![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
sarrenFrom here.
The Bush administration and Congress, which see nuclear power as an essential part of energy security and any realistic climate change solution, have encouraged the expansion of the industry by streamlining the regulatory process and providing financial incentives for several new nuclear power plants.
I like the idea of beaming energy straight from the sun better, what do you mean, it's too expensive?
The Bush administration and Congress, which see nuclear power as an essential part of energy security and any realistic climate change solution, have encouraged the expansion of the industry by streamlining the regulatory process and providing financial incentives for several new nuclear power plants.
I like the idea of beaming energy straight from the sun better, what do you mean, it's too expensive?
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2007-08-29 01:35 pm (UTC)There's a small minority amongst the environmentalists (including the founder of the green movement the NY Times reported last year I think) who believe that nuclear power might be a better alternative than more coal foundries (and similar alternatives) as the technology. From the article I read this was because we are more aware of exactly what waste products nuclear power produces - which cannot be said for the so called "clean coal" method. I'd like to see MORE information on why they believe nuclear power is a better way to go than other methods (I'm uneasy about going nuclear in anything) but I do know the following (below) and it makes me think that article isn't something for us to go "oh shit" over.
Whilst we also have alternate renewable resources of energy (wind, tide, solar etc) none of these are yet at the stage (production, technology etc) that we can reliably support entire cities (and countries) on those powers alone. In other words, we can't just flip from using whatever we're using to power our countries over to renewable resources - the plants we have just aren't producing enough power, and our tech isn't efficient enough yet to run on a reduced amount of power.
Also, we can't forget that the fact that many countries are still running on burning coal and gas (Australia for instance - we use more coal and gas than we do nuclear) for power. Compared to that, given that decades worth of research has gone into finding out exactly what sort of waste products nuclear power would produce etc etc (haven't done enough research on this bit to say much here really) and I'd say that any country replacing their old power production methods with nuclear isn't as alarming as it used to be. Not great - but until we get that energy beamed straight from the sun nuclear power isn't as evil as it used to be.
Well so long as we don't end up in Springfield =)
It's not nuclear power itself, it's the attitude towards it.
Date: 2007-08-29 01:49 pm (UTC)Also, further down..
As for nuclear fuel, the Energy Department has been circulating among utilities an innovative plan to extract nuclear fuel from retired U.S. nuclear warheads and wastes from the process of enriching uranium for U.S. nuclear weapons, according to Kerekes. And, with prices for uranium ore skyrocketing, an interest in reviving U.S. uranium mining operations is growing, he added.
Econergy’s Paterson believes major U.S. producers will consider catering to the nuclear industry’s needs when they see at least a dozen firm orders for new plants. Once they determine that starting new operations makes economic sense, those operations will be on the cutting edge of technology, he added.
Paterson said it is too early to tell whether revived U.S. uranium mining operations will make economic sense, given stricter environmental and safety requirements faced by the uranium mining industry today.
He believes, however, it does not matter that much because major suppliers of uranium ore such as Australia, Canada and Kazakhstan have much idle uranium mining capacity.
Re: It's not nuclear power itself, it's the attitude towards it.
Date: 2007-08-29 04:25 pm (UTC)However Bush leaves, permanently, from the White House in 2008 - and one hopes that the new president and his/her cronies will at least be competent and less corrupted.
As for streamlining - this isn't necessarily a bad thing, from what I can gather, the paperwork and beaurocrasy surrounding some aspects of governing power in the US is a negative rather than a positive when it comes to fast reactions. I mean, remember Katrina. If we put aside for now the accusations that it was intentional incompetence, part of the reason for the horrors that occured was that no department, agency or organisation had real control - it was all a hodge-podge mess. Streamlining could make it easier for appropriate US officials to react faster with appropriate defenses in place if there's an environmental leak or a potential security threat to a nuclear facility (and regardless of WHO is the security threat, be it environmentalists, school children, random public on tours, research assistants, terrorists or what-not, frankly, fast reactions to somebody getting into a nuclear facility without permission can only be a plus in my opionion).
extract nuclear fuel from retired U.S. nuclear warheads and wastes from the process of enriching uranium for U.S. nuclear weapon
I'm not actually sure what to think of this bit. On one hand: "nuclear warheads?!" (standard reaction of horror). On the other hand: recycling! (which surprised me a little, but well, they are recycling and re-using aren't they?).
I'm not surprised that they're considering coming to Australia for uranium though - it's not much of a secret that Australia has uranium and a whole bunch of other natural resources like coal, oil and gas.
Terrification is up to the individual
Date: 2007-08-29 10:09 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-08-29 11:13 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-09-26 12:25 pm (UTC)