tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31246093.post6850031235563457486..comments2024-03-21T14:41:14.622-07:00Comments on Graphic Firing Table: Campaign Issues: Nuclear Power GenerationFDChiefhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10607785969510234092noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31246093.post-23885726969650882262008-10-28T21:14:00.000-07:002008-10-28T21:14:00.000-07:00Well, I've always kind of favored the thought of t...Well, I've always kind of favored the thought of the U.S. getting more into the nuke power generation. Seemed pretty clear that fossil fuels (why do they call them fossil?) would run out, and, besides, there was the French experience. Why haven't we done it? Well, we can blame Jack Lemmon and Jane Fonda (China syndrome), as well as the well-documented propensity of the American public to be (1) stupid; and (2) bed-wetters. And of course the politicians who make a career of playing on (1) and (2).<BR/><BR/>Actually, I know a little bit about nukes, just enough to get me in trouble. FDChief has actually made a great post here, specifically because he's highlighted the problem with how we've approached the issue: we reinvent the wheel every time, unlike the French. The Chief made some posts about, "We're Oregon, we're stupid." Well, we can expand that to the entire country. "USA. USA. USA. We're so stupid it hurts."<BR/><BR/>ael did a good job listening to the physics prof. Yessir, buddy, ael. But if the payback is ten years on a nuke plant, that works. We've got plants in this country that've have been going for 30 years; so does France. And the critical point about the difference in "nuke" materials: uranium good, other stuff, not so good, is correct. But I do think there is a lot of uranium available. <BR/><BR/>Regardless of all the obstacles, I do think this is a power source we've got to start considering intellectually rather than emotionally. I want my air conditioning here in the South, folks in the North want their heat. We all want the lights to go on. We're a modern, industrialized society and we've got to have power, even in the face of diminishing fossil fuels, and while still keeping environmental concerns in mind. <BR/><BR/>Sure, do wind, solar and all the rest. But how will solar work where FDChief lives? Wind may turn out to be a chimera. Both will be very expensive. Although expensive, nuke is proven. IMO, we're irresponsible if we don't get serious about it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31246093.post-58798076930154437332008-10-27T21:40:00.000-07:002008-10-27T21:40:00.000-07:00A long time ago, my physics prof did an analysis o...A long time ago, my physics prof did an analysis of nuclear power.<BR/><BR/>He did two things: First, he took the amount of concrete, etc. as energy inputs and then looked at how much power the plant generates.<BR/><BR/>(using his assumptions, which I have long forgotten, but sounded reasonable at the time) it takes at least a decade of producing power to make back the energy consumed by creating all that concrete and steel. (both of which are incredibly energy intensive).<BR/><BR/>Second, he took a look at proven reserves of uranium, and power.<BR/><BR/>It turns out that there isn't enough natural stuff to fuel us for long (If we go into nuclear power in a big way). However, if we go to breeder reactors, then we have lots of fuel. (except then we have all sorts of problems on the proliferation side, when we have all of these breeder reactors pumping out easily separated fissile materials. - he also briefly mentioned that breeder reactors have other issues, but I forget them.<BR/><BR/>Perhaps in the intervening 20 years, things have improved (i.e. they can build reactors with less concrete and maybe they found more uranium). I don't know.Aelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10788190394672505925noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31246093.post-9455248203474622012008-10-27T17:37:00.000-07:002008-10-27T17:37:00.000-07:00Neither candidate has engaged in an adult conversa...Neither candidate has engaged in an adult conversation with the public, yet. It is either parent-child (Obama's style: expostulating from on-high), or child-child, that favored by the Republicans ("Hey, we're not too samrt--we're like you!)<BR/><BR/>I for one am ready to be spoken to honestly, like an adult (by anyone, really!)Lisahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08839236994990699117noreply@blogger.com