Nuclear Power and Energy Reform - Panel Discussion

[ekilopp]

I wonder where that last guy got his numbers from. They strongly conflict all other sources I have right next to me...

[biped19]

Sunstein is a nazi ghoul.

If this country was serious about nuclear power it would be building Thorium reactors.

[webbj123]

Ed Markey is dead wrong. The cost per Megawatt of nuclear power is far less than that of solar or wind. The cost is less to build and less to operate. The only reason that it has been 44 years since we built a nuclear power plant is because of idiots of like Ed Markey. The 150,000 MW of wind he talks about is only equivilant to 10 nuclear power plants. Wind also needs the same tax loans that nuclear needs.

[schusterlehrling]

@webbj123

Wrong.

the costs of Uranium, which is the limit, is growing.

Also the Uranium is much more limited then our oil, gas or naturasl resources.

Even given then numbers of today, Uranium runs out in 50-60 years.

[webbj123]

@schusterlehrling I am wondering where you get your incredibly incorrect information from. Uranium has a very high crustal abundance of 1.2 ppm making it anything but a rare metal. Also some of the highest concentrations in th eworld are on the Colorado plateau right here in the U.S. The EPRI and DOE estimates show that we have enough Uranium reserves to produce the current energy needs by fission for the next 10,000 years

[schusterlehrling]

lol.

Did you invent this numbers?

Theere are nothing but a few 100 tons that were ever on earth.

[webbj123]

Do the math, the minimum critical mass of weapons grade fuel is about 40 kg, and their are over 30,000 nuclear weapons in existence each with the minimum critical mass or more. And moreover weapons grade is far higher purity than is needed in a reactor. Their are millions of tons of uranium in the Earth. It scares me that people like you vote.

[schusterlehrling]

lol.

Because you are afraid of the truth?

[GREEDYMADONNA]

From HIGHSCHOOL NERD to HIGHTREASON NAZI

B.t.w. youtube is already getting censored cos if your comment on cassy is to negative it just doesn't get placed I noticed.

[GREEDYMADONNA]

From HIGHSCHOOL NERD  to HIGHTREASON NAZ

[ConspiracyHist]

Whos that ugly ass lady named cass? or Cassedy? Cassandra? whatever! that is one ugly ass woman damn is it possible to be that fuggly. I feel bad its like weww shes all old and manly looking.. poor old ladys confused about gun control, and free speech. I suppose if you were a old bald ugly ass lady you would wanna do that tooo. come on everyone dont look its not nice its not her fault shes ugly as hell and almost completely bald, she looks like shes been bald since her early teens? am i wrong?

[suzukispecialists]

WOW! FUZZY MATH in the DNC!

No surprise!

[salinagrrrl69]

This is one odd kat man as is the rest of these oddball enviro-marxists. And he and them are going to rule our lives.

I hope that you'll enjoy those BIG home heating bills coming up....that includes all that voted for CHANGE n HOPE.

[MarcinP2]

MegaWatts?

MEGAwatts ???

How about Gigawatts?

You know, the things coal power plants produce?

[schusterlehrling]

@MarcinP2

Anyway,

the limited amount of Uranium makes nuclear energy short-term based even compared to oil and gas.

I looked at the best estimations and they say , 80 years , if consumption is reduced.

As it is not reduced, but expanded, 50 years or even less is much more reloistic.

Remember:

you can't renew Uranium.

Even Oil renews after millions of years.

Uranium on this planet ust runs out.

END of the story.

[MarcinP2]

When you're climbing down a rope and you notice it is 3m too short do you let go of the rope immediately while you're still 50m above ground?

Simple economics will cause the price of energy to rise when the time comes and alternative fuels will become economically justified option.

The technology will also be more advanced and we will be wealthier in the future, following the current trend of development, so energy price might not be an issue.

[schusterlehrling]

Why do you climb down a rope that is roo short?

tkae the rope that is ong enough, or you will not reach the ground.

I agree however that prices will rise.

But nuclear power won't help , as it alredsy increses the rise of energy costs.

Especially the waste costs have been claculated as way too low.

[webbj123]

Oh and by the way according to the 16th Chat of the Nuclides published by the Knolls Atomic Laboratory and the U.S. Department of Energy, uranium is 675 times more plentiful in the earth than gold, 36 times more plentiful than silver and their are already over 100 tons of weapons grade uranium either in weapons or that have been removed from weapons and that is only a fraction of the inventory, so your estimate of 100 tons is vastly for from reality.

[MarcinP2]

What webbj123

Uranium can be enriched and turned back into fuel. Thus waste is minimal.

This is what France does. Many european nuclear programs have been a great success for the past 5 decades.

[schusterlehrling]

It does not work in France.

Actually the rate of waste recycled again is quite low, as they admit.

[MarcinP2]

I need to ask you where did this information come from.

I did a quick research and apparently France is reprocessing uranium from foreign countries.

I hope you do not take your information from Greenpeace or another lobby.

[webbj123]

@schusterlehrling not to mention that only 3% of the fuel in spent rods is spent, the other 97% could be shoved right back in a reactor and used again. If we reprocessed fuel currently in storage in this country alone we would not need to mine any uranium for the next 400 years, again the DOE and EPRI estimate. Nothing short term abut fission energy, get your facts straight.

[schusterlehrling]

You cant use that 97 % per cent for nuclear power plants.

It is like trying to eat your shit in order to survive if i may use that comparison.

Does not work, as the material is not suitable for a chain reaction anymore.

Wrong isotope now.

[webbj123]

Wow this is like arguing with Jerry's kids. You say that you cant recycle fuel, well the French have been doing it for 25 years. And I gave you the references, the U.S. Department of Energy, the Electric Power Research Institute and the Energy Information Administration, plus 9 years of schooling as an aerospace and nuclear engineer, but I am sure you who most likely did not spend a fraction of your life educating yourself on this topic knows more than I do.

[schusterlehrling]

They TRIED it for more then 25 years and did not do it.

Instead they produce even more waste then before.

Very ingenius solution.

[Sjester101]

schustehrling, I am sure you are only joking and not being serious. Uranium is a fairly common metal in the earths upper crust, and the french have been reprocessing and reusing uranium for nearly 3 decades. You are right, the fission process does transmutate uranium in a fuel pin, but it only transmutates approximately 3 to 5 % of the fuel pin. The remaining 95 to 97% is still perfectly good 3% enriched uranium.

[a661333]

Explained with English, does not use the energy the electricity generation,solves the invention which the Earth warms, does not use the innovation which all energies possibly generate electricity your government, must be the national person makes this innovation if you did not understand that I said anything I ask you to tell you the National intelligence Organization completes this innovation I do not spend money to give your country In you tubeessential character a661333

[rsager8970]

Ed Markey is such a blow hard! (Farty four years HaHa). Wind kills birds of prey and takes up large tracts of land. Solar will take up enormous tracts of land and will hurt endangered desert animals. Nuclear keeps the lights on at night and when the wind stops and has a very small fotprint. The waste generated is so compact that you would not believe it. If we don't wake up and get the government out of the way of new nuclear our mortgages will look cheap compared our power bills.

[fewmetsiam4u]

Markey underestimates the difficulty of nuclear power, it was only useful to grow the deuterium and tritium of bombs. It's a very 1952 process, it takes books to explain what a costly process it is. Wind kill fewer birds than buildings, averaging one per year. The shade of solar actually helps desert animals.

[wkoeggbert]

The last guy is a bleeeping asshole. he is obviously taking great joy in the fact that environ-"mental"-ist have made it to financialy risky to build a nuclear plant in the U.S. The only reason why no one will fund one is because investors are worried that environ-"mental"-ist will stop the construction and they will lose everything. Politicians on the other hand will not back funding because they are worried that they will lose votes. They know nuclear is safe, and clean... DO YOU?

[Crusading4Truth]

Sure,nuclearwaste takes +1000years b4 it disintegrates...its that safe!

[UKRentor1605]

LMAO! ITS FUNNY CUZ HE"S BOTH RIGHT AND WRONG ABOUT THE SAME THING!!!

Ok, not just a little FYI, the deadly stuff takes less than a couple of years to disappear. The stuff that lives for say, 5000 years, like C-14, is so inactive that you really don't get much of a reading from it. Honestly, unless you have a couple tons of it sitting around, you would barely get a reading above background radiation. Besides, the air and ground is radioactive and i don't hear any complaints.

[randomnumber41]

nuclear "waste" is only dangerously radioactive for about three years. It doesn't disintegrate, but it can be reprocessed to produce more power. The only thing that comes out of one of those plants that can't be reused is usually U-238, which can be *gasp* BURIED IN A LANDFILL!!!!

[schusterlehrling]

What?

Three years????

rolf.

stop lying.

there is no st. clause

[jasbcor]

For every MW of wind power capacity deployed, only 25% of that is returned on average. That last congressman who spoke is a fool. Wind energy is a waste of money. Even though nuclear is expensive that does not mean it isn't economical when compared to wind that takes more steel, concrete and money than nuclear does.

[jacknapier26]

it seems like all of these experts are saying Obama is right.

i always knew off shore drilling and nuclear power were bad ideas.

[andresfusion]

Not really these are all politicians and they are all democrats. So this video is more than a little bias. Having said that, look at the whole video in the link where there is an exchange about nuclear power at the end and two of the "experts" disagrees. Also Obama is not against nuclear power, he is only against Yucca mountain and off shore drilling.

[jacknapier26]

this guy's boston accent is great.

[andresfusion]

Post the rest of the video plz, this is very bias! at the end there was a question and they actually explain the difference between subsidize( tax payers money)and loan guarantees. Not only that but they explain that overall wind does not compare to nuclear contribution to the energy grid today. Post the rest!

[fubar28]

it takes the french, who recycle their nuclear waste, a year and a half to build a nuclear power plant.

in america, it takes ten years or more.

cut down government regulation and we'll see how obscure nuclear energy becomes.

[jacknapier26]

interesting - how do they recycle the waste? because all mcsame talks about is dumping it in mountains in Nevada.

[jasbcor]

In a recycling facility.

[UKRentor1605]

In a reprocessing facility, where you can take out as much as 99% of the Uranium and use it again in breeder reactors to make new fuel for more reactors. Nuclear Material is very easily recyclable, but current laws dictate that we can't reprocess, and the reason behind that is... Well its.... Ok, there isn't a reason, politicians just said, no to recycling.

[jakewayd]

This is a vista into the microscopic science portion of the politician's brain. They don't understand baseload capacity in the power grid. We have nincomcoops who probably failed freshman physics making laws and directing policy on largely scientific instruments of society. Go have your horsestew Congressman, please just shut up and let the scientifically competent solve problems without your intervention.

[ferrozm]

what the hell would a politician know about energy? They thought ethanol and corn would be a good idea and look where that has got us? Sky-rocketing food prices.

[ubuibiok]

*****

[flamablesteve]

Jeff Bingam hasn't been paying attention the the realm of nuclear energy.

They are designing ways of making nuclear plants safer, cheaper, and quicker to build.

[magog1138]

That's not what he was talking about you idiot. Jesus do you hear what you want to hear or are you a simp?

[zbambam5]

Yet you provide no explanation as to what he was talking so he may be able to understand. Care to explain for us "simps"?

[magog1138]

No. It's in the video if you're paying attention. Iff you like cohesive understanding to watch a video and listen to what the speaker is saying, then you obviously lack the wherewithal for any explanation to make sense to you, but let me throw you a bone nonetheless: From 4:07 to 4:17, and reply it over and over again.

[flamablesteve]

I posted the comment half way through watching the video, In response to a specific thing he said.(Also, it appears I posted the wrong name. I meant Ed Markey)

He was talking about how it would take 10 years before a new plant could be operational.

And that isn't entirely true. They are streamlining the process of getting plans for plants approved, and building them quicker.

I would appreciate it if you didn't act like a douche bag when responding to me.

[1samothrace77]

you mean like how the pinto was built quickly

[flamablesteve]

Your a moron, and I hope you die in a lake of fire you stupid worthless peice of shit.

[1samothrace77]

doth protest to much

[flamablesteve]

I'm really Sorry, I was very angry at the time for an entirely unrelated subject, and I way over-reacted.

Still, you make a ridiculous comparison.

[bearr7]

zero point cold fusion is here

[bearr7]

nuclear power is bullshit

[chris6770]

Good to hear an american nake the point that nuclear is never going to be the panacea some would like it to be. Renewables and efficiency initiatives will be far more significant to the future economy.

[Plutonwolf]

We desperately need Nuclear Power as a stop gap till we get alternate energy going full strength. Thanks to Reagan, BushI, BushII and Clinton, we so lag the rest of the industrial first class world that it makes me want to break things. Like some skulls, but I will instead just work harder to enlighten.

[humanist7117]

You were'nt listening.