Article

2008-06-19 Home Front: Politix

McCain wants 45 new nuclear reactors by 2030

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Fred 2008-06-19 00:00|| || Front Page|| [1 views ] Top

#1 WAFF.com > GORDON BROWN: WE NEED OVER 1000 NEW NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS/STATIONS. The more, the better, for the Environment + Anti-Global Warming efforts.

REDDIT > ENERGY FROM NUCLEAR WASTE?; + CAN MANKIND RECYCLE NUCLEAR WASTES INSTEAD OF BURYING IT?

Posted by JosephMendiola 2008-06-19 00:14|| 2008-06-19 00:14|| Front Page Top

#2 Though nuclear energy is key to meeting U.S. climate concerns, the issue of disposing of nuclear waste from U.S. plants

Why I'm thinking Mecca?

Posted by g(r)omgoru 2008-06-19 02:28|| 2008-06-19 02:28|| Front Page Top

#3 McCain has very shrewdly placed himself at the forefront of the issue of high oil prices with his recommendation of a moratorium on federal gas taxes, a repeal of the ban on offshore drilling and his proposals for alternative energy plans. Best of all, what he is saying makes sense and is an extension of the Republican free market philosophy.

For once Barack Obama seems slowfooted in recognizing the potency of this issue and developing any counterproposals of his own to steal his opponent's thunder.

Posted by Gliling Lumplump3518 2008-06-19 07:05|| 2008-06-19 07:05|| Front Page Top

#4 Just a note,

Recycling nuclear waste was originally about extracting the extremely valuable material (elements) resulting from the nuclear process.

It's irrelevant to the safety of nuclear power stations. If needs be, bury the waste in a very deep hole.

Posted by Phil_B 2008-06-19 07:40|| 2008-06-19 07:40|| Front Page Top

#5 More on new nuclear waste tech.

Posted by doc 2008-06-19 08:15|| 2008-06-19 08:15|| Front Page Top

#6 The good thing about this, is that it sticks it both the more extreme enviros AND to the global warming deniers at the same time. It establishes a position of taking global warming science, and the need for action, seriously, while making it clear that such concern is NOT an excuse to establish a puritan regulatory regime over the economy, as some imply.

Posted by liberalhawk 2008-06-19 09:14|| 2008-06-19 09:14|| Front Page Top

#7 As much as I agree with this idea, where the heck are we going to find the people and resources to build, staff, and maintain these things? IIRC the industry has always been shorthanded, and there's only a handful of companies that are Federally authorized to do the work. I think this is one of those ideas that's great in principle but impractical - at best - in practice.

Mike

Posted by Mike Kozlowski 2008-06-19 10:08|| 2008-06-19 10:08|| Front Page Top

#8 2030 is 22 years from now. Thats time to expand appropriate university courses.

Posted by liberalhawk 2008-06-19 11:13|| 2008-06-19 11:13|| Front Page Top

#9 Demand creates supply.

If you pay them, they will come.

Posted by bigjim-ky 2008-06-19 11:15|| 2008-06-19 11:15|| Front Page Top

#10 Mike - I think it's as much a problem of the industry never having really reached critical mass as anything. When I was completing my engineering degrees (early-mid 90s) the common knowledge was that the nuclear industry was dead as a doornail and a graveyard for the careers of those working there. Structure it such that it is again viable and the staffing issues will abate.

Posted by AzCat 2008-06-19 12:09|| 2008-06-19 12:09|| Front Page Top

#11 A friend is considering early retirement from the nuke company he works for.
Why?
He has 12 requests before the NRC and just can't deal with how slow they are. Figures he would die of old age before they ever get serious and move a tad. He thinks he might want to do something useful with the remainder of his life not sit in NRC hearings.

Posted by 3dc 2008-06-19 14:28|| 2008-06-19 14:28|| Front Page Top

#12 Fine, just make them better than Wolf Creek. And as LH stated, get the school programs going soon.

Posted by swksvolFF 2008-06-19 15:52|| 2008-06-19 15:52|| Front Page Top

#13 Only forty five?

Posted by no mo uro 2008-06-19 16:56|| 2008-06-19 16:56|| Front Page Top

#14 In only 22 years, the permit for the first of those 45 reactors may finally be (provisionally) approved. The environuts and NIMBY folks will tie the whole process up in court after court, requiring impossible standards be met (the site must be less radioactive than granite), there must be an escape plan for everyone within a thousand miles, it must not impact the breeding ground of a yet to be discovered endangered species, .....
I am in favor of nuclear power, but I don't have much hope for it in my lifetime.

Posted by Rambler in California">Rambler in California 2008-06-19 18:09|| 2008-06-19 18:09|| Front Page Top

#15 of what type - focus fusion? pebblebed - the anwers make a lot of difference as to costs to construct and maintain.

Posted by Hupavinter Wittlesbach5870 2008-06-19 18:17|| 2008-06-19 18:17|| Front Page Top

#16 Ah, the waste! What to do. France has solved the waste problem. Why not set up a trade agreement with them. One ton of nuclear waste for one ton of red wine. Think like a Frenchman, trade what you don't want, like radioactive waste, for something you do want, like red wine. Problem solved.

Posted by Richard of Oregon 2008-06-19 20:01|| 2008-06-19 20:01|| Front Page Top

23:41 JosephMendiola
23:15 trailing wife
23:12 Abdominal Snowman
23:10 mojo
23:08 Frank G
23:05 Greamble the Kid6252
22:54 trailing wife
22:53 DMFD
22:51 trailing wife
22:48 FOTSGreg
22:44 FOTSGreg
22:41 trailing wife
22:39 Frank G
22:36 Eric Jablow
22:32 RD
22:30 Angie Schultz
22:25 trailing wife
22:24 RD
22:23 Redneck Jim
22:21 Beavis
22:20 Redneck Jim
22:12 crosspatch
22:11 crosspatch
22:06 Besoeker