Sen. John McCain on nuclear energy

[Mjmar17]

NO NO NO nuclear power is the single greatest threat to human kind and the Earth as we know it

[timtrottproductions]

Hey, John wake up to Thorium power.

Corn is for cows and corn flakes, Ethanol ruins engines. Sugarcane works better anyway, but sugarcane doesn't have enough lobbiests.

[bIZAROsPRMN11]

nuclear power is OBSOLETE for domestic energy use. period.

it is ALL about mind control.

99% of Americans will go to their graves NEVER grasping

INFORMATION control = MIND CONTROL

it is no ACCIDENT that 99% of Americans

DO NOT KNOW the predicted date of peak oil production in the United States.

George W. Bush ABSOLUTELY knew this information before sending troops to Iraq.

it is no ACCIDENT that nearly 100% of Americans do no know that

NUCLEAR POWER IS OBSOLETE for domestic energy use.

[JonThm]

Biology is supported by green plants taking in carbon dioxide to do molecular nuclear fusion. Safe, clean, and free. And no toxic fission waste. Four times as much power as nuclear fission anyway.

[JonThm]

A lightning bolt does 1.2 x 1020 Watts of power output in three sections: safe clean and for free

[JonThm]

Fission loads and kills and is toxic death. The deep C does molecular nuclear fusion from water. Four times more power no toxic death. For free.

[JonThm]

Molecular nuclear fusion is safe, cheap and can supply power, though not maKE BOMBS. nO Co2 OR TOXIC WASTGE

[calapanpo]

@JonThm Fission, not fusion.

[JonThm]

@calapanpo fission kills.  Fusion is the way of life. What are you?

[calapanpo]

@JonThm Fission is what is used in nuclear power plants, the amount of energy released by nuclear fusion has yet to be contained safely. It's not like detonating a bomb, the energy must be released slowly.

[bIZAROsPRMN11]

point A. nuclear power is obsolete.

let me spell it out o-b-s-o-l-e-t-e

so, Americans, you would not mind committing murder for uranium ore the way you now commit murder for remaining reserves of petroleum.

that is likely biggest reason certain government officials support nuclear power. a chance to commit more murder.

you thinkin i'm agin nuclear?

not so, so long as YOU pay ALL costs.

including your soul.

how cheaply will you sell your soul?

[Yuber779]

Uhm...are you mentally retarded? Or is this post meant to be a joke?

[captinseperoth]

@bIZAROsPRMN11

\

say that to the french

how cheaply do you sell your soul the the corporations,such as walmart?

[tskasa1]

@bIZAROsPRMN11

"nuclear power is obsolete"

It's the single most efficient, productive way of manufacturing electricity that man has yet to master in the reactor form. It is as obsolete as stealth aircraft are obsolete, it's the best of the best and it does its job damn well.

"you realize what would happen if something went wrong."

Properly Maintained Nuclear Reactors have lower chances of failing than coal plants do exploding.

[JonThm]

GW is PR by nuclear power, who want YOU dead.

[captinseperoth]

@JonThm

says some fear monger

[jodonalds]

??? ok...

I live in a small county, but life is reaaaally amazing here. so when your land is valuable and there are 7 nuclear plants and they want to build an 8th one, you realize what would happen if something went wrong. Our whole country will be lost. if you life in a large country you don't care about these problems our people's homes...

[chem88nguyen]

McCain's views on expanding nuclear energy was one of the reasons I swayed towards him and was conflicted on voting.

Nuclear energy is probably one of the most underused resources. It's mass media effects that make people freak out about it. Considering how much energy it puts out, how little waste it generates and how well that waste is contained, it's a pity it isn't taken advantage of. Coal and petroleum generates several times, maybe even magnitudes, more waste that is dumped into the air.

[jodonalds]

it don't care if nuclear energy is effective or not... all that nuclear garbage, what with that? We put it in the ground for at least 300-50.000 years... ooo yeah that's the sollution. If you think it will stay there without toutch, than you're quite naïve... giving the generation next to us world problems is no great option. on the contrary... technology is advanced enough to find other solution.. it will not be easy, but nuclear energy is no option for the future.

[chem88nguyen]

I don't see why people freak out about stored waste when you most probably get toxic amounts of radon in their own homes. As far as waste goes, when recycled, nuclear plants produce practically no waste at all. It's only in the US do we not recycle spent plutonium due to fears of terrorism. Many countries like France recycle and run almost entirely on nuclear power. You can cry all you want about nuclear waste when coal produces about 200,000 tons of waste a year.

[jodonalds]

you don't know the possible consequences????? I don't care, if you are such an old guys who thinks we should put the world full with garbage.... ok, I don't care, stay there in your America, in Europe we work on it.

[chem88nguyen]

Last I checked, France is a part of Europe and it is the largest exporter of nuclear energy in the world.  When it comes to energy, there really isn't a one-size-fits-all. Every solution has pros and cons and through research, it is possible to improve upon anything. What is waste today may be worth more than gold tomorrow. Of course, I see this sort of thing from an engineering standpoint. As for your vague comments, I'm really not sure what you're basing your statements on.

[jodonalds]

my basis?? well.. just human thinking, that's all, and thinking in the far future. you think tomorrow, I think within hundreds of years.. what should be the best???

[chem88nguyen]

If you're interested in this sort of topic, you should try researching more through papers and journals. There's a lot more on the topic than meets the eye. Anyone can say, "Oh, but it produces waste," when most efficient energy sources produce waste. I've read many papers on the topic, and it's not easy. Sure, you can criticize nuclear power, but then what would you suggest alternatively? It's easy to point out why something is bad; it's much harder to point out a solution.

[jodonalds]

i am really sure i know more about it that you... my uncle runs a nuclear plant and three days ago we visitited it with college so...

[chem88nguyen]

I'm not here to make petty arguments about who knows more of what. Mindless youtube flame wars are not worth my time. I've visited a gas plant, a coal plant, and I've read plenty of journals about nuclear plants and alternative energy, so it's not like I'm pulling things out of the blue. Either way, I've made my points. If you'd like to point out a different perspective, then be my guest.

[chem88nguyen]

Ironically, you probably breathe in and are more exposed to radioactive particulates in the air from petroleum sources than the zero amount of exposure from nuclear plants.

[PrisonersDelimma]

Jodonalds,

You do realize that the radioactive fuel comes from the ground to begin with right??

[captinseperoth]

@PrisonersDelimma

did you know that those who live next door to a power-plan plant receive more rads from dentist xrays,than the power plant

we should kill off all coal plants if we are talking about radiation still...

coal plants produce waste product which produces lots of mild radiation

said product gets spewd into the air,and made into huge damns which ocationaly brake and kill people,while spreading the waste and permanently wreaking the area,more so then atomic waste in the ground.

[PrisonersDelimma]

jodonalds,

We could all kill ourselves so that we don't harm the environment.

[GenXFuturist101]

An even BETTER and fully vetted/proven system for overunity non-nuclear dependant technology is the SEG (Searle Effect Generator). Here again we have black technology sector sitting its greasy hairy A!! on it because of control/national-security issues. I think the only thing I would worry about spreading around on the internet is advocacy for the continued demented policy's which only "create (bad) jobs" and not even for humane reasons & at horrible costs to the entire world in which we live.

[GenXFuturist101]

The pulse motor is just a simple albeit less than developed/produced solution, but the overunity properties of Bedini technology are refuted only by those who require continuation of the misinformation status quo. A better example of overunity would be the N-Machine. The only relevancy of Nuclear power going forward is in Bed reactors for black technology power systems. Even those are "obsolete" and used only to propagate an obscenely dangerous & irresponsible industry (nuclear fission).

[itwaschris]

John McCain forced the Navajo to relocate onto a site contaminated by radiation. They have been fighting his environmental racism for the past 20 years. Vote for McCain - Vote for more environmental racism. Radiation doesn't only poison Indians - it will get to you too!

[RM5493]

poisoning those lazy good for nothing indians? Another reason why i voted mccain

[ap327145]

LOL Me too brother

[GenXFuturist101]

Google Genepax:

Nuclear power is completely obsolete. Oil is ABOLUTELY not necessary as fuel. ANY combustion process which does not make direct use of ever pleantiful WATER is both dirty AND obsolete.

Bedini motor technology (pulse motors) make it DIRT cheap to pull every house & electic car OFF the grid. In fact having a grid in this day and age is pure stupidity.

Get rid of the DOE now & BAM (like Emeril :) ) Free electricity would come out of the wood work & creat MILLIONS of great jobs.

[CaptainFudges]

Nice joke about "Nuclear power is completely obsolete" really made me laugh. Keep spining garbage around the internet, like those "pulse motors".

[GenXFuturist101]

my pleasure good sir. :-) I wish to encourage you to feel free to do the same. XD

[CaptainFudges]

You're one of theose "intelectuals" that like to say that a tree is green in a complicated fahion. The Searl, at the moment, is pure garbage with the difference that it has potential. At the moment, it can't do anything, it's utility is zero, but has potential. If those fucktards at CERN learn about a new type of energy, it doesn't mean that everything up to that moment is "obsolete". Say obsolete when you can take them of the grid and wont have a very big impact on electricity. So keep spining.

[RegularFool]

Nuclear power must be used to charge the millions of electric vehicles that will soon take over the roads. The current power grid is primitive and barely supplies enough power as it is. Bring on the nuke plants and EV's and put America to work doing the transformation that will put a final end to OPEC control. We produce enough oil and gas in America, combined with new nuclear plants and updated power grid that we will no longer need OPEC. Let them swim in their oil.

[sand517]

McCain and Obama suppoort Nuclear energy and it is bad for the environment. The Uranium has to be mined, the mining of uranium burns oil. After this is all done you have the worst carbon footprint you could have. Neither has clue about the environment.

They both eat meat which chicken crap is bad for the water and methane gas from cows is worse for the environment than all the cars in the US. You can't be an environmentalist and eat meat.

Environmentalist for Nader'08

[NorskeDivision]

Prices of Uranium are down a lot, as predicted.

[waterforpeople]

Typical politician: Go the way the wind blows. I don't know what decade he is living in, but someone should tell him nuclear energy is dead.

[fvuck]

That's a ridiculous statement. Have you even researched Obama? Changing your mind is not necessarily bad, bu if you want to play that game McCain has changed his stances on far more issues in the last 2 years than Obama has in his decade and a half long career. He used to be pro Roe vs Wade, now against. Against drilling America's coast lines, now for. There are many more things regarding his stances on the war on terror. Our allies. Foreign relations. The economy... etc. Do the research

[naujitii]

fvuck is right. I made the research, Mccain is more of a 2-face character than a "maverick"

[hrthrhs]

Atleast this guy's sure-footed, knows what he wants and isn't afraid to express his beliefs unlike Obama who seems to be neither here nor there - who just agrees/disagrees depending on what crowd he's in front of.

[fvuck]

That's a ridiculous statement. have you even listened to him talk? Changing your mind is not necessarily bad, but if you want to play that game McCain has changed his stances on far more issues in the last 2 years than Obama has in his decade and a half long career. He used to be Pro Roe Vs Wade now against. Against drilling the coasts, now for. There are many more things regarding the economy, the war in Iraq, and the war on terror, as well as Foreign relations.

[hrthrhs]

ok cool. Nah, I'm Australian, I haven't listened to any of these guys speak.

[milofonbil]

McCain is Mr. Flip-flop. He shoots from the hip. If he's wrong, he simply shoots again even if the person he was aiming at was his friend.

[naujitii]

Mccain voted AGAINST nuclear energy, sounds like a hypocrite to me.

[coulterfan2491]

McCain 2008!

[OptimusGonzoo]

WATCH OUT! NUCLEAR POWER!

Oh i'm The British and Moses defeated me!

[SWarneke]

Can't wait until McCain wins and we focus more on Nuclear Power. woohoo!

[Teriyaki07]

Despite McCain's refusal to vote for renewable energy, he ran TV ads during the Olympics, showing a wind farm full of spinning turbines, the exact same energy he WOULD NOT vote in support of EIGHT TIMES over the past year.

McCain presumes Americans are SO stupid that if he just shows them wind turbines in an Olympics ad they'll actually think he showed up and voted for such renewable power — when he didn't.

[andretheking86]

"new rule, you can't put a windmill in your campaign add if you voted against every single bill that might lead someone to build one (applause), as long as your sending a camera crew to a farm, why not just take a picture of actual bullshit"

-bill maher

[MoBushin04]

Fascism. Besides, Ted Kennedy aka NIMBY, would soil himself on that one

[andretheking86]

how was my statement fascism?

mccain's energy policy is bullshit on paper, i wanted to call him out on it, but bill maher did and usually always does it better than anyone, so i quoted him . . .

[Teriyaki07]

Refusing to vote on legislation needed to address our energy crisis not only harms our national security interest by extending the duration of US dependency on foreign countries. But, it also risks marginalizing the US in terms of which countries will be the leaders in the alternative energies that replace oil dependency. After 26 years of conservatives, like McCain, repeatedly blocking wind budgets and tax credits, the US is now a bit player in the $36 billion global market.

[HiTekVagabond]

My friends, nuclear energy is not a viable substitute for oil. We don't make electricity with oil.

[WOLFMAN1469]

well we sure dont fly planes on nuclear i think that coal to liquid and CCS are far better long term investments, econmically, evironmentally, and medically.

[Darkwizzrobe]

What you never heard of a oil power plant?

[milofonbil]

Sure, they are used as backup plants. Nuclear power plants cannot fulfill this role.

[HiTekVagabond]

1. You don't understand solar-thermal. PV is not practical

2. Wind turbines run 60-90% of the time (so do nuclear power plants)

3. You don't have a clue about capacity factor for wind turbines. power produced/rated power

4. True. All sources of energy do. Nuclear power plants require backup when they are down. Sodium loop breeders require a smelter to keep the sodium liquid

5. Base load is a myth and actually a disadvantage of nuclear power. Nukes cannot peak-follow. Google for it.

[HiTekVagabond]

6. All modern electrical companies have a variety of power sources. They all serve different overlapping strategies. Nukes have an extremely high capital cost which means the plant loses money if its not running all the time at full output. A nuke cannot provide peaking power. So additional power has to be generated somewhere. Wind turbines can. When the wind turbine is not needed, it's shut off, thus the capacity factor is lower than it could be. It's the same for all peaking plants.

[Engr3212]

1. Solar Panels produce power when the sun shines.

2. Windmills produce power when the wind blows.

3. CA windmills have NEVER had a capacity factor above 25%.

4. BOTH require a backup power plant for when the wind doesn't blow (wind), at night, or when a cloud blocks the sun(PV).

5. Neither wind nor solar can be base loaded.

6. Why build 2 plants ( a backup for the "alternative") and spend twice the money for half the availability? Do you like $1/kw power?

[saturnhexagon]

to quote MXC, right you are, milo. We need broad diversity in energy production, which Obama is all for. Dozen eggs from 12 different hens. If he was against nuke energy, he would want the dismantling of all nuke plants. Nuke reactors cost over $2.6 billion to build in cash and 7 years in time. And that's just start-up, not including operating costs and waste management. It's not feasible, just keep the ones we have.

[milofonbil]

Building two proposed nuclear reactors (Westinghouse/Shaw AP1000) in Florida are estimated to cost Progress Energy $17 billion. $8.5 million each and produce 1 GW net.

Nuclear today produces 6% of the world's energy needs. How many nuclear reactors will they need? Bush and Cheney say more than 2000. When will uranium run out? in 15 years or so at that rate. When will we see peak uranium? As soon as they are being built.

Uranium went up by ten-fold in the last 4 yrs

[saturnhexagon]

I think Johhny said he wants 45 of them. But he could always flip-flop on the number.

[HiTekVagabond]

Who is going to lend them the money? That's almost 1/2 of a Trillion Dollars.

[milofonbil]

That's 1/2 Trillion for Jimmy's plan. For Dick and Bush's plan, it's 17 Trillion dollars. Right.

[Engr3212]

US licensing costs are 3 times that of France.

How many French reactors had a problem? Tell me.

U235 is in short supply. U238 isn't and neither is thorium or plutonium. The cost of whatever uranium you refer to is meaningless.

[HiTekVagabond]

Since the French Nuclear Power program settled on a standard design, the reactors are standardized, the licensing costs are cheap. In the US, each reactor is different than the next and needs to be completely licensed from the ground up.

Plenty of accidents

*U238 is not fissile. No breeder. It's currently a waste product.

*Much of the Thorium is India, they won't sell it to you. It's not fissile, you need a breeder to turn it into uranium.

*Plutonium plentiful? I seriously doubt it.

[sagafoundation]

Nuclear power has one great positive aspect in the United States: Every 10th light bulb uses energy produced from nuclear fuel, which in turn was down blended from the former Soviet nuclear weapons. In this regard, Russia and the United States should cooperate more and blend the nukes to produce electricity.

[sottese]

about 25 percent of home power in cal is powered by nucler power

[milofonbil]

The world consumes 70,000 tonnes of uranium a year. The world mines only 36,000 tonnes of uranium a year. Do you see something wrong with this?

The difference is being made up by downblending nuclear weapons. And that HEU will run out in 2012.

[Engr3212]

The most efficient nuclear fuel cycle in the world is the the seed and blanket thorium cycle. read up on it.

If Jimmy Carter hadn't outlawed fuel reprocessing, the US could have had 80% of its electricity from nuclear just like France did with some 10% of the waste we now have. Gosh nobody but the US took Jimmy's lead.

There are all kinds of fuel cycle alternatives available and most produce little waste. It is only sham environmental and political positions made the waste.

[milofonbil]

I will read about the seed and blanket Th cycle.

Now Jimmy is a "Nucular Engineer" He was worried about terrorists then - smart man. The story you paint about France is very rosy. France is out of uranium. France's two reprocessing plant in LaHague only have a capacity of 16,000 tonnes per year. France has to import 10,527 tonnes of Uranium every year.

Reprocessing does not reduce the waste. In fact, it *increases* the volume of the waste.

[milofonbil]

(2012 con't) If I understand the SORT treaty runs out in 2012. I think the treaty should be extended so that nuclear weapons in the world continue to be reduced. I would hope that in the next round, more countries can be persuaded to dismantle, including China, England and France. There is still plenty of HEU and Pu that can be used as reactor fuel.

[milofonbil]

I think the SORT treaty to reduce the number of nuclear weapons is a great way to control 3 things:

1)Reduce the terrorist threat of WMDs by reducing the amount of fissile material that can be stolen.

2)Reduce the cold-war tension that may still be between the two countries which in turn reduces the possibility of a nuclear war between the Russians and the US.

3)It can continue to fill the 34,000+ tonnes per year gap between the uranium that is mined and the uranium that is consumed.

[pouyo3]

/watch?v=okCOwcWCoJQ

[milofonbil]

The last time I checked, France has no more uranium. They have already run out of uranium. So we want to be just like them - 100% dependent on imported uranium. Right.

[milofonbil]

Why not wind like Spain? Spain gets a very large amount of its electricity from wind. It's the world leader in wind electricity right now. Wind does not require imported fuel. Why can't we be like Spain???

[sottese]

its cheaper

[milofonbil]

Nuclear power plants typically have high capital costs for building the plant and depended on low fuel costs. The idea was to pay a large capital investment and to keep the marginal costs low. But nuclear fuel costs have gone up tenfold in the last four years and are set to go up some more due to the amount of fossil fuels required to mine.

On the other hand, wind is free. Wind power does require capital investment. And that's dropping as the dollar sinks and has brought jobs to Colorado.

[sottese]

so you are saying that wind power is 100 percent depenable and is bring job , a nuclear power plant is able to run all the time as a windmill can only run if its windy. to pay a large capital investment is a lot better than having use less things put up, so when the wind stops blowing and the sun stops shining (which can stop in the middle of the day) what is going to happen your tv truns off or your alarm colock and your late to work, as nuclear power you can rely on who has influences you?

[milofonbil]

Nuclear power plants are run as base load (running 24x7 except for repairs) because the CapEx is very high and the marginal OpEx cost is very low. Coal and gas-fired plant are run as peaking plants because the CapEx is low and the marginal OpEx costs are high. Wind turbines are run as additional base load and peaking when possible because the CapEx is still high, but marginal OpEx costs are extremely low. This makes the capacity factor look much lower than a pure baseload plant.

[milofonbil]

Wind is not 100% reliable and neither is nuclear power or any other source for that fact. A nuclear power plant cannot run all the time. In fact once a year, they have a planned outage for week or so to refuel. But nuclear power plants go down for unplanned outages as well. Even with a capacity factor in the 90's, this is enough outage for at least a month. The major disadvantage with nuclear power is that it's not able to load-follow. The peaks are handled with a responsive power source.

[sottese]

i have a question for you what to you think of plug-in cars?

[milofonbil]

PHEVs are the way of the future.

1) Electricity is cheaper than gasoline

1 gallon of gas = 33.5 kWh of electricity

At 7 cents per kWh, the same amount of energy as a gallon of gas in electricity costs $2.35

2) Internal combustion engines are at most 30% efficient because of the wasted heat. The radiator gets hot, the exhaust is hot, the gears and transmission gets hot. Electric motors are 80-90% efficient.

3) Batteries exist that can efficiently store electricity

4) The range is there now

[sottese]

this is true but did you that if only 5 percent of cars are changed to pulg-in there would be daily blackout the generator's would be over loaded also there would be more pollution do to our main sources of energy.wind and soar could help with this, but i think they should be used as a back up or secondary source with nuclear power as a main sources.

[milofonbil]

OK .. How much electricity is wasted at night because it's baseload energy going nowhere? Google what the power companies are saying about electric cars rather than conjecturing about what you currently think.

Have you heard of the "smart grid"? How does that affect your thoughts on all of this?

[sottese]

to much,do you live in or around the s.f. bay area? are smart grids in mass use? and the only thing i give an opinion on was enegry sources what i said about pulg in was fact. do you know or heard of a man called dr.Bill Wattenburg?

[Engr3212]

Batteries lose 50% of the input power converting electrical to chemical energy. More when you change it back from chemical to electrical energy, more when you invert it to a useful voltage and frequency. You quickly get back to the 30% level. Try $7 per gallon equivalent energy. In a special battery that cannot be mass produced and for which there is not enough material on the planet to mass produce. The range is NOT there.

[milofonbil]

I think you would be surprised in recent advancements in battery technology. If what you say truly were correct, then hybrid cars could not get better gas mileage than ordinary cars.

The EPA is now rating electric cars. I saw one last week that gets 135 MPG equivalent, 0-60 in 4 seconds and had a 250 mile range - a Tesla. Also look for vehicles coming from a company called "Miles"

[sottese]

ok but how long is the charge on the battery? and this car 64k i think?

[milofonbil]

If you have a 50Amp 220v outlet, you can charge the battery up at a 10KWh/h rate. If the car has a 20 kWh battery, that will take a couple of hours if was fully drained. If your service is 110v, then it will take double that. Most people don't drive but 40 miles a day, so topping off the battery does not take long.

The Tesla is a fortune, but its first on the market. The Miles is 35K. The Prius plug-in hybrid is a great deal. It has a gasoline-powered back-up generator in the deal.

[sottese]

the bat charge is not to bad, the puris sounds good but the gas takes over when the bat dies right? also how far can you drive on a bat (about 400mi is what i have heard) and can the bat drain some power by just in the parking lot, also how many car corp. have tryed this half plug half gas because this sounds a lot better than full plug in

[milofonbil]

The Prius plug-in will drive about 40 miles before the battery is empty. Then the three-cylinder engine takes over and charges the battery back up. But most people never drive further than 40 miles in a day anyway.

There are not enough plug stations to go entirely electric yet. I actually like plug-in hybrids as a great compromise.

There are three kinds of hybrid cars, series, parallel (Honda) and series/parallel (Toyota) ... see WP:Hybrid vehicle drivetrain

[sottese]

the pruis 40 mi sound good for the daliy drive but in the san jose ca area there are a lot of people who live about 60mi out and drive very day to san jose, so in this area it would not be useful also how could people use these car on a trip it would take forever.and they should be working on semi more dont you think so because they are on the road the most

[Engr3212]

Batteries are great. Especially if you can mass produce them. Show me one.

Hybrid cars get better mileage by combining gasoline/diesel fuel and batteries. The batteries cost 3 to 4 thousand dollars to replace. Figure that into the cost of ownership after 3 years.

A tesla is 100K plus. Gosh I gotta go buy several of those for my teenagers. Man I just don't know what to do with all that money.

[milofonbil]

The EV95 battery was used in GM/Saturn EV-1 ten years ago. Electric RAV-4's used them too. Chevron-Texaco owns the patent and does not want to make anymore of them. (I wonder why)

But there are new large-format Li Ion batteries being made by Johnson Controls and Saft Advanced Power Solutions and quite a few other companies.

Battery packs last 10 years now.

Tesla is an expensive sports car. I'm considering letting my teenager use a Zenn NEV. They can't go over 35 and they're cheap.

[Engr3212]

Only NG plants are used for peaking.

Coal is base loaded.

Wind CANNOT be base loaded because it is intermittent.

CA had a wind generated electrical capacity factor of 5% or less in 2006 heat wave. No help at all.

Unreliable wind and solar are not an answer.

By the way, Mr Clinton took the US largest deposit of clean coal off the map by making parts of Utah into a park. He got a 300K contribution from the Riady family in Taiwan.

Go figure

[milofonbil]

Coal can be used for peaking. It's pulverized and burned. Peaking coal plants can be brought online quickly.

Google for "Wind power can substitute for base-load coal"

There are down times for all forms of energy. How much does your nuclear power plant produce when it needs to be refueled or has a maintenance issue?

Sometimes you need to preserve the environment over exploiting the landscape. I take it that you have not seen the devastation that mining causes.

[Engr3212]

SOME coal plants MIGHT be capable of wide heat rate changes. However, none of significant capacity. What are the idling costs of a powdered coal cyclone burner plant?

Still have operators, fuel, standby losses, maintenance, oh yes: and a PUC guaranteed return on investment.

So easy to dismiss all those costs.

You speak of distributed generation for wind. A discredited view. Random availability, random generation. Low utility.

[milofonbil]

I beg to differ with you on wind. My utility here in Washington seems to think that wind is a good investment. PSE plans to get 31% of its new power from wind and conservation. We get more than 50% from hydro. We have some gas plants, one nuke and a super-fund site to clean up near Hanford. And five nuclear power plants that were never finished where the construction contractor went AWOL. I don't think Washington will ever buy another nuke - ever. So easy to dismiss all these costs.

[milofonbil]

My dear friends, it sounds like he's for higher CAFE standards, doesn't it? Can't he say he wants car companies to produce more fuel efficient cars?

[milofonbil]

This is a weird strawman - we need nuclear power so that we can be less dependent on foreign oil. I guess you can plug-in your new PHEV prius and run it electric without ever fueling it with gas. The last time I checked, we are importing 84% of our Uranium. When the major producers need it for themselves, well um ... can you say uranium embargo?

[AnnieGetYourGang]

We always love to imitate the French? Hmmm. . .didn't seem to be the case in 2003, but never mind that now.

Does anyone really believe in carbon-free nuclear? Takes a lotta fossil fuel to mine, mill, and enrich uranium, build nuke enrichment plants, nuke power plants, and nuke bombs. And "our" only nuke enrichment plant, USEC, in Paducah, Kentucky, and Pikeon, Ohio, runs on Peabody Coal.

And,anyone remember Chernobyl? I would not like to imitate France.

[stevenorum]

Nuclear energy isn't carbon-free, but it's much better than a coal-based energy strategy.

Also, Chernobyl was in the USSR, in the Ukraine, not in France. France has never had a major nuclear accident. The US has never had an accident that has put the public at risk (before you cite 3MI, look it up. Nobody got hurt). Coal mining has killed FAR more people than nuclear accidents in the US. Chernobyl is why Soviet-style dictatorships don't work, not why nuclear power doesn't work.

[AnnieGetYourGang]

In 2006, 500 French thyroid cancer patients took Professor Pierre Pellerin, who had been responsible for warnng the French of nuclear hazards, for not warming them of fallout coming their way and telling them to take potassium iodide to protect their thyroid glands.

[stevenorum]

Check your facts. He was sued for saying that fallout from Chernobyl wouldn't reach France in high enough levels to be a danger. So again, it's a result of improper Soviet safety measures, not a fault in the French nuclear program. As it is, the technology to predict fallout patterns has greatly increased in the past 22 years, as have safety procedures.

[AnnieGetYourGang]

What makes you think that a Chernobyl couldn't happen in France, or here? And, have you ever heard of the accident on the Navajo Nation, at U.S. Nuclear's uranium mine, at 5:00 A.M., on July 16th, 1979? That was the greatest expulsion of radioactive material in American history.

[stevenorum]

Accidents at LNG facilities could kill thousands. Accidents in coal mines have killed thousands. Chernobyl happened because workers did not follow proper safety procedure. If safety procedures are not followed, even the safest of industries can become deadly.

Navajo Nation? Yes, radioactive material was dispersed, but the overall environmental impact pales in comparison to that of other energy sources.

[AnnieGetYourGang]

U.S. Nuclear's uranium mine dumped into the Rio Puerco that morning, near Church Rock, on the eastern edge of the Navajo Rez, which is now a radioactive disaster, because of all the careless uranium mining since the end of WWII. Three hours and fifty miles later, in Gallup, New Mexico, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission measured the radioactivity and declared it 8,000 times what was then deemed tolerable.

[stevenorum]

You yourself said the magic word: CARELESS. In every major nuclear accident, the cause has been a disregard for proper safety procedure.

For the sake of argument, let's assume that every single person in the area died. That's what, 15,000 people? Still fewer than died mining coal in the first part of the 20th century. But then again, I haven't been able to find a single death count for the Navajo Nation accident. Do you have one?

[AnnieGetYourGang]

Virtually no press paid any attention to this when it happened and very very few people know about it even now. As Navajo Tribal Chief Joe Shirley, Jr. has said, there is no way of knowing how many people are at home, on the Navajo Nation, quietly dying of cancer.

The Navajo Nation did finally pass a ban on uranium mining which it's now digging in its heels to defend, as are the Australian State of Queensland, and the State of Virginia.

[milofonbil]

Church Rock is just east of Gallup, NM on I-40. The Rio Puerco flows into the Colorado, which in turn becomes Los Angeles drinking water.

The incident led to the death of James Harrison, age 26. Many Navajos living along the Rio Puerco in NM downstream from Church Rock have died of cancer since. They can't afford to sue so they are without remedy.

Meanwhile, Kerr-McGee and United Nuclear Corporation are not being held to clean up the disaster and are begging for govt. subsidies.

[milofonbil]

The Kerr-McGee and UNC mine (now sold-off through a series of companies to rid them of the liabilities) is Northwest of Church Rock. From Gallup at I-40, north on 491, west on 264 near Window Rock and the Navajo Reservation.

The pond was *past* its planned and licensed life and had been filled two feet (60 cm) deeper than design, despite evident cracking. The incident drains about 100 million U.S. gallons of radioactive liquids and 1,000 tonnes of solid wastes. CARELESS? NO, CRIMINAL.

[milofonbil]

yeah, Let's hear is for de-regulation and for clean nuclear energy!!

[milofonbil]

Fallout from Chernobyl did reach France.

[milofonbil]

By the way, that enrichment plant is the single largest source in the US of CFCs in the atmosphere.

[Darkwizzrobe]

We don't produce enough CFCs to make a effect on the atmosphere

[milofonbil]

I think you need to understand this better.

CFC's are actually much more powerful of a global warming gas than CO2 or even CH4, methane. Once you release it, is around for 300 years. The US government is the worst CFC polluter. It's a good thing they will close the enrichment facility in Paducah, KY.

[AnnieGetYourGang]

We always love to imitate the French? Since when? Didn't George Bush and the Security Council seem to be having a major disagreement with France, and the rest of the U.N. Security Council, at the outset of the Iraq War? And, France built its nuclear power and weapons complex at the expense of Saharan Africa, its source of uranium, most of all at the expense of its landlocked, former Saharan colony, Niger. I would not like to imitate France.

[NorskeDivision]

Microfactory, you do realize that powering cars from solar or wind has exactly the same problems that nuclear does?

Uranium doesn't need to be imported. If we reprocessed current "waste" we would have decades of fuel. We have plenty domestic supplies. It can be extracted from the sea. It's just cheap as hell to get it from Australia (cheaper than the indium needed for solar panels!)

1000 Billion in subsidies? Where do you get this crap. Are you including the Manhatten project in that? lol.

[milofonbil]

I'm surprised that as a pro-nuke you don't use the re-framed word "recycled" to describe reprocessing ... anyway, that's another conversation.

If we reprocessed our waste, we would have a hundred time more the volume of waste.

Have you looked at the price of uranium lately? It's not cheap anymore.

[microfactory]

Only 3% of the US electricity is produced with oil.

Increasing nuclear power does definitely not reduce the dependence on foreign oil. Besides the fact that Uranium needs to be imported too and the oil powered plants are mainly used as back up plants, which nuclear power cannot substitute anyway.

[andyplace]

A lot of our uranium is imported from the friendly Canadians...

[milofonbil]

84% of all of our uranium is imported from Canada, Australia and Kazakhstan. But more importantly, uranium is a finite fuel source just like oit. According to the OECD redbook, the world consumed 67 kilotonnes of uranium in 2002, but only 36 kilotonnes of this was mined. We are consuming the world's uranium reserves just like we are consuming the last of the oil reserves. See Wikipedia - Peak uranium.

[microfactory]

Interesting facts:

Fact 1: 77 billion dollars for nuclear waste repository: tinyurl . com / 3tssvh

Fact 2: 50 billion dollar safety net:

tinyurl . com / 4logv8

Fact 3: 24 billion dollar for 2 new nuclear reactors and consumers have to foot the bill in advance:

tinyurl . com / 6c6osk

Fact 4: Last year Europe installed 8504 MW Windpower and got rid of -1203 MW nuclear.

tinyurl . com / 6hvxhy

Fact 5: Nuclear power only covers 2.1% of the world energy needs:

tinyurl . com / 23u556

[NorskeDivision]

If we don't go nuclear soon we will be sorry. It's already getting more expensive as fossile fuel prices increae. The longer we wait to deploy nuclear using a fossile fuel based infrastructure the more we'll pay later. It's imparitive that we start now. That's why, despite his views on health care, I'm going to vote Mccain. Shutting off our coal power plants would be cheaper and save lives, coal pollution kills tens of thousands.

[microfactory]

Keep on subsidizing nuclear is not the answer.

[NorskeDivision]

And subsidizing solar is I suppose? I support loan Guarantees for capital intensive large solar, hydro or nuclear developments. Many of these projects simply won't go forward without a reliable source of cheap capital. Loan Guarantees actually save the US taxpayer money since it lowers capital costs and we all benefit from cheaper power. But we've given solar billions in subsidies with nearly nothing to show for it. If we're going to subsidize anything, it certainly shouldn't be solar.

[microfactory]

Between 1974 and 2002 60% of all OECD-energy-research subsidies went into Nuclear. Only 8% went into Solar, Wind, Biomass, Tidal, Wave, Hydro and Geothermal.

What's the result?

- Renewable produces more power than nuclear.

- Nuclear power only covers 2.1% of the world energy needs and the uranium reserves only last 80 years at this ridiculous contribution.

tinyurl . com / 23u556

- There's still no affordable breeder reactor in sight.

- There's definitely no working fusion reactor insight.

[NorskeDivision]

"Renewable produces more power than nuclear."

If you include hydro power, yes. However the billions spent on solar research has resulted in less than half a percent of our electricity production, and probably under a hundredth of a percent of our energy use.

If nuclear power cannot address our energy needs carbon free, then to think that Solar or Wind can is outright absurd. Solar relies on Indium, Gallium, both rarer then Uranium, or Silicon, which is energetically expensive.

[microfactory]

Roughly 1000 billions of subsidies have been spent on nuclear during the last 60 years, which only covers 2.1% of the world's energy needs.

Silicon thinfilm cells have an energy payback time of less than one year and produce power for over 20 years.

25% of the earth crust is silicon.

The capital costs of wind are much lower than the capital costs of nuclear.

[milofonbil]

Essentially, you are saying that without the government subsidy of the loan guarantees (which are insurance policies and do normally cost money), there is no business case for nuclear power. Your math of saying that the consumer is better off pay the government taxes rather than paying the utility directly for electricity does not make sense.

On the other hand, solar research has had major breakthroughs solar-thermal and in PV efficiency from about 8% to recent records of 40% plus.

[NorskeDivision]

The Uranium reserve argument has been thoroughly debunked. You aren't doing yourself a favor by bringing it up, you demonstrate only you are not well informed! Uranium can be economically extracted from seawater. With reprocessing we would have thousands of years of fuel even given ten times current consumption. That doesn't even mention plutonium or Thorium. Another one of your lies crushed.

[microfactory]

Japanese researches placed 350kg of a specially made polymer (from oil of course) in sea water to collect only 1kg of Uranium after 1 year. In addition, this research has never been repeated on a larger scale.

The earth does not lack Uranium. But the earth lacks economically mineable uranium. Uranium from the sea water may not be economical, in terms of EROEI.

In addition: This research has never been repeated.

[breakfastisready]

From Patrick Moore - cofounder of Greenpeace

"In the early 1970s when I helped found Greenpeace, I believed that nuclear energy was synonymous with nuclear holocaust, as did most of my compatriots. That's the conviction that inspired Greenpeace's first voyage up the spectacular rocky northwest coast to protest the testing of U.S. hydrogen bombs in Alaska's Aleutian Islands.

[breakfastisready]

cont -

"Thirty years on, my views have changed, and the rest of the environmental movement needs to update its views, too, because nuclear energy may just be the energy source that can save our planet from another possible disaster: catastrophic climate change."

[landogriffin1337]

GO NUCLEAR ENERGY

[BeondaPale]

Lost MY vote

[iowa61]

He's right. Plain and simple.

There's no magic bullet. It's a combination of crop-produced, nuclear- and conservation produced energy sources. And neither the conservatives nor liberals want to hear it...

[es7160]

ethanol is not an alternative energy source, it is only a really inefficient energy transport mechanism.

[andyplace]

What would you think about switch grass ethanol?

[NorskeDivision]

Switch grass ethanol has real potential, I support research into it. (Unlike Corn ethanol, which has limited usefulness at best).

[microfactory]

With the money needed for one new nuclear power plant one can purchase 15 turnkey high tech and highly automated thinfilm solar module factories with a yearly output of 160 MW per factory from Oerlikon.

So, with these 15 Oerlikon solar module factories one can produce solar modules with a total peak power of 36'000 MW in 15 years, which is actually 22.5 times more peak power than what a new french EPR nuclear reactor delivers.

[unclegarynv]

Did you include the land, construction and operating costs and what do you mean by peak power . . . the sun will on "on" for 15 years?

[microfactory]

There is enough 'empty' roof area available. A solar module doesn't have any moving parts, so there are hardly any operating costs involved. It's true of these 36 GW you probably only get about about 7 GW (nuclear power plant equivalent) because of varying sun angle, weather etc. - 7 GW is still more than 1.6 GW.

[NorskeDivision]

That is total BS. Nearly an outright lie. You totally ignore the raw material costs of the solar panels, the installation costs, the distribution costs. For almost any manufactured item the cost is the factory to build it, but the labor of the people working there and the raw material cost to construct the panels. Oerlikon panels require Indium and Gallium, both of which are rarer elements than Uranium. Microfactory posts this same stuff on every nuclear power video, I think he works for Oerliko

[apheta]

This video has been added to apheta's playlist of more than 100 energy-related YouTube videos. Click on "apheta" at the top of this comment, then click on playlists. Subscribe to be notified of new videos as they are added. Also please watch "It's All About Energy"!