Cap and Trade EPA Analysis - Hey this is a nuke bill!

[santafe2]

After all is said and done HR 2454, the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 is a bill that trades coal production for nuclear production. Oh...there's a little conservation and renewable energy but that's not the change that counts.

This chart of energy source scenarios is really interesting. The only one where nuclear energy use doesn't go through roof is the one where the anti-nuclear protesters win. That is not going to happen.

This chart shows the changes in energy source for electricity but lumps fossil fuels together. Hint: there's almost no oil used in the production of electricity, natural gas is not going to change much but coal, coal is going away. If you're a coal producer, watch out the nuclear lobby is taking your chair at the energy table.

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/eco...4_Analysis.pdf

ElectricUseEPA.jpg

[seanm123]

Re: Cap and Trade EPA Analysis - Hey this is a nuke bill!

The Nuke industry has been gearing up Nuke Plant part production subsidized by the taxpayer for a few years now.



http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/24/bu...1&pagewanted=2

[Starving Steve]

Re: Cap and Trade EPA Analysis - Hey this is a nuke bill!

If proper scrubbing of particulates and pollutants coming out of the stack of coal-fired power plants is in place and if CO2 is properly sequestered, why would anyone on this planet oppose coal-fired power plants?

Another big point in coal's favour is that coal creates jobs for people in the mining industry and in the railroad industry. West Virginia, for example, would benefit greatly from coal mining, and so would Wyoming. British Columbia has coal on Vancouver Island and so does Saskatchewan. Why not mine that coal and create jobs for PEOPLE?

But the best solution to solving the electric power shortage is atomic power. Nuclear power leaves no pollutants and emits no carbon-dioxide into the environment. And nuclear power provides so much energy that the cost of electricity could drop.

During the nighttime, surplus power from nuclear power plants could be used to de-salinate and pump seawater up from the ocean. This would solve the water shortage in the South-western states and in Mexico.

Another HUGE benefit from nuclear power is that the uranium in atomic weapons could be harvested, and those weapons dis-armed and destroyed. The world does NOT need atomic weapons, but the world does need atomic energy for electric power.

[GRG55]

Re: Cap and Trade EPA Analysis - Hey this is a nuke bill!

The Nuke industry has been gearing up Nuke Plant part production subsidized by the taxpayer for a few years now.



http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/24/bu...1&pagewanted=2

Some other things about nuclear power plants don't seem to have changed either...

Texas can take lessons from Finland's nuclear power plant delays

12:00 AM CST on Sunday, December 21, 2008

OLKILUOTO ISLAND, Finland – Three times a day, thousands of workers from across Europe tramp through the snow and rocks here to a bulbous concrete hulk looming beneath an aerial ballet of construction cranes.

The round-the-clock shifts are trying to resurrect nuclear power, an energy option that fell out of favor in 1986 when the Soviet Union's Chernobyl reactor exploded.

The revival is not going well.

The new Olkiluoto plant is struggling with cost overruns and delays. These are especially vexing in Finland's deregulated electricity market, where utilities can't just pass on the added costs without risking a flight of customers to other power suppliers. The plant is at least two years behind schedule...

...These sorts of problems exasperated North Texas ratepayers 20 years ago when the twin Comanche Peak nuclear plants in Glen Rose were under construction. Costs ballooned from $800 million to more than $11 billion...

[seanm123]

Re: Cap and Trade EPA Analysis - Hey this is a nuke bill!

If proper scrubbing of particulates and pollutants coming out of the stack of coal-fired power plants is in place and if CO2 is properly sequestered, why would anyone on this planet oppose coal-fired power plants?

Another big point in coal's favour is that coal creates jobs for people in the mining industry and in the railroad industry. West Virginia, for example, would benefit greatly from coal mining, and so would Wyoming. British Columbia has coal on Vancouver Island and so does Saskatchewan. Why not mine that coal and create jobs for PEOPLE?

But the best solution to solving the electric power shortage is atomic power. Nuclear power leaves no pollutants and emits no carbon-dioxide into the environment. And nuclear power provides so much energy that the cost of electricity could drop.

During the nighttime, surplus power from nuclear power plants could be used to de-salinate and pump seawater up from the ocean. This would solve the water shortage in the South-western states and in Mexico.

Another HUGE benefit from nuclear power is that the uranium in atomic weapons could be harvested, and those weapons dis-armed and destroyed. The world does NOT need atomic weapons, but the world does need atomic energy for electric power.

Two years ago a leading FIRE economy CEO called clean coal a myth. Fast foward to today and Obama orders the shut down of Yucca mountain (favor to Harry Reid), so now there is no burial solution at all for the waste, and the short term solution of dry-cask storage now becomes a medium term solution for the future generations to deal with. The spent fuel rods are not allowed to be recycled (President Ford saw to that), so the spent fuel rods sit in concrete dry storage on site at the nuke plants indefinetly. Each nuke plant produces about 33 tons of spent fuel per year. Not allot of waste generated per plant yearly but when you multiply that out over the years and the number of sites we now have about 60,000 metric tons of Nuke waste with no long term solution (Yucca mountain was designed to store 70,000 tons and we will be past that capacity by possibly next year) and as new plants open (projected to be over a hundred in the next 25 years) we could have 200,000 metric tons of waste by the time most of us here are retired. Nice little legacy to leave behind and I am not every mentioning the rest of the world's nuke waste.

Scientific American has a nice writeup on the Nuke waste issue in the August 2009 issue.

[Starving Steve]

Re: Cap and Trade EPA Analysis - Hey this is a nuke bill!

Two years ago a leading FIRE economy CEO called clean coal a myth. Fast foward to today and Obama orders the shut down of Yucca mountain (favor to Harry Reid), so now there is no burial solution at all for the waste, and the short term solution of dry-cask storage now becomes a medium term solution for the future generations to deal with. The spent fuel rods are not allowed to be recycled (President Ford saw to that), so the spent fuel rods sit in concrete dry storage on site at the nuke plants indefinetly. Each nuke plant produces about 33 tons of spent fuel per year. Not allot of waste generated per plant yearly but when you multiply that out over the years and the number of sites we now have about 60,000 metric tons of Nuke waste with no long term solution (Yucca mountain was designed to store 70,000 tons and we will be past that capacity by possibly next year) and as new plants open (projected to be over a hundred in the next 25 years) we could have 200,000 metric tons of waste by the time most of us here are retired. Nice little legacy to leave behind and I am not every mentioning the rest of the world's nuke waste.

Scientific American has a nice writeup on the Nuke waste issue in the August 2009 issue.

The most radioactive nuclear power waste becomes low level radioactive waste in about 20 years. That is because really radioactive waste has a short half-life.

Now if you are worried about low-level radioactivity, please don't live on granite because granite contains uranium. In fact, much of the Earth contains uranium, and that is the principal reason why the Earth is warmer, the deeper you dig into it. Please don't eat bananas because bananas contain a radioactive potassium isotope. Please don't live at high elevation because the Sun emits radioactivity. Please don't fly in aircraft because of the radiation from the Sun. Please don't eat mushrooms because mushrooms are rich in minerals taken out of the soil, and those minerals may be radioactive. Please don't get an X-ray. Please don't wear an old luminous-dial wrist-watch because the hands of those watches ( made pre-1970 ) were coated with a radium-sulfide paint. Please don't get an MRI. Please don't have a radioactive tracer shot into your blood in the hospital. Please don't go for cancer treatment because cancer treatment uses radiation to fight cancer. Please do not put granite counter-tops into your house. Please do not eat too many berries because berries are rich in minerals that could be radioactive. Don't eat a baked potato, especially the skin of the potato due to minerals. Don't get a dental X-ray because that could cause brain cancer. Don't work in a coal mine or any mine because the dust could cause lung cancer.

This whole idea that any radiation leads to cancer is sooooooooo much rubbish, and it was promoted by the EPA and the eco-nuts in America. The facts of life are that all living things on this planet repair cell damage done by low levels of radioactivity. Otherwise, life on this planet would have been impossible. LIVING-THINGS REPAIR CELL DAMAGE DONE BY LOW-LEVEL RADIOACTIVITY, and that is news indeed!

And do you know why mining of uranium and handling of uranium rocks (carnetite) was mistakenly linked to lung cancer? This is quite interesting: The miners of uranium used to smoke cigarettes. Their cigarette smoking caused the lung cancer, not the uranium, not even the uranium dust.

My blood pressure is going up now because I get sooooooooo darn upset with the EPA and the eco-nuts who still work there. And they now work in the U.S. Energy Department under Mr. Chow thanks to President Obama. Unfortunately, eco-nuts have made it impossible for the U.S. to solve its energy problem. And eco-nuts, like the ones running the U.S, now set the agenda in British Columbia, also in Canada, the UK, and many countries in Europe.

There is NO problem with the storage of low-level waste from reactors. That problem was cooked-up by the radical environmentalists. Low-level waste from hospitals and reactors can be stored ANYWHERE--- if indeed it needs to be stored at all.

The high-level radioactive waste from reactors is quite small and is stored on-site within the atomic power plants themselves. And the small amount of high-level waste becomes depleted into low-level radioactive waste in about 20 years.... So there is no problem whatsoever with waste from atomic reactors. Again, the problem was invented by the eco-nuts to try to kill atomic power.

I won't post more. We have plenty here to debate. We are debating the future of civilization and how mankind is going to solve its energy shortage and its water shortage.

[seanm123]

Re: Cap and Trade EPA Analysis - Hey this is a nuke bill!

Steve even if you take Eco-Nut environmental argument of radiation poisoning and cancer out of the nuclear power argument there still is the bomb making materials generated in reactors, a veritable Pandora's box of Plutonium.

PU-239 is virtually nonexistent in nature. It is made by bombarding U-238 with neutrons in a nuclear reactor. Ever metric ton of "spent" fuel contains about 1 percent Plutonium-239. PU-239 in “spent” fuel will remain hazardous to humans and other living beings for tens of thousands of years since it is used in making "the Bomb."

We cannot even keep track of all of that stuff made in the last 67 years so how does anyone propose keeping track of it for 24,000 years the half life of the stuff. There was a recent story in the MSM of some PU-239 dumped in a trench in Washington State back during the Manhattan project that was recently found.

And who can forget the quickly arranged cleanup effort in Russia after the fall of the Soviet Union, scroll back in time to the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact in 1991 and how hastily the US Congress approved the Nunn-Lugar Soviet Nuclear Threat Reduction Act, so we could fund a massive cleanup effort of fissionable bomb materials in the former Soviet Union.

If we are going to keep creating the stuff we need to come up with a way to get rid of it even if we have to shoot it into space. This needs to happen before we start building hundreds of new nuke plants worldwide to replace the coal burning plants. We should not be leaving the disposal of PU-239 to future generations or future madmen.

[tombat1913]

Re: Cap and Trade EPA Analysis - Hey this is a nuke bill!

Clearly a reliable document! $5.50/gal gas in 2050, 1% rise in energy costs. These people must think we are completely stupid to believe this crap.

[Starving Steve]

Re: Cap and Trade EPA Analysis - Hey this is a nuke bill!

Steve even if you take Eco-Nut environmental argument of radiation poisoning and cancer out of the nuclear power argument there still is the bomb making materials generated in reactors, a veritable Pandora's box of Plutonium.

PU-239 is virtually nonexistent in nature. It is made by bombarding U-238 with neutrons in a nuclear reactor. Ever metric ton of "spent" fuel contains about 1 percent Plutonium-239. PU-239 in “spent” fuel will remain hazardous to humans and other living beings for tens of thousands of years since it is used in making "the Bomb."

We cannot even keep track of all of that stuff made in the last 67 years so how does anyone propose keeping track of it for 24,000 years the half life of the stuff. There was a recent story in the MSM of some PU-239 dumped in a trench in Washington State back during the Manhattan project that was recently found.

And who can forget the quickly arranged cleanup effort in Russia after the fall of the Soviet Union, scroll back in time to the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact in 1991 and how hastily the US Congress approved the Nunn-Lugar Soviet Nuclear Threat Reduction Act, so we could fund a massive cleanup effort of fissionable bomb materials in the former Soviet Union.

If we are going to keep creating the stuff we need to come up with a way to get rid of it even if we have to shoot it into space. This needs to happen before we start building hundreds of new nuke plants worldwide to replace the coal burning plants. We should not be leaving the disposal of PU-239 to future generations or future madmen.

You have a very good point. The problem of PU-239 needs to be addressed.

I am just a geographer by education, not an atomic scientist, but my suggestion would be for governments to put PU-239 into cans and dump those cans into the deepest of ocean trenches. That way, recovering the PU-239 would be most difficult, especially for nations like North Korea and Iran.

I wish an atomic scientist would post his/her opinion on what to do to solve the problem with plutonium getting into the hands of rogue nations. And added to this problem, we have the problem of enriched uranium getting into the hands of madmen such as Mr. A in Tehran.

These worries should not prevent the world from moving forward again with atomic power, but these worries need to be addressed. Ideally, the UN would be the body to address these issues, but nowadays the UN is sympathetic to the Islamo-facists--- which is quite a problem.

I wonder if PU-239 could be made into a fuel for reactors? Again, I am just a geographer, not an atomic physicist, so I don't know the answer.

[Zen$]

Re: Cap and Trade EPA Analysis - Hey this is a nuke bill!

If proper scrubbing of particulates and pollutants coming out of the stack of coal-fired power plants is in place and if CO2 is properly sequestered, why would anyone on this planet oppose coal-fired power plants?"

CO2 sequestering is vaporware; just like the foolery of hydrogen. Who thinks mountaintop "mining" is a good thing for WV, eh?

"Another big point in coal's favour is that coal creates jobs for people in the mining industry and in the railroad industry. West Virginia, for example, would benefit greatly from coal mining, and so would Wyoming. British Columbia has coal on Vancouver Island and so does Saskatchewan. Why not mine that coal and create jobs for PEOPLE?

But the best solution to solving the electric power shortage is atomic power. Nuclear power leaves no pollutants

ROFL: Mining, refining, transport, reprocessing, disposal, etc, eh?

"and emits no carbon-dioxide into the environment. And nuclear power provides so much energy that the cost of electricity could drop.

ROFL #2 In fact they might stop metering it, eh! ROFL #3

"During the nighttime, surplus power from nuclear power plants could be used to de-salinate and pump seawater up from the ocean. This would solve the water shortage in the South-western states and in Mexico."

ROFL #4 Ok Dr Evil. This stuff is from 1950's Nuke industry propaganda, eh.

"Another HUGE benefit from nuclear power is that the uranium in atomic weapons could be harvested, and those weapons dis-armed and destroyed. The world does NOT need atomic weapons, but the world does need atomic energy for electric power.

Good idea--been there done that; we've already gone through a good amount of the stuff we got from Russia from their decommissioned nukes. Time to start digging . . . in Australia-or Canada, eh. (Nice way to talk your CA book!):rolleyes:

[santafe2]

Re: Cap and Trade EPA Analysis - Hey this is a nuke bill!

CO2 sequestering is vaporware; just like the foolery of hydrogen. Who thinks mountaintop "mining" is a good thing for WV, eh?

You and your crazy logic. Careful you might not find the iTulip exit.

[Zen$]

Re: Cap and Trade EPA Analysis - Hey this is a nuke bill!

You and your crazy logic. Careful you might not find the iTulip exit.

What is the exit? Is that the rabbit hole? ;)

[Zen$]

Re: Cap and Trade EPA Analysis - Hey this is a nuke bill!

There is NO problem with the storage of low-level waste from reactors. That problem was cooked-up by the radical environmentalists. Low-level waste from hospitals and reactors can be stored ANYWHERE--- if indeed it needs to be stored at all.

The high-level radioactive waste from reactors is quite small and is stored on-site within the atomic power plants themselves. And the small amount of high-level waste becomes depleted into low-level radioactive waste in about 20 years.... So there is no problem whatsoever with waste from atomic reactors.

Now that yucca is gone I make a motion that we give starving steve a lot of $ to store all the low level waste in his basement and all the high level waste that's over 20 years old; that way he wont be starving anymore.