WTF is UP with Obama? New Nuke Subsidies and Offshore Oil Drilling?

[Liberation Angel]

I am quite upset with Obama's pro-industry stances on these issues.

With respect to new nuclear subsidies (Obama supports new nuke construction with taxpayer subsidies), I want to know if folks here support that so i have posted a poll on DU in GD.

Please voice your opposition to new nukes here;

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8056721&mesg_id=8056721

Where are the multibillion dollar subsidies for renewables, wind, solar, and actually SAFE technologies?

This stuff just hurts. I did not sign on for new nukes and offshore drilling, Obama.

You are making me very very sad, my brother.

[NJmaverick]

1. Hate to break it to you but PEOPLE need and use energy

not just industry

[Oregone]

7. Not to speak for the person...

But I think by pro-industry, they are pointing out the *types* of energy the admin is pursuing (from the oil, coal, and nuke industry). The concern is not about producing energy for consumption, but rather, allowing dirty/expensive/unsafe energies in order to please the lobby of big (energy) industry

[stray cat]

21. No blood for oil is the progressive energy policy

[Oregone]

33. I think that is a talking point, which isn't customary of "progressive thought"

Progressive energy policy would entail the pursuit of energies which will not erode the environment and contribute to greenhouse gas, as well as policy intended to scale back consumption.

[Name removed]

12. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Captain Hilts]

2. Not enough audacity to promote conservation, just alternatives.

Which is progress over GWB, but it's half-assed.

[sandnsea]

11. That is so completely untrue

You're just ignoring the massive retrofitting program and green building programs. Most of climate change problems comes from the energy used in office buildings, not cars.

He's doubling the number of hybrds in the federal fleet, and setting a target for the military to use 50% alternative fuels in all vehicles.

I suppose he could give everyone a tire guage and tell them to keep their tires inflated, but he hasn't called me for ideas yet.

[Liberation Angel]

15. My point is that the subsidies should be for renewables and not nukes/offshore oil

Where are the tens of billions we need for new truly green power?

How much of the stimulus is going for green jobs creation.

Seriously.

I would love to see a breakdown.

56 Billion for NUKES? Yecch!

[ncteechur]

52. He has discussed conservation before. Maybe you missed that part.

[Godhumor]

3. Thanks for the link, I just voted pro-nuke

So jiggy with it.

[Liberation Angel]

17. S'okay

The more the merrier!


I figure if people read the data and see the studies they will begin to understand how stupid supporting nuke power is. Ignorant and dangerous or downright deceptive, the industry is very manipulative and full of shit - deadly shit.

[tabatha]

4. He is doing a balancing act.

The changeover to renewables will not be fast enough.
He is not drilling in highly sensitive areas.
He is explaining it in his speech.

[tridim]

5. And typically 80% of DU is completely ignoring what he's saying.

And instead just declaring it RW style "drill baby drill", which it is not.

I guess I shouldn't worry too much, it happens every time the Pres proposes anything.

[Cha]

36. I'm not worried...it's the "drill baby drills" who are

the reactionaries. Is it really 80%? I see a lot of people around here who are not going off.

[sandnsea]

8. This proves oil isn't the solution

He opens the drilling, and then confronts Republicans with the facts. Is this going to be enough to meet our energy needs? No??

Then they will have to accept alternative, CLEAN, energy.

It's brilliant actually, but it will take several years for some to see it.

[high density]

10. Some people don't seem to get that we need a bridge between now and renewables

These people would prefer that we live in the dark ages for the next 30 years.

[bananas]

39. Nuclear can't be a bridge between now and renewables

Over the next several decades, this is what we need to do: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x191961

[BeyondGeography]

6. You're losing in your poll, and 62% of the public is behind Obama on nukes

Any questions, ask France.

[Oregone]

9. Is the existence of nuke energy in France proof its cheaper & cleaner than green energy?

You know, solar/wind/hydro?

Thats my only concern with the nuke (and developement time). Its a big investment, so are alternatives more cost and time efficient. France may be full of those if they were available 25 years ago to the same extent as now.

[Liberation Angel]

13. France's nukes are a boondoggle" dangerous, expensive and inefficient

see the reports at www.nirs.org

there is a link to this Greenpeace report on French nukes there plus much more on how messed up the French nuclear experiment has proven to be


http://www.nirs.org/nukerelapse/background/eprbriefingfinal1108.pdf

[kristopher]

22. So you think Dems support nukes?

Since virtually all Republicans belong to the oil/coal/nuke rah rah club, what group do you suppose opposes nuclear?

Associated Press/Stanford University Poll conducted by GfK Roper Public Affairs & Media. Nov. 17-29, 2009. N=1,005 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.1.

"In general, would you favor or oppose building more nuclear power plants at this time?"
Favor 49 Oppose 48 Unsure 3

***********************************************************************

CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll. Oct. 16-18, 2009. N=1,038 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.

“To address the country’s energy needs, would you support or oppose action by the federal government to ?” (Half Sample)

"Increase coal mining"
Support 52, Oppose 45, Unsure 3

"Build more nuclear power plants"
Support 52, Oppose 46, Unsure 2

"Develop more solar and wind power"
Support 91, Oppose 8, Unsure 1

"Increase oil and gas drilling"
Support 64, Oppose 33, Unsure 3

"Develop electric car technology"
Support 82, Oppose 17, Unsure 2

"Require more energy conservation by businesses and industries"
Support 78, Oppose 20, Unsure 2

"Require more energy conservation by consumers like yourself"
Support 73, Oppose 25, Unsure 3

"Require car manufacturers to improve the fuel-efficiency of vehicles sold in this country"
Support 85, Oppose 14, Unsure 1

Asked of those who support building more nuclear power plants:
"Would you favor or oppose building a nuclear power plant within 50 miles of your home?"
Favor 66, Oppose 33

[Enthusiast]

25. Interesting poll.

Those polled support alternatives and conservation measures more consistently than anything. That is great to hear.

[kysrsoze]

14. Rather than billions thrown at the meltdown-style nuke plant builders, why not Pebble Bed reactors?

There are other options too. Why do we have to rely on the same old ridiculously expensive, extremely flawed designs of the past? While we're at it, the announcement also mentioned "clean" coal again. Now THAT is a farce. Where/how are we going to store all that CO2?

[midnight armadillo]

18. Traveling Wave, even better

At least on paper, no one has built one yet. The design is intended to be fueled once and run for 60 years, and it burns spent fuel from other reactors. What's not to love?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traveling_wave_reactor

(terrapower llc) Company scientists have also estimated that wide deployment of TWRs could enable projected global stockpiles of depleted uranium to sustain 80% of the world’s population at U.S. per capita energy usages for over a millennium.

And by the end of that millenium with luck fusion power would be online ;)

[backscatter712]

45. I'm personally a fan of the thorium fuel cycle, say a thorium-fluoride reactor.

Thorium's more plentiful, meaning you don't have to tear up nearly so much of the countryside to get usable amounts of thorium. It's fertile, but not fissile, meaning it only reacts when it has help, say from a uranium seed - you can't just pile it together and expect it to react. That makes safety-shutdowns much easier and more certain. Thorium reactors can also be used to "burn" nuclear waste from conventional reactors and weapons, and thorium and its byproducts are pretty damned hard to use in weapons. Also, thorium produces far less nasty waste than conventional reactors.

Just overall, thorium's much better for the environment since we're talking nuclear fission.

[bananas]

24. Because Pebble Bed reactors don't work

See http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x233033

[kysrsoze]

26. Thanks for the link. Guess we'll have to see where Traveling Wave goes?

[bananas]

42. No, we don't have to wait for vaporware

This is what's needed to stop global warming: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x191961
We don't have to wait for Travelling Wave, and we don't nuclear energy at all to stop global warming.

As for Travelling Wave and other vaporware, here's the most important recommendation from MIT's report "The Future of Nuclear Power":

We have not found, and based on
current knowledge do not believe it is
realistic to expect, that there are new
reactor and fuel cycle technologies
that simultaneously overcome the
problems of cost, safety, waste, and
proliferation.

Our analysis leads to a significant conclusion: The once-through fuel cycle best
meets the criteria of low costs and proliferation resistance. Closed fuel cycles
may have an advantage from the point of view of long-term waste disposal
and, if it ever becomes relevant, resource extension. But closed fuel cycles will
be more expensive than once-through cycles, until ore resources become very
scarce. This is unlikely to happen, even with significant growth in nuclear
power, until at least the second half of this century, and probably considerably
later still. Thus our most important recommendation is:

For the next decades, government and industry in the U.S. and elsewhere
should give priority to the deployment of the once-through fuel cycle,
rather than the development of more expensive closed fuel cycle
technology involving reprocessing and new advanced thermal or fast
reactor technologies.

[Scarsdale Vibe]

16. The tens of billions promoting renewables were in the stimulus.

The stimulus bill was the biggest and most progressive legislation in 40 years, at least until the health care bill passed.

[Liberation Angel]

19. Maybe - but supporting nukes and offshore drilling is regressive and foolish

not to mention dangerous and harmful to mother earth and her creatures.

Why pollute the earth with radiation when we can become ALL renewable with MORE subsidies and self sufficient with MORE green jobs?

Nukes are not the answer.

But I am glad he inluded SOMETHING for renewables.

It is just NOT enough and so I beat my drum...

[stray cat]

20. In terms of nuclear power - didn't you ever listen to anything Obama said?

[ShortnFiery]

23. I agree, it's beyond sad ...

It's pathetic and morally unsound. :(

Here's some sane literature for those who truly wish to know the issue to digest:

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/press/reports/nuclear-power-undermining-ac

Nuclear power - undermining action on climate change

The nuclear industry, which has been in decline in the US and Europe, has seized upon the climate
crisis as a revival opportunity, claiming to offer a carbon-free contribution to our future energy mix.

Nuclear power is an expensive and dangerous distraction from the real solutions to climate
change.

Greenhouse gas reduction targets can only be met through using the proven
alternatives of renewable energy technologies and energy efficiency.

Every dollar spent on nuclear power is a dollar stolen from the real solutions to climate change.

*from an eight page briefing paper on why nuclear power is an expensive and dangerous distraction from the real solutions to climate change. Greenhouse gas reduction targets can only be met through using the proven alternatives of renewable energy technologies and energy efficiency. Every dollar spent on nuclear power is a dollar stolen from the real solutions to climate change.

[eleny]

27. It's disappointing

I'd like to see a sustained campaign by the White House promoting conservation of energy. I have faith that Americans would respond and do what they can to save petroleum and natural gas usage. Then we could assess what is really needed.

Ancient history but I remember President Carter asking us to put on a sweater and turn down the thermostat. Americans responded. It's time the White House took the lead in a similar effort.

I voted Dem to try and save the Supreme Court. In that I've been satisfied so far. As for health care, the wars and now this energy policy I'm disappointed.

It's good to see you speak out. I voted in your poll yesterday.

[tranche]

28. Where are the multibillion dollar subsidies for.... Proves you're a whiner.

There are multibillion dollar subsidies for clean energy. He muscled them through in the stimulus package as his first act in office. You know, like a good liberal.

Now, you knew he was ok with building more nuclear power plants. You know, like the intellectually superior Europeans do. You just weren't paying attention or like to bitch. I'm guessing you like to bitch.

[Liberation Angel]

40. Wasting subsidies on nukes wastes money which could be used for renewables

that is my point. And yeah I plan to agitate on this subject.

Obama hedged on his position on nukes during the campaign (although I knew he was hedging and hence was worried he would do this)

The damn offshore oil thing just makes him look worse.

I LIKE much of what he has done.

But this madness is just that: corporate madness and deadly/dangerous at that, for humanity and the environment.

i KNOW it is a political calculation. But I am TRYING to make the equation in that calculation one that will make Obama rethink these things.

So some NOISE is required.

MORE subsidies for renewables are needed. MUCH more.

Does Obama have the Balls (and the intelligenc) for that?

We'll see.

Based on this stuff (Nukes and offshore oil drilling) I am not as hopeful as I was when I voted for him.

[DuaneBidoux]

29. It is completely illogical to say reduce carbon emissions one place and increase them another.

As for nuclear, if you discount the waste that we will be handing to our ancestors to watch because we wanted air conditioning, then nuclear energy does make sense. That is to say, it makes sense purely from the perspective of carbon emissions

[kristopher]

30. Nuclear is a thrid rate solution for ending carbon emissions

This is a very comprehensive analysis that covers all the environmental costs. Other analysis that focus on how much carbon reduction we get for dollars spent scores nuclear even worse.

Abstract here: http://www.rsc.org/publishing/journals/EE/article.asp?doi=b809990c

Full article for download here: http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/revsolglobwarmairpol.htm


Energy Environ. Sci., 2009, 2, 148 - 173, DOI: 10.1039/b809990c

Review of solutions to global warming, air pollution, and energy security

Mark Z. Jacobson

Abstract
This paper reviews and ranks major proposed energy-related solutions to global warming, air pollution mortality, and energy security while considering other impacts of the proposed solutions, such as on water supply, land use, wildlife, resource availability, thermal pollution, water chemical pollution, nuclear proliferation, and undernutrition.

Nine electric power sources and two liquid fuel options are considered. The electricity sources include solar-photovoltaics (PV), concentrated solar power (CSP), wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, wave, tidal, nuclear, and coal with carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology. The liquid fuel options include corn-ethanol (E85) and cellulosic-E85. To place the electric and liquid fuel sources on an equal footing, we examine their comparative abilities to address the problems mentioned by powering new-technology vehicles, including battery-electric vehicles (BEVs), hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (HFCVs), and flex-fuel vehicles run on E85.

Twelve combinations of energy source-vehicle type are considered. Upon ranking and weighting each combination with respect to each of 11 impact categories, four clear divisions of ranking, or tiers, emerge.

Tier 1 (highest-ranked) includes wind-BEVs and wind-HFCVs.
Tier 2 includes CSP-BEVs, geothermal-BEVs, PV-BEVs, tidal-BEVs, and wave-BEVs.
Tier 3 includes hydro-BEVs, nuclear-BEVs, and CCS-BEVs.
Tier 4 includes corn- and cellulosic-E85.

Wind-BEVs ranked first in seven out of 11 categories, including the two most important, mortality and climate damage reduction. Although HFCVs are much less efficient than BEVs, wind-HFCVs are still very clean and were ranked second among all combinations.

Tier 2 options provide significant benefits and are recommended.

Tier 3 options are less desirable. However, hydroelectricity, which was ranked ahead of coal-CCS and nuclear with respect to climate and health, is an excellent load balancer, thus recommended.

The Tier 4 combinations (cellulosic- and corn-E85) were ranked lowest overall and with respect to climate, air pollution, land use, wildlife damage, and chemical waste. Cellulosic-E85 ranked lower than corn-E85 overall, primarily due to its potentially larger land footprint based on new data and its higher upstream air pollution emissions than corn-E85.

Whereas cellulosic-E85 may cause the greatest average human mortality, nuclear-BEVs cause the greatest upper-limit mortality risk due to the expansion of plutonium separation and uranium enrichment in nuclear energy facilities worldwide. Wind-BEVs and CSP-BEVs cause the least mortality.

The footprint area of wind-BEVs is 2–6 orders of magnitude less than that of any other option. Because of their low footprint and pollution, wind-BEVs cause the least wildlife loss.

The largest consumer of water is corn-E85. The smallest are wind-, tidal-, and wave-BEVs.

The US could theoretically replace all 2007 onroad vehicles with BEVs powered by 73000–144000 5 MW wind turbines, less than the 300000 airplanes the US produced during World War II, reducing US CO2 by 32.5–32.7% and nearly eliminating 15000/yr vehicle-related air pollution deaths in 2020.

In sum, use of wind, CSP, geothermal, tidal, PV, wave, and hydro to provide electricity for BEVs and HFCVs and, by extension, electricity for the residential, industrial, and commercial sectors, will result in the most benefit among the options considered. The combination of these technologies should be advanced as a solution to global warming, air pollution, and energy security.

Coal-CCS and nuclear offer less benefit thus represent an opportunity cost loss, and the biofuel options provide no certain benefit and the greatest negative impacts.

[JVS]

32. We're sending the nuclear waste back in time? AWESOME!

[DuaneBidoux]

46. You have a point--although if we did do that we'd have to sit in our own shit.

I don't think I read my post before posting it. I meant to say they ask why their ancestors of thousands of years ago left them poison so they could have air-conditioning.

[Liberation Angel]

38. But what massive carbon footprint will there be protecting nuke waste for 250,000 years?

The mind boggles.

History is only 10,000 years old more or less (as far as humankind has been able to record anything).

Trying to keep deadly nuclear waste "protected" and under guard for 250,000 years is insane and insanely costly.

[DuaneBidoux]

47. Agreed. And think what message we could leave those generations thousands of years out

Sorry guys, I really enjoyed my lifestyle but could you make sure you and your descendants post someone to watch this stuff for the next 100,000. That time span is simply boggling to think about. The arrogance of thinking we have the right to poison, to that degree and time span, the future of our descendants. Wow.

[JVS]

31. I support the development of Nuclear Energy, but only in the framework of a non-private system.

The oil is just a bad idea. It increases dependency on oil, and the goal in the oil end-game is to have as much domestic oil as possible when current exporters are no longer able/willing to export.

[vaberella]

34. Nuclear energy..I'm so-so. Off-shore drilling I'm against, COMPLETELY. n/t

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[tedk_355]

37. He sure keeps his promises

[Liberation Angel]

41. what promises?

care to explain?

[NHDEMFORLIFE]

44. Yes, he did

He said he was for off-shore drilling during the campaign and he is following through.
I'm not thrilled about it, but anyone who is on here wailing that this isn't the man they voted for didn't bother listening to the man during the campaign.

[ChimpersMcSmirkers]

49. You're not doing it right.

[jillan]

43. I AM TOO!

And to top it off is that it's such a stupid political move - he just won back alot of progressives.


This is insane.

[karynnj]

48. There supposedly is money for renewables - just as there was

in the stimulus package.

The only thing I can think of is that there are two reasons here:

1) All of this is needed to get the votes to pass legislation so the US will for the first time seriously work on cutting carbon.

2) One explanation I heard a while back, was that in the short term, we need gas for cars and that if we are serious in wanting to replace coal power plants, we will need some nuclear because the amount of energy required is greater than the amount we could reasonably get from alternative sources. Others, took the view that nuclear would remain too expensive and had too many unresolved problems to be economically viable. It might be that with subsidies the problems with nuclear could be researched. If they can be resolved, it might be easier with both the renewable and nuclear to find a reasonably priced alternative to replace all the coal powered plants.
(If is bolded, because I am not convinced that that will be easy.)

The key to the alternatives is having a new, smart grid - which both Kerry and Gore have spoken of as being the single most important improvement.

[greencharlie]

50. thumbs up for 21st Century Nuclear energy... nt

[gravity]

51. Nuclear energy is carbon neutral and off shoring drilling increases energy indedence

These are pragmatic solutions to our energy problems.

[Liberation Angel]

53. Nothing carbon neutral about having to guard the nuke waste for 250,000 years

How much energy will THAT take?

Its insane.

also our "indedence" on oil makes us dependent on oil.

We should be dependent on renewables and can be if we stop wasting money on dinosaur technologies which are deadly, dangerous and dirty.