In Bid to Revive Nuclear Power, U.S. Is Backing New Reactors

I'm wit jew.

I didn't see anything in the article about what we plan to do with the waste. Are we going to bury it in the desert or do French-style recycling?

 

Quad, start the reactor.

 

Hmmmm. Interesting.

I don't think I've ever linked to the Heritage Foundation report before...*

http://www.heritage.org/press/commentary/ed010108d.cfm

But they don't usually say nice things about the French, so it evens out.




*The fact that it originally appeared at Fox News.com probably has something to do with the typos.

 

I'm glad everyone wants a reactor in their backyard

http://www.latimes.com/business/nationworld/wire/sns-ap-us-vermont-yankee,0,379980.story

 

I have 5 experimental reactors in my back yard. Its awesome. Wanna know why? Cheap clean electricity.

People that oppose nuclear energy inevitably are pro-coal (way worse for the environment), pro-hydro (way worse for the environment), or pro-alternative energy (and simultaneously wishing our energy cost us 20x as much as it does today).

 

And just what the fuck is supposed to happen to all the nuclear waste??? They're trying to put a band-aid on a sucking chest wound.

 

Of course, in planning to resume a program of building nuclear power plants, we would begin a 25 year process. It would take nearly a decade for the first reactors to go online. That would give some time to educate and train the generation of nuclear engineers and techs that would be needed.

Since no city wants a reactor in their back yard, the logical places to build are away from the cities, where the local towns would be happy for the jobs and boost to their local economy. Building in remote locations would also give impetus to the much needed upgrade to the whole power grid.

One of the best parts though, will be listening to the "caucus of nope" senators opposing the "noo-cu-lerr" option.

 

Cripes - I find myself agreeing with Matt. Besides, I don't see how we have too many other choices, at least not until those dudes doing fusion power generation with lasers get their shit together.

 

Wow! - my students gave me the scoop on this story two years ago.

see Post #9 here:

https://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/showthread.php?t=694613&referrerid=0


Amazing the inside info you can get teaching English to Japanese salarymen!

 

Burning pot for energy. (Meaning somebody else's pot.)

 

If you feed it organic uranium, there is no waste!

 

Correction: fair trade organic uranium.

 

Locally-sourced free range fair trade organic uranium.

 

I think I picked up a bag of that at a head shop on the corner of Haight and Cole last year.

 

If I'm understanding this correctly, it's a loan guarantee, not a grant. The US will make money on this in the long run.

 

Not to mention that the public is getting cleaner energy & all the benefits that go with that.

 

If the public really is on the hook for the front and back end risks, then I would tend to agree.

But beyond that, I've had enough of the nuclear FUD. It's so far and away the best untapped and reasonably priced energy alternative, it's not even funny.

First place to build one (or three)? West Virginia.

 

The public does get the risk with these loans...but unlike loans for car companies, nuclear energy has a long track record of profitability and cost effectiveness.

However, much of the risk is in the hands of the government. Most of the cost of nuclear power is in construction, not operation...and construction is where most of the regulatory holdups take place. It is a good thing that the government is now at least partly responsible for the costs it imposes on nuclear power.

Of course, I don't think the nuclear power companies would have any trouble finding private lending if nuclear power were under the jurisdiction of one solitary regulatory agency instead of 13 or 14 conflicting regulatory agencies.

 

We have a place to put the waste. All we have to do is keep executing Senators from Nevada until we get a pair that agree to let us use it.