Author Topic: Obama Pushes Nuclear Energy  (Read 6749 times)

erictank

  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2,410
Re: Obama Pushes Nuclear Energy
« Reply #25 on: February 01, 2010, 12:58:06 AM »
Put it in my backyard. I'm not a NIMBY person.

And, someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but can't we reuse a great deal of that waste?

If not now, maybe once we learn a little more - one of the reasons why it's dangerous is BECAUSE IT'S RADIATING ENERGY (that, and it's poisonous as all get out).

But yes, we can reuse a LOT of spent fuel now, if we can reprocess it.  We're just getting back into that game, here in the US.

RocketMan

  • Mad Rocket Scientist
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 13,625
  • Semper Fidelis
Re: Obama Pushes Nuclear Energy
« Reply #26 on: February 01, 2010, 01:05:50 AM »
Smoke and mirrors from Obama.  He will toss nuclear energy under the bus as soon as it suits him.
If there really was intelligent life on other planets, we'd be sending them foreign aid.

Conservatives see George Orwell's "1984" as a cautionary tale.  Progressives view it as a "how to" manual.

My wife often says to me, "You are evil and must be destroyed." She may be right.

Liberals believe one should never let reason, logic and facts get in the way of a good emotional argument.

longeyes

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5,405
Re: Obama Pushes Nuclear Energy
« Reply #27 on: February 01, 2010, 02:36:10 AM »
Technology has risks.  So does civilization.  So does liberty.

And...?  The danger of not having enough energy is an order of magnitude greater than any jeopardy from nuclear waste disposal.

Obviously we need a crash program for nuclear power in America, and pity is that Bush didn't push this back in 2001 when he could easily have gotten a mandate.  Had he done so we'd have a good number of plants coming on line right now.
"Domari nolo."

Thug: What you lookin' at old man?
Walt Kowalski: Ever notice how you come across somebody once in a while you shouldn't have messed with? That's me.

Molon Labe.

DustinD

  • I have a title
  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 919
  • I have a personal text message
Re: Obama Pushes Nuclear Energy
« Reply #28 on: February 01, 2010, 03:49:49 PM »
Quote
The larger question is, would you accept the promise of nuclear plants for a job-killing, tax-raising cap and trade system?
Nope, not even if we got the nuclear plants first.
"I don't always shoot defenceless women in the face, but when I do, I prefer H-S Precision.

Stay bloodthirsty, my friends."

                       - Lon Horiuchi

Jamisjockey

  • Booze-fueled paragon of pointless cruelty and wanton sadism
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 26,580
  • Your mom sends me care packages
Re: Obama Pushes Nuclear Energy
« Reply #29 on: February 01, 2010, 04:05:35 PM »
My prediction is it will be part of something we don't want.  New cap and tax with Nuclear Power and "clean" offshore drilling attached. 
The obvious intent will be to paint the (R)'s into a corner.  Just the same as Bush did to the (D)'s in '04 with the Gay Marriage amendment.
JD

 The price of a lottery ticket seems to be the maximum most folks are willing to risk toward the dream of becoming a one-percenter. “Robert Hollis”

longeyes

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5,405
Re: Obama Pushes Nuclear Energy
« Reply #30 on: February 02, 2010, 12:06:50 PM »
Probably a stalking horse, yes.
"Domari nolo."

Thug: What you lookin' at old man?
Walt Kowalski: Ever notice how you come across somebody once in a while you shouldn't have messed with? That's me.

Molon Labe.

AZRedhawk44

  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 13,973
Re: Obama Pushes Nuclear Energy
« Reply #31 on: February 02, 2010, 09:46:09 PM »
I expect to see a proposed legislative deal involving some sort of carbon tax in exchange for increased nuclear power in the US.

And despite getting my power from Palo Verde nuclear plant... I'll end up paying the carbon tax on my electric bill.  As will you all.
"But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist."
--Lysander Spooner

I reject your authoritah!

Headless Thompson Gunner

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8,517
Re: Obama Pushes Nuclear Energy
« Reply #32 on: February 02, 2010, 09:48:26 PM »
A coworker today said that Obama's new budget defunds the nuclear waste facility in NM.  If true, that would speak pretty clearly to their real intentions regarding nuclear power.

Ben

  • Administrator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 46,066
  • I'm an Extremist!
Re: Obama Pushes Nuclear Energy
« Reply #33 on: February 03, 2010, 10:58:43 AM »
A coworker today said that Obama's new budget defunds the nuclear waste facility in NM.  If true, that would speak pretty clearly to their real intentions regarding nuclear power.

Yup, it appears he's just giving lip service to whatever his targeted audience is. He doesn't mention "nuclear" once here:

---------------------------------
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100203/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_obama_energy

Obama pushing clean coal and green jobs
By PHILIP ELLIOTT, Associated Press Writer Philip Elliott, Associated Press Writer Wed Feb 3, 6:02 am ET

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama is meeting with governors from coal-producing states, hoping to earn their support for a languishing energy bill and to bolster his image as a leader willing to work with Republicans as well as Democrats.

Obama planned to announce on Wednesday new steps to increase the role of biofuels in powering the nation and to release a report detailing how Washington could increase investments in green technologies, an administration official said. The president was also expected to discuss so-called clean coal technologies, said the official, who spoke ahead of the announcement only on condition of anonymity.

Many pieces of those proposals were likely to win Republican support on Capitol Hill, where GOP allies have been elusive for a Democratic White House looking to pass controversial cap-and-trade legislation that would limit the nation's emissions. Wednesday's plan also was likely to find support from GOP governors in states rich in coal and corn, which can be used to produce ethanol.

Republican Govs. Jim Douglas of Vermont, Bob Riley of Alabama and Mike Rounds of South Dakota were scheduled to meet with Obama and Vice President Joe Biden at the White House.

Energy has served as a major plank of the president's domestic agenda, finding places on his travel schedule, in his speeches and in his budget proposal released on Monday. In that plan, Obama's team called for tangible accomplishments that Democrats can champion as they head into a 2010 campaign season that has become more perilous since Republican Scott Brown won a special election to replace the late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy.

"Well, you're not going to get any argument from me about the need to create clean energy jobs," Obama said Monday in a YouTube forum. "I think this is going to be the driver of our economy over the long term. And that's why we put in record amounts of money for solar and wind and biodiesel and all the other alternative clean energy sources that are out there."

The president added: "In the meantime, though, unfortunately, no matter how fast we ramp up those energy sources, we're still going to have enormous energy needs that will be unmet by alternative energy. And the question then is, Where will that come from?"

That was a question Obama asked a group — led by Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, Energy Secretary Steven Chu and Environmental Protection Agency Lisa Jackson — to explore.

Officials said their recommendations would build on some $786 million allocated for environmental projects ranging from ethanol research to pilot programs at biorefineries. The plans also would mesh with Obama's budget proposal, which called for ending oil and gas subsidies, a move that could save $36.5 billion over a decade.

The Obama budget proposal, meanwhile, would retrofit 1.1 million housing units to improve energy efficiency through next year and increase batteries for plug-in hybrid vehicles to 500,000 a year by 2015. Both are examples of a tangible program that could help residents' pocketbooks and Democrats' chances at the ballot box.

Obama's political team is already making that case. He toured a company that produces energy-efficient light bulbs in Nashua, N.H., on Tuesday and late last month visited an Ohio community college that trains students to work on wind turbines. He has also been talking up the energy sector's potential to move out-of-work Americans off unemployment rolls.
"I'm a foolish old man that has been drawn into a wild goose chase by a harpy in trousers and a nincompoop."

Gowen

  • Metal smith
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2,074
    • Gemoriah.com
Re: Obama Pushes Nuclear Energy
« Reply #34 on: February 03, 2010, 01:23:48 PM »
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/02/01/national/main6163433.shtml

A Quarter of U.S. Nuclear Plants Leaking
27 of 104 Plants Leak Radioactive Tritium, a Carcinogen, Raising Concerns About Nation's Aging Plants

    * The cooling towers of Three Mile Island's Unit 1 Nuclear Power Plant pour steam into the sky in Middletown, Pa., in this March 17, 2009 file photo. Radioactive tritium, a carcinogen, now taints at least 27 of the nation's 104 nuclear reactors — raising concerns about how it is escaping from the aging nuclear plants.

      The cooling towers of Three Mile Island's Unit 1 Nuclear Power Plant pour steam into the sky in Middletown, Pa., in this March 17, 2009 file photo. Radioactive tritium, a carcinogen, now taints at least 27 of the nation's 104 nuclear reactors — raising concerns about how it is escaping from the aging nuclear plants.  (AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster)


(AP)  Radioactive tritium, a carcinogen discovered in potentially dangerous levels in groundwater at the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant, now taints at least 27 of the nation's 104 nuclear reactors — raising concerns about how it is escaping from the aging nuclear plants.

The leaks — many from deteriorating underground pipes — come as the nuclear industry is seeking and obtaining federal license renewals, casting itself as a clean-green alternative to power plants that burn fossil fuels.

Tritium, found in nature in tiny amounts and a product of nuclear fusion, has been linked to cancer if ingested, inhaled or absorbed through the skin in large amounts.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission said Monday that new tests at a monitoring well on Vermont Yankee's site in Vernon registered 70,500 picocuries per liter, more than three times the federal safety standard of 20,000 picocuries per liter.

That is the highest reading yet at the Vermont Yankee plant, where the original discovery last month drew sharp criticism by Gov. Jim Douglas and others. Officials of the New Orleans-based Entergy Corp., which owns the plant in Vernon in Vermont's southeast corner, have admitted misleading state regulators and lawmakers by saying the plant did not have the kind of underground pipes that could leak tritium into groundwater.

"What has happened at Vermont Yankee is a breach of trust that cannot be tolerated," said Republican Gov. Jim Douglas, who until now has been a strong supporter of the state's lone nuclear plant.

Vermont Yankee has said no tritium has been found in area drinking water supplies or in the Connecticut River and that earlier, lesser tritium levels discovered last month were of no health concern. Messages left for a plant spokesman Monday were not immediately returned.

President Barack Obama, in his State of the Union address last week, called for "building a new generation of safe, clean nuclear power plants in this country." His 2011 budget request to Congress on Monday called for $54 billion in additional loan guarantees for nuclear power.

The 104 nuclear reactors operating in 31 states provide only 20 percent of the nation's electricity. But they are responsible for 70 percent of the power from non-greenhouse gas producing sources, including wind, solar and hydroelectric dams.

Vermont Yankee is just the latest of dozens of U.S. nuclear plants, many built in the 1960s and '70s, to be found with leaking tritium.

The Braidwood nuclear station in Illinois was found in the 1990s to be leaking millions of gallons of tritium-laced water, some of which contaminated residential water wells. Plant owner Exelon Corp. ended up paying for a new municipal water system.

After Braidwood, the nuclear industry stepped up voluntary checking for tritium in groundwater at plants around the country, testing that revealed the Vermont Yankee problem, plant officials said.

In New Jersey last year, tritium was reported leaking a second time from the Oyster Creek plant in Ocean County, just days after Exelon won NRC approval for a 20-year license extension there. The Pilgrim plant in Plymouth, Mass., like Vermont Yankee, owned by Entergy, reported low levels of tritium on the ground in 2007. The Vermont leak has prompted a Plymouth-area citizens group to demand more test wells at the Massachusetts plant.

NRC spokesman Neil Sheehan says leaks have occurred at least 27 of the nation's 104 commercial reactors at 65 plant sites. He said the list likely does not include every plant where tritium has leaked.

The leaks have several causes; underground pipes corroding and the leaking of spent fuel storage pools are the most common. The source of the leak or leaks at Vermont Yankee has not been found; at Oyster Creek, corroded underground pipes were implicated.

Many radiological health scientists agree with the Environmental Protection Agency that tritium, like other radioactive isotopes, can cause cancer.

That worries Vermont public officials and lawmakers. Rep. Tony Klein, chairman of the Natural Resources and Energy Committee in the Vermont House, said he fears public officials may be downplaying the risk.

"When you have public officials that the public depends on for their health and welfare making casual statements that a radioactive substance is not harmful to you, I think that's ludicrous," Klein said.

There's disagreement on the severity of the risk.

"Somebody would have to be drinking a lot of water and it would have to be really concentrated in there for it to do any harm at all," said Jacqueline Williams, a radiation biologist at the University of Rochester Medical Center in New York state.

But in 2005, the National Academy of Sciences concluded after an exhaustive study that even the tiniest amount of ionizing radiation increases the risk of cancer.

"The scientific research base shows that there is no threshold of exposure below which low levels of ionizing radiation can be demonstrated to be harmless or beneficial," Richard R. Monson, associate dean for professional education and professor of epidemiology at the Harvard School of Public Health, said when the NAS released its study.

Paul Gunter of the Maryland-based anti-nuclear group Beyond Nuclear, said in many instances, it's impossible to know how much tritium is getting into the environment.

"These are uncontrolled, unmonitored releases from these plants," he said.

Steve Kerekes, spokesman for the Nuclear Energy Institute, an industry group, said the public shouldn't be unduly worried.

"These are industrial facilities, and any industrial facility from time to time is going to have equipment problems or challenges," Kerekes said. "Not every operational issue rises to the level of being a safety issue."

Vermont, with a strong anti-nuclear movement, is the only state in the country where the Legislature decides whether to relicense a nuclear plant. Vermont Yankee's current 40-year license is up in 2012, and Entergy is asking for 20 more years.
"That's my hat, I'm the leader!" Napoleon the Bloodhound


Gemoriah.com

AZRedhawk44

  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 13,973
Re: Obama Pushes Nuclear Energy
« Reply #35 on: February 03, 2010, 01:30:41 PM »
Tritium?

I wonder how many night sight owners will end up with cancer.

Somehow, I doubt many, and the tritium won't be the culprit.
"But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist."
--Lysander Spooner

I reject your authoritah!

alex_trebek

  • friend
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 462
Re: Obama Pushes Nuclear Energy
« Reply #36 on: February 03, 2010, 02:37:19 PM »
Quote
"The scientific research base shows that there is no threshold of exposure below which low levels of ionizing radiation can be demonstrated to be harmless or beneficial," Richard R. Monson, associate dean for professional education and professor of epidemiology at the Harvard School of Public Health, said when the NAS released its study.

From wiki:
The U.S. limit is calculated to yield a dose of 4 mrem (or 40 microsieverts in SI units) per year.


From NRC.gov:
Quote
The average annual radiation exposure from natural sources to an individual in the United States is about 300 millirem (3 millisieverts)*. Radon gas accounts for two-thirds of this exposure, while cosmic, terrestrial, and internal radiation account for the remainder. No adverse health effects have been discerned from doses arising from these levels of natural radiation exposure.

1.3% of radiation exposure comes from drinking water at the standard. I would bet money that the drinking water standard is based on the natural concentration of Tritium. Since the article is purposefully vague, Tritium is an isotope of Hydrogen, H3 to be precise.


This article disagrees with many issues in the main one:
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/tritium-radiation-fs.html

intereting point is a flight from LA to NY has almost the same exposure to drinking water at the regulated limit for a year. So if you take four such flights a year you are being exposed to more radiation than drinking from these wells for a year.