McCain calls for 45 new Nuclear Reactors

[Dari]

Originally posted by: palehorse
Has there been an official Obama response to this proposal yet?

This is just the cynic in me but considering Obama has fans in the nuclear industry, it must be like mana from heaven. He would be crazy to turn it down.

 

[BladeVenom]

Originally posted by: KurskKnyaz
France doesn't seem to have a problem getting 79% of its own energy from nuclear reactors and exporting a lot of it to Europe.

But the average French woman is braver than an American liberal.

 

[Xavier434]

For those who are interested in more information in regards to Obama's position on Nuclear Power, there is a PDF which contains some info that can be found here at the bottom of page 4 in a section subtitled "Safe and Secure Nuclear Energy".

Obama and Nuclear Power

Basically, it states that Obama is not against Nuclear Power. He supports it but he feels that certain issues regarding safety and waste disposal need to be addressed before this country begins to rely on it heavily which I agree with. What the PDF does not say is that Obama plans to build more nuclear plants should he become president. Hopefully that will change. Perhaps the right way to go about this issue is to reopen the book on the development of the technologies that were mentioned in a previous post by gsaldivar.

I believe that McCain's proposal here is far too trigger happy. I want America to rely a lot more on Nuclear Power as I have stated in many other posts, but I want to bring the country up to speed when it comes to safety and efficient waste disposal before we rush into this change with our guns blazing.

 

[Jeff7]

Good idea, for whoever winds up in office.
I hope they also work to reprocess the waste to reduce its total volume, and to extract as much energy out of the original material as possible..

It'd also be better if they build the reactors close to dedicated waste disposal and containment sites, to minimize its time in transport.

Originally posted by: tenshodo13
We need fusion energy. However, for the short term, Fission is fine.

Definitely need fusion energy. Even if they get solar panels to >90% efficiency, we're still going to need something for nighttime.
They did finally break through to get fusion reactors with a positive efficiency (why there was not more fanfare about this, I'm not sure), but now they need to get them to where they are efficient enough to overcome operating expenses (electrical ones, such as conversion losses), and then become commercially feasible.
It'll take a significant investment, but the payoff will be immense: Clean energy with low-level, short-lived radioactive waste. I recall figures ranging from 0-50-300 years before the waste would be considered safe. And the fuel supply would be incredibly abundant: deuterium from the ocean.

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: KurskKnyaz

This is a perfect example of how little science you 'environmentalists" know.

Originally posted by: KurskKnyaz

Once again, another "environmentalists" with another fantasy.

I don't think that both those members that you quoted consider themselves "environmentalists" but I do think they maybe support environmentalist ideas.

therefore it is erroneous to label them environmentalist (unless they accept that label) and then attempt to bash all environmentalists for those two members for apparently not understanding the issue fully.

I support the Mars expeditions but you don't hear me claiming the label of astronomist or that I'm a NASA engineer right? Hell maybe I'm an astrologist now...how the hell do I know!?

I support planting as many trees as possible but I'm far from an environmentalist...

You obviously have a beef with environmentalists. However, when you claim that environmentalists know "little science" or that environmentalist have fantasies I think you are wrong. I also think you are wrong to label random people as "environmentalists" and then bash the environmentalist position like you are some sort of condescending intelligent person, when in fact you look silly for throwing labels out there.

As for the OP. I agree with McCain. But when the rubber hits the road just how realistic will it be to build 45 new reactors when we can't even get people to agree on where to build 1 new reactor?

He picked a good number though, 45 is ALOT but not too much. Whereas 100 new reactors people would have said he is full of sh!t

Obama's is going to come out and say he wants 46 new reactors!

 

[Hajpoj]

MELTDOWNS oh noes

 

[lupi]

Originally posted by: jman19

Originally posted by: Harvey
HELL NO! WE WON'T GLOW!

Fuck McSame yet again.

Yes, because nuclear power plants are just so dangerous...

You're speaking to ATs 2nd highest ranking partisan hack; if it doesn't come from Husseins lips it's blasphemy.

 

[NikolaeVarius]

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: tenshodo13
Problem is, there isn't enough fissionable material on earth to fuel current energy needs for much more than 50 or so years.

We need fusion energy. However, for the short term, Fission is fine.

That couldn't be further from the truth. Read up on the Thorium-cycle power system, which is incredibly efficient (by-products of various stages can be used in other stages, and the final waste can then be reused).

It's very common in the earth's crust, it's 3 times more common than Uranium, and it's also a lot easier to handle.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf62.html

"The 2005 IAEA-NEA "Red Book" gives a figure of 4.5 million tonnes of reserves and additional resources, but points out that this excludes data from much of the world."

Over the last 30 years there has been interest in utilising thorium as a nuclear fuel since it is more abundant in the Earth's crust than uranium. Also, all of the mined thorium is potentially useable in a reactor, compared with the 0.7% of natural uranium, so some 40 times the amount of energy per unit mass might theoretically be available

Hint : 1 ton of pure Thorium is enough to power an ADS reactor for decades. And there are millions of tons of the stuff abundantly extractable.

So yes, we need Nuclear energy, and the Thorium-cycle is the best long-term solution at this point, unless someone breaks open Fusion.

When they say theoretically, they MEAN theoretically. When has anything ever met the expectations of "theoretically" Theoretically, gasoline engines could get double the milege tan the most efficent ones today, but engine limitations prevent this.

Anyway, we're a long way from throium reactors. We barely have any research into thorium reactors, much less full scale mining operations to get at it.

 

[Arkaign]

Existing reactors have already had experimental thorium cycles used that worked fine. You need to read more before posting these half-cocked assumptive lazy google answers. Additional Info, bolded for your pleasure.



In 1995, Kakrapar-1 achieved about 300 days of full power operation and Kakrapar-2 about 100 days using thorium fuel. A 30kW mini-reactor has successfully operated at India's Kamini reactor at Kalpakkam. And the use of thorium-based fuel is planned in Kaiga-1 and -2 and Rajasthan-3 and -4 (Rawatbhata) reactors.

India has a three-stage plan for nuclear energy. Stage one uses uranium-fuelled PHWRs (pressurised heavy water reactors) and LWRs to produce plutonium. In stage two this plutonium-based fuel is used in FBRs to breed U-233, and more plutonium and thorium. Stage three uses advanced heavy water reactors to burn the U-233 and Pu-239 with thorium. The thorium will produce around 75% of the power, with the spent fuel being reprocessed to recycle fissile materials.

Sounds like India is waaay ahead of us on Nuclear Energy, so what are we waiting for?

And of course, theoretical efficiency isn't going to precisely coincide with practical application, but the point is that Thorium is a LOT more efficient and sensible as a nuclear fuel, given that it's so common, and much more usable. It's not debatable that all mined Thorium is reactor-capable, as opposed to less than 1% of raw Uranium.

Once again, we have enough nuclear fuel to last many centuries if necessary, perhaps much longer as efficiency expands and other materials are utilized.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: gsaldivar

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
"No country in the world has found a solution for this waste.

Let's see... there is Deep Geologic disposal, High-efficiency IFR reactors, Actinide Burning Fusion reactors, Isotope transmutation & recycling...

No solutions, hm?

I told you the nuclear folk are jokers. They have millions of answers and none of them ever see the light of day. Nuclear waste proposals are there and have always been there to allow the nuclear industry to build nuclear reactors lulling the public into the assumption the waste will be cleaned up while the real intention is always to have that clean up passed to the next generation. Swine only shit. They never wipe their asses. Clean up is costly and earns no profit.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Dari
It's weird what's going on with nuclear energy in the western world. Some nations are cutting back, others are expanding. It doesn't make sense.

It does when you realize that most of the nuclear power plants in the western world are designed/built/operated by a single corporate entity, Westinghouse (subsidiary of Toshiba group).

I've no objections to nuclear power. It is clean, has an excellent safety record, and tremendous potential. My objection with building new plants is the horrendous corruption that always occurs along with. Building a nuclear power plant is a multi-billion dollar operation that takes years to complete, and there are ALWAYS cost overruns, delays, and many times plants have been built and then never operated, all at taxpayer cost.
Anyone thinking that this promise will do anything to effect the current price of oil is going to have another thing coming.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: tenshodo13

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: tenshodo13
Problem is, there isn't enough fissionable material on earth to fuel current energy needs for much more than 50 or so years.

We need fusion energy. However, for the short term, Fission is fine.

That couldn't be further from the truth. Read up on the Thorium-cycle power system, which is incredibly efficient (by-products of various stages can be used in other stages, and the final waste can then be reused).

It's very common in the earth's crust, it's 3 times more common than Uranium, and it's also a lot easier to handle.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf62.html

"The 2005 IAEA-NEA "Red Book" gives a figure of 4.5 million tonnes of reserves and additional resources, but points out that this excludes data from much of the world."

Over the last 30 years there has been interest in utilising thorium as a nuclear fuel since it is more abundant in the Earth's crust than uranium. Also, all of the mined thorium is potentially useable in a reactor, compared with the 0.7% of natural uranium, so some 40 times the amount of energy per unit mass might theoretically be available

Hint : 1 ton of pure Thorium is enough to power an ADS reactor for decades. And there are millions of tons of the stuff abundantly extractable.

So yes, we need Nuclear energy, and the Thorium-cycle is the best long-term solution at this point, unless someone breaks open Fusion.

When they say theoretically, they MEAN theoretically. When has anything ever met the expectations of "theoretically" Theoretically, gasoline engines could get double the milege tan the most efficent ones today, but engine limitations prevent this.

Anyway, we're a long way from throium reactors. We barely have any research into thorium reactors, much less full scale mining operations to get at it.

The CANDU reactor (among other heavy water reactor models) can handle a Thorium fuel cycle. It isn't theoretical.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Dari
It's weird what's going on with nuclear energy in the western world. Some nations are cutting back, others are expanding. It doesn't make sense.

It does when you realize that most of the nuclear power plants in the western world are designed/built/operated by a single corporate entity, Westinghouse (subsidiary of Toshiba group).

I've no objections to nuclear power. It is clean, has an excellent safety record, and tremendous potential. My objection with building new plants is the horrendous corruption that always occurs along with. Building a nuclear power plant is a multi-billion dollar operation that takes years to complete, and there are ALWAYS cost overruns, delays, and many times plants have been built and then never operated, all at taxpayer cost.
Anyone thinking that this promise will do anything to effect the current price of oil is going to have another thing coming.

Yeah but it makes for great sound bites:thumbsup:

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Dari
It's weird what's going on with nuclear energy in the western world. Some nations are cutting back, others are expanding. It doesn't make sense.

It does when you realize that most of the nuclear power plants in the western world are designed/built/operated by a single corporate entity, Westinghouse (subsidiary of Toshiba group).

I've no objections to nuclear power. It is clean, has an excellent safety record, and tremendous potential. My objection with building new plants is the horrendous corruption that always occurs along with. Building a nuclear power plant is a multi-billion dollar operation that takes years to complete, and there are ALWAYS cost overruns, delays, and many times plants have been built and then never operated, all at taxpayer cost.
Anyone thinking that this promise will do anything to effect the current price of oil is going to have another thing coming.

There are no instant answers anywhere. Ventner figures 18 months to do bio fuels. Nuclear power takes years to build. Solar would be a massive undertaking also and new stuff is constantly invented. Because oil has strangled any attempt to develop alternatives we are screwed short term. The best thing to do is vote out of office anybody who has been there a while. All the assholes that hold office now helped get us were we are.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: tenshodo13

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: tenshodo13
Problem is, there isn't enough fissionable material on earth to fuel current energy needs for much more than 50 or so years.

We need fusion energy. However, for the short term, Fission is fine.

That couldn't be further from the truth. Read up on the Thorium-cycle power system, which is incredibly efficient (by-products of various stages can be used in other stages, and the final waste can then be reused).

It's very common in the earth's crust, it's 3 times more common than Uranium, and it's also a lot easier to handle.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf62.html

"The 2005 IAEA-NEA "Red Book" gives a figure of 4.5 million tonnes of reserves and additional resources, but points out that this excludes data from much of the world."

Over the last 30 years there has been interest in utilising thorium as a nuclear fuel since it is more abundant in the Earth's crust than uranium. Also, all of the mined thorium is potentially useable in a reactor, compared with the 0.7% of natural uranium, so some 40 times the amount of energy per unit mass might theoretically be available

Hint : 1 ton of pure Thorium is enough to power an ADS reactor for decades. And there are millions of tons of the stuff abundantly extractable.

So yes, we need Nuclear energy, and the Thorium-cycle is the best long-term solution at this point, unless someone breaks open Fusion.

When they say theoretically, they MEAN theoretically. When has anything ever met the expectations of "theoretically" Theoretically, gasoline engines could get double the milege tan the most efficent ones today, but engine limitations prevent this.

Anyway, we're a long way from throium reactors. We barely have any research into thorium reactors, much less full scale mining operations to get at it.

The CANDU reactor (among other heavy water reactor models) can handle a Thorium fuel cycle. It isn't theoretical.

I'm sure all the funds and plans are in place for it's eventual disposal on obsolesce. Sure it is. Your kids get the bill and the radioactive waste.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: tenshodo13

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: tenshodo13
Problem is, there isn't enough fissionable material on earth to fuel current energy needs for much more than 50 or so years.

We need fusion energy. However, for the short term, Fission is fine.

That couldn't be further from the truth. Read up on the Thorium-cycle power system, which is incredibly efficient (by-products of various stages can be used in other stages, and the final waste can then be reused).

It's very common in the earth's crust, it's 3 times more common than Uranium, and it's also a lot easier to handle.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf62.html

"The 2005 IAEA-NEA "Red Book" gives a figure of 4.5 million tonnes of reserves and additional resources, but points out that this excludes data from much of the world."

Over the last 30 years there has been interest in utilising thorium as a nuclear fuel since it is more abundant in the Earth's crust than uranium. Also, all of the mined thorium is potentially useable in a reactor, compared with the 0.7% of natural uranium, so some 40 times the amount of energy per unit mass might theoretically be available

Hint : 1 ton of pure Thorium is enough to power an ADS reactor for decades. And there are millions of tons of the stuff abundantly extractable.

So yes, we need Nuclear energy, and the Thorium-cycle is the best long-term solution at this point, unless someone breaks open Fusion.

When they say theoretically, they MEAN theoretically. When has anything ever met the expectations of "theoretically" Theoretically, gasoline engines could get double the milege tan the most efficent ones today, but engine limitations prevent this.

Anyway, we're a long way from throium reactors. We barely have any research into thorium reactors, much less full scale mining operations to get at it.

The CANDU reactor (among other heavy water reactor models) can handle a Thorium fuel cycle. It isn't theoretical.

I'm sure all the funds and plans are in place for it's eventual disposal on obsolesce. Sure it is. Your kids get the bill and the radioactive waste.

The CANDU can actually burn LWR waste, extract more energy from it, and reduce residual radioactivity 3-4 fold, and end up with elements that have shorter half-lives (necessitating storage of far less duration).

 

[Arkaign]

Thanks, K1052, for the additional input on the subject, it's a relief to hear from someone who also has an interest in next-gen Nuclear Energy tech that is currently being developed (primarily in India at this point, sadly, but good for them).

Your avatar really fits this subject, lol.

 

[gsaldivar]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: gsaldivar

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
"No country in the world has found a solution for this waste.

Let's see... there is Deep Geologic disposal, High-efficiency IFR reactors, Actinide Burning Fusion reactors, Isotope transmutation & recycling...

No solutions, hm?

I told you the nuclear folk are jokers. They have millions of answers and none of them ever see the light of day. Nuclear waste proposals are there and have always been there to allow the nuclear industry to build nuclear reactors lulling the public into the assumption the waste will be cleaned up while the real intention is always to have that clean up passed to the next generation. Swine only shit. They never wipe their asses. Clean up is costly and earns no profit.

Are you normally this ignorant or is it just an election-year thing you do?

A High-efficiency IFR reactor would consume nearly ALL of its radioactive waste, producing only noble metals and ceramic containing no plutonium or other actinides.

"The radioactivity of the waste decays to levels similar to the original ore in about 200 years. The on-site reprocessing of fuel means that the quantity of nuclear waste leaving the plant is tiny relative to other nuclear facilities. This makes storage simpler and reduces the security risk associated with nuclear waste transportation."

As to WHY solutions like these never see the light of day?

"With the election of President Bill Clinton in 1992, and the appointment of Hazel O'Leary as the Secretary of Energy, there was pressure from the top to cancel the IFR. Sen. John Kerry (D, MA) and O'Leary led the opposition to the reactor, arguing that it would be a threat to non-proliferation efforts, and that it was a continuation of the Clinch River Breeder Reactor Project that had been canceled by Congress. Despite support for the reactor by then-Rep. Richard Durbin (D, IL) and U.S. Senators Carol Mosley Braun (D, IL) and Paul Simon (D, IL), funding for the reactor was slashed, and it was ultimately canceled in 1994."

 

[polarmystery]

When I play SimCity on the SNES, I always use Nuclear power plants instead of the Coal ones. It may cost $2000 more for the Nuclear plant, but it was awesome and produced less pollution too! Just make sure to build it at the edge of the map and you'll be fine.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Originally posted by: eaj0010
When I play SimCity on the SNES, I always use Nuclear power plants instead of the Coal ones. It may cost $2000 more for the Nuclear plant, but it was awesome and produced less pollution too! Just make sure to build it at the edge of the map and you'll be fine.

LOL...good one!

 

[Socio]

You know I think McCain took a page out of Obama?s playbook and is spouting hot air to make himself look good.

We have 104 reactors now which currently supply 20% of the nation?s energy with our nation?s growth rate by the time we get the first 45 built and running and the second 55 up and running we will still only have enough reactors to supply about 20% of the nation?s energy.

If nuclear energy is ever going to make a real difference it would have to be 200 built with at least another 250 more in the future. A lousy 100 is merely just status quo!

 

[NikolaeVarius]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: tenshodo13

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: tenshodo13
Problem is, there isn't enough fissionable material on earth to fuel current energy needs for much more than 50 or so years.

We need fusion energy. However, for the short term, Fission is fine.

That couldn't be further from the truth. Read up on the Thorium-cycle power system, which is incredibly efficient (by-products of various stages can be used in other stages, and the final waste can then be reused).

It's very common in the earth's crust, it's 3 times more common than Uranium, and it's also a lot easier to handle.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf62.html

"The 2005 IAEA-NEA "Red Book" gives a figure of 4.5 million tonnes of reserves and additional resources, but points out that this excludes data from much of the world."

Over the last 30 years there has been interest in utilising thorium as a nuclear fuel since it is more abundant in the Earth's crust than uranium. Also, all of the mined thorium is potentially useable in a reactor, compared with the 0.7% of natural uranium, so some 40 times the amount of energy per unit mass might theoretically be available

Hint : 1 ton of pure Thorium is enough to power an ADS reactor for decades. And there are millions of tons of the stuff abundantly extractable.

So yes, we need Nuclear energy, and the Thorium-cycle is the best long-term solution at this point, unless someone breaks open Fusion.

When they say theoretically, they MEAN theoretically. When has anything ever met the expectations of "theoretically" Theoretically, gasoline engines could get double the milege tan the most efficent ones today, but engine limitations prevent this.

Anyway, we're a long way from throium reactors. We barely have any research into thorium reactors, much less full scale mining operations to get at it.

The CANDU reactor (among other heavy water reactor models) can handle a Thorium fuel cycle. It isn't theoretical.

I'm not talking about the fuel cycle. I know it works. Its the theoretical energy output thats never correct.

And India has a lot of thorium, which is why they probably have more research done on it. But I don't call a one reactor 13 years ago modern research

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: Carmen813
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200...wT2mrTLG8rTk84uYJsnwcF

Seems to me one of the best ways to reduce our influence on foreign oil will be to rapidly escalate production of these reactors. We realistically will not be able to free ourselves from the middle east until we regain energy independence.

Smart man.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: tenshodo13

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: tenshodo13

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: tenshodo13
Problem is, there isn't enough fissionable material on earth to fuel current energy needs for much more than 50 or so years.

We need fusion energy. However, for the short term, Fission is fine.

That couldn't be further from the truth. Read up on the Thorium-cycle power system, which is incredibly efficient (by-products of various stages can be used in other stages, and the final waste can then be reused).

It's very common in the earth's crust, it's 3 times more common than Uranium, and it's also a lot easier to handle.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf62.html

"The 2005 IAEA-NEA "Red Book" gives a figure of 4.5 million tonnes of reserves and additional resources, but points out that this excludes data from much of the world."

Over the last 30 years there has been interest in utilising thorium as a nuclear fuel since it is more abundant in the Earth's crust than uranium. Also, all of the mined thorium is potentially useable in a reactor, compared with the 0.7% of natural uranium, so some 40 times the amount of energy per unit mass might theoretically be available

Hint : 1 ton of pure Thorium is enough to power an ADS reactor for decades. And there are millions of tons of the stuff abundantly extractable.

So yes, we need Nuclear energy, and the Thorium-cycle is the best long-term solution at this point, unless someone breaks open Fusion.

When they say theoretically, they MEAN theoretically. When has anything ever met the expectations of "theoretically" Theoretically, gasoline engines could get double the milege tan the most efficent ones today, but engine limitations prevent this.

Anyway, we're a long way from throium reactors. We barely have any research into thorium reactors, much less full scale mining operations to get at it.

The CANDU reactor (among other heavy water reactor models) can handle a Thorium fuel cycle. It isn't theoretical.

I'm not talking about the fuel cycle. I know it works. Its the theoretical energy output thats never correct.

And India has a lot of thorium, which is why they probably have more research done on it. But I don't call a one reactor 13 years ago modern research

The US, Canada, Germany, and Russia (among others) have been doing or done R&D on various thorium fueled reactors and fuel mixes over the last few decades. I don't see any reason to doubt the power projections at this point.

 

[Taejin]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: palehorse

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
The nuclear energy folk promise they will clean up their mess and they never have and never will. It's all great theory and leave the mess for our kids. Any nuclear projects should contain a genealogy of all supporters into the future so that future generations can exterminate their descendents. We need real nuclear accountability.

what "messes" are you referring to?

"Nuclear power is not a clean energy source: it produces both low and high-level radioactive waste that remains dangerous for several hundred thousand years. Generated throughout all parts of the fuel cycle, this waste poses a serious danger to human health. Currently, over 2,000 metric tons of high-level radioactive waste and 12 million cubic feet of low level radioactive waste are produced annually by the 103 operating reactors in the United States. No country in the world has found a solution for this waste. Building new nuclear plants would mean the production of much more of this dangerous waste with no where for it to go." Make sure it goes in your back yard and your neighbors vote and agree.

This is where you're wrong.

The low level radiation produced by nuclear power does NOT last several hundred thousand years.

The high level radioactive waste produced by newer nuclear power plants are designed to last a couple thousand years.

Also, kWh vs kWh, coal produces MORE radioactive waste than nuclear waste does. Go look it up. I did a bunch of research on nuclear vs coal power plants, and I was very surprised to find supporting scientific articles (yes, I can vet scientific articles, since I'm a senior year biochemistry and chem engineering major) that discussed the uranium and thorium in coal. The thorium and uranium in coal is released into the air, unlike nuclear waste, which is concentrated and maintained.

Basically, it comes down to this: we either lower our usage of electricity, or we get more nuclear waste, no matter what we do. If we can both agree that electricity usage is going to go nowhere but up, then we should probably pick the method that allows us to actually keep an eye on the radioactive waste, instead of burning it and releasing it into the air, where we can just 'forget it'.