Nuclear Power

[funkedup]

How about an "Apollo program" to replace fossil fuel power plants (which generate most of our electric power) with nukes.  The government would have to relax a lot of regulations to make this economically feasible, but why not do it?  Seems like we could kill a lot of birds with one stone.

Make all the enviromental types happy by pretty much eliminating emissions.  America is the biggest contributor to global warming right?  Well how about we zero that out.  Electric cars would actually become zero emission vehicles.  California has a water shortage?  Don't deplete the Colorado river, just build nuclear desalinization plants on the coast and turn sea water into fresh water.

Eliminate foreign dependency on oil completely.  No more wars in the desert, no more need to project power globally.  There would be a significant "peace dividend" due to reduced "defense" costs.  Global perception of the US would be more positive, because we wouldn't have to monkey around with the internal affairs of so many nations.  We'd pretty much remove all motivation for guys like Bin Laden.  And IMHO the chance of the US touching off a REALLY BIG WAR would decrease greatly, something that benefits every man, woman, and child on the planet.

Of course the question is, "What the hell do you do with the nuclear waste?"  But is dealing with this one problem going to be more difficult than dealing with things like global warming or global warfare?  I think the answer is "No."  Imagine if we took all the resources we spend on fossil fuel pollution control, global warming research, maintaining our oil supply, etc., and we used all that money and manpower to figure out the optimal method to dispose of spent nuclear fuel.  We're talking serious manpower, on par with the Apollo program.  I think we'd be able to figure it out PDQ.

[Animal]

This kind of reminds me of the time nuclear space travel was rejected in an outrage by the enviromentalists.
It was completly safe, but that is hard for ignorants to understand. They will be 100% against anything nuclear because they refuse to understand that its safe and clean.

Another problem is that oil companies have their dirty claws around much of the goverment. They have so much money and power and desire to keep it that way that they would do ANYTHING that is possible to keep this nuclear dream from happening.

[easymo]

While I agree about the nukes.  You might want to avoid expressions like "we could kill a lot of birds with one stone."

[narsus]

Couldn't agree more funked, perhaps geothermal plants as well, much cleaner than even nukes no waste. Although probably more expensive. Also put more research into super conductors, a ton of energy is wasted just going over the wire.

Hell even fuel cells would be better, oil companies do have a large hand iin government I don't care if Nader was elected still wouldn't get anything done.

And nothing says we couldn't use multiple forms of energy anyway nuke, geothermal, solar, wind, wave, hydro etc.

Perhaps give the oil companies incentive to develop these new technolgies so they dont go out of business. Because let's face it they do employ a hell of alot of people. They employ a ton of geologist to find oil, switch them over to heat sources, where to build damns etc.

[Kanth]

None of this will change the fact that you live in Southern Oregon.

[Dinger]

That's why we need a dictatorship funked.

It ain't gonna work because:

A. US Politics is all about fear these days.  While there are many sensible environmentalists, what sells politically is fear.
   So yeah, while our nuke plants are safe and damn secure, what sells is talking about "nuclear terrorism" in the form of attacks on them.
   While many environmentalists would recognize that nuclear energy is a hell of a lot less damaging to the environment than fossil fuels, fear of the "things nuclear" gets you votes.  Look how many "nuclear free" cities there are in the US.  According to the laws on the books, you shouldn't be able to buy a can of brazil nuts in those places.

B. Well, politics isn't all about fear.  It's also about doing the minimum amount of action to satisfy contingencies while maintaining the status quo.  That's why a good environmental politician doesn't take on the oil industry, but rather the public sector; at best, you can go after a small and weak player in the private sector, such as the private citizen ("I've got it, we'll give the american citizen more economic freedom by allowing corporations to access their financial record and initiate credit transactions!  They'll just love getting those $5000 dollar checks in the mail with 30% interest rates!  Their neighbors will love it too!") or maybe nuclear power.  Why regulate automobiles when you can add yet another restriction to a relatively minor sector of the energy economy, and appear to be "pro-environment"?  Even better, Big Oil will support any effort you make in the name of "environmentalism" to render nuclear power -- the only credible threat to fossil fuel -- absolutely unprofitable.  You get to be labeled an environmentalist, Dubya and Cheney get to help out their buddies, and the only ones who lose are those who have to live on this planet.

(and no, it wouldn't be much different with a change in regime.)

[weazel]

Would lose all their future oil profits.

It may happen after that swine is out of office.....not before.

[funkedup]

Well, pessimists, I'm going to think globally and act locally.  I'm building my own reactor in the tool shed.

[Udie]

Originally posted by weazel
Would lose all their future oil profits.

It may happen after that swine is out of office.....not before.

 Oh man it must suck being you these days.  You really should rachet the hate down a few notches.  It will get you nowhere fast but pissed off.  Trust me after 8 years of Komrad Klinton I know what i'm talking about

[Dinger]

hold on funked.  Don't you live in a tool shed?

[funkedup]

I live in a van,
down by the river.

[Curval]

The answer regarding what to do with the waste is simple...build a big rocket, fill it up with nuclear waste, aim it at the sun and fire.  

[funkedup]

It's kinda heavy though.  We'd need to build a really big siphon.

[Dowding]

It's all about cost. Decommissioning has to be factored into the equation, and that's exorbitant. Also, due to the nature of democracy (i.e. short term governments), no one administration would want to spend that kind of cash - too much of a gamble for little (short-term) payoff.

That's why communism is a better system. Just look at Chernobyl.

[funkedup]

The best system for this would be Dinger's benevolent dictatorship.  But as long as you guys don't vote for me as dictator we will get nowhere.

PS Dowding:  A lot of the decommissioning cost is related to excessive regulation inspired by fear.  If people really weighed the costs and benefits (including global warming and the need to project military power globally), they might be more willing to accept more risk from nuclear power, resulting in relaxed regulations and lower life cycle costs.