their own backyards. No problemo...

[cally]

18. They've always wanted to dump it in Nevada or Utah..nt

[IDemo]

29. Thanks, but not today

http://www.snakeriveralliance.org/

[gravity]

19. Nuclear power is the best solution with the current technology

We should invest in alternatives, but nuclear power provides the most bang for the buck and could be implemented on a large enough scale to replace coal plants.

[cally]

22. I don't agree

We can increase cafe standards, require green buildings, methane controls on animal production, and require many other technologies.

[zulchzulu]

26. Do you know how much a nuclear power plant costs...then there's the waste...

...and then there's the people that don't want a nuclear power plant in their backyard...

[gravity]

27. What's the alternative

that can supply power on a large scale.

[cally]

30. The best alternative is power generated in many ways

That's the mistake we've made with our current system. We rely too much on oil which drives the price up, causes global warming, and makes up susceptible to cutting off the oil. The studies I've seen suggest using a variety of energy sources. First is conservation so we reduce how much we use. Then use wind, solar, ethanol, hydroelectric and whatever else we come up with. One example is each community could cluster a group of solar cells on a couple of house lots that would serve that neighborhood. I just read about some new developments that do that and many green buildings are generating their own energy.

[gravity]

35. All alternatives have their drawback

Wind and solar can't produce constant power and fluctuate throughout the day and night making it unreliable. If there us a cloudy day, or little wind, you will have to use fossil fuels and nuclear power instead.

They also have low energy density for their land use making it difficult to have large scale production. Wind and solar can supplement our current energy needs, but cannot replace fossil fuel generating plants like nuclear power can.

Having fuel economy standards and more energy effecient housing will help some, but it's only going to reduce the energy consumption marginally, and we still would be relying heavily on fossil fuels.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

39. Yes, a "multi_" generating approach seems best

Nuclear is one viable source. Yes, there are problems that need to be worked out.

Add a couple of obscure ones to the list: Natural Gas, Geothermal power, Tidal power. There are probably many I can't even imagine.

And, can't forget the HUGE source of electric power - Old King Coal.

If there's a way to recycle/reduce carbon dioxide emissions from the "burning" sources, that would be a boon.

Creativity (pushed with tax incentives) can bring a lot of alternative energy sources into the larger energy distribution system.

[zulchzulu]

41. Well, there's....

...hydropower, wind power, solar power, clean coal, biofuel...

Once nuclear fusion is realized, then it's a no-brainer.

Personally, I'm working on an idea that uses a combination of gravity and hydropower that will seem so obvious when I patent it correctly that people will wonder why is was never implemented before... I just to build a verifiable prototype. This idea of energy would only be used in certain areas and for certain needs.

What this means is that we can all think of new ways to create energy and get out of the fossil fuel threshold.

[MadHound]

38. No, the best solution is wind power, combined with solar power.

Nuclear power, you still have two huge problems that are unsurmountable. That is what to do with the waste, and the inability to eliminate human error. Until you come up with the bulletproof solutions to those two problems, nuclear is a nightmare waiting to happen.

However, we have more than enough wind power to supply our electrical needs. Back in 1991 the DOE did a wind resource inventory(and remember this is with '91 wind tech, we've come a long way since) The DOE suprisingly found that there is enough harvestable wind energy in three states, N. Dakota, Kansas and Texas to supply all of our electrical needs, including factoring in growth, through the year 2030.

Now I'm not proposing that we cover these states with wind farms, this simply serves to illustrate how plentiful wind energy is in this country. It is clean, renewable, and cost effective. Since we have such a resource, it is much better to use it that to fuck around with nuclear anymore.

[Junkdrawer]

21. Centralized control of power generation...

The same people who control the oil today will control the uranium tomorrow...

[cally]

24. Yep, Gore wants decentralized power generation and Repubs

want these massive plants.

[Junkdrawer]

28. In the 70s and 80s, Nuclear power died for three reasons:

1.) The high cost of licensing

2.) Three Mile Island/Chernobyl

3.) The high cost of uranium due to uranium cartels

The Energy Barons want obscene profit margins and will kill nuclear energy with their greed.

[cally]

32. Hope so....the energy is also very expensive

and you have waste water issues.

[WinkyDink]

36. I live in eastern PA. When TMI occurred, we were told to prepare to evacuate (I guess to Jersey!).

Fun times!

[Marblehead]

33. plutonium

is the deadliest poison known to man and it is man made.

[cally]

34. I know...I'm not advocating it...nt