TEAM BUSH promotes nuclear power as solution to climate change.

[bholdr]

[ QUOTE ]
It's safe, and we have found the holy grail for disposing of the waste, but....

Why do I even bother.....

I going out.

[/ QUOTE ]


you're gonna have to do better than this...

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
you're gonna have to do better than this...


[/ QUOTE ]

I have, countless times.

U235- Can be safely used in a power plant.

Problem? There is a very limited supply. Current world supply of 235U: 4400 quads (only a 12 year supply). It is also nowhere near a CO2 free power source.

Solution? Breeder reactors to created plutonium from U238.

Problem? Much more dangerous and it creates tons of radioactive waste. Technology has a long ways to go to solve these problems

Some of the problems:

The uranium is covered by a layer of graphite. The graphite is covered by several other layers of materials including a silicon carbide. The graphite could burn if defects in the fuel defeat the outer coverings. The industry acknowledges that there is approximately 1 defect per pebble associated with these layers. There are approximately 370,000 pebbles in a pebble bed reactor. Germany and Japan have already had serious problems with this and had to completely shut down pebble fuel production for various reasons on numerous occasions. Now spread these reactors across the planet and consider your odds.

If plutonium from breeder reactors is stolen by terrorists, they can easily make nuclear bombs with it. There is a 200 hundred year supply of this so it theoretically possible to use fission as a way to keep the human race lazy for a century or so. However, this means that every country on the planet is going to be using breeder reactors. Do you see a problem here? Not even the nuclear people want this.

Lack of containment building means some extra safety problems. -- There are ways around this though.

Then there is the waste problem. PBMR's create large amounts of waste. If we depend on pebble bed reactors as our main energy source, we are going to literally create radioactive mountains in America. Nevada is the national radioactive toilet and they aren't happy about this.

Cost is also a problem.

I can write more, and this topic has been beaten to death many times in the past, but there is the basics.

Photo of bad nuclear pebble:



As for those who don't believe in global warming::

Some stuff

Some more stuff

http://smalley.rice.edu/
-a must see video I've posted countless times.


From adios:

[ QUOTE ]
What I noted was that Bush at least recognizes that fossil fuel and global warming are linked together.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, that shocked me. I'm glad (and sad at the same time) you posted the journalist messedit up, I'm not surprised about that though. The media can almost never get stories about this stuff right.

[lastchance]

<-- wants to be wacki when he grows up.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
<-- wants to be wacki when he grows up.

[/ QUOTE ]

Coming from someone I respect, that is a huge compliment.

I appreciate the gesture.

[jokerswild]

Bush hasn't said this. He still puts out that global warming is not proven, and Limbaugh says that if you believe in it, then you are a Chinese communist.

It would appear that adios's own party believes that he is card carrying member.

Du bist ein dumbkopf.

[The once and future king]

[ QUOTE ]
Nice post johnc - rational and informative.

[/ QUOTE ]

A:Scientific opinion = Man is influencing global warming.
B:Poster on Poker forum = I dont think it is.

Surely I dont have to point out the idioicy of going with option B.

[BadBoyBenny]

[ QUOTE ]
My friend from high school wants to get a loan to build a nuclear power plant. His dad has made lots of money building hydro-electric plants. How realistic is my friend's plans? He has two problems. 1. Securing a loan/investors. 2. Getting a permit to build such a plant.


[/ QUOTE ]

My guess would be that you would need several powerful politicians in your pocket to get approval to build a nucalear plant anywhere. I doubt your friend could get enough capital when competeing against the major power companies for funds.

[player24]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Nice post johnc - rational and informative.

[/ QUOTE ]

A:Scientific opinion = Man is influencing global warming.
B:Poster on Poker forum = I dont think it is.

Surely I dont have to point out the idioicy of going with option B.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure I can decode your cryptic post - but I reiterate my support for johnc's post on this topic. He provides four good reasons to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels - none of which rely on junk science.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
Bush hasn't said this. He still puts out that global warming is not proven, and Limbaugh says that if you believe in it, then you are a Chinese communist.

[/ QUOTE ]

How can someone be a Chinese communist who isn't even Chinese in the first place? Do you have a link?

[Il_Mostro]

[ QUOTE ]
I see nuclear power as a stop-gap measure until less strategically targetable sources can be vigorously explored and put on line such as solar, cold fusion (which will lead to cost effective hydrogen cell production).

[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah, let's push cold fusion. A technology that for all we know today is not even theoretically possible.

Oh, and by the way. Even if we manage it, it does not lead to "cost effective hydrogen cell production"
It might lead to cost effective hydrogen production, but will have very little bearing on the actual fuel cell. And hydrogen prodction using electrolysis requires fresh water, which we are already having problems with, and especially so the US.

Then again. The hydrogen economy is a myth, without fusion it will never come to be. And even with fusion it is very unlikely to be of much use.

And fusion is 50 years away, just as it was 50 years ago. Fusion, the power of the future, always has been, always will be.