TEAM BUSH promotes nuclear power as solution to climate change.

[adios]

Not much time for me today to spend here. I'll be back sometime this weekend. Thought I'd post this little blurb from the Washington Roundup column in today's WSJ. Bush recognizing that the burning of fossil fuels is a direct contributor to global warming. Well what about nuclear power? Please spare me the usual left wing rhetoric that the Bush is the lackey of the likes of GE, Westinghouse and such.

TEAM BUSH promotes nuclear power as solution to climate change.

At coming G-8 huddle in Scotland, administration aides will hail nuclear energy as clean way to meet demand from rising powers India and China, which now drives oil prices higher. The administration also sees opportunity for U.S. firms General Electric and Westinghouse, which are working on new plant designs.

That stance complicates life for host Blair. Nuclear power remains controversial in the U.K. and Germany amid environmental and weapons-proliferation concerns. But "we're all going to have to diversify away from hydrocarbons over time," Bush tells CNBC.

[andyfox]

Heard a headline on the radio this morning about $100/barrel oil in the next few years. That being the case, one would think there'd be a renewed push for alternative energe resources, and that nuclear would indeed be the alternative of choice for Team Bush.

[johnc]

The idea to me of Global Warming as a real possiblity seems very questionable at best. From a statisical standpoint, the amount of quantifiable data put in terms of timeline of planet earth is minute and way too small to be even slightly statistically significant taken in perspective with the earth's own "natural" global warming and cooling trends over virtually millions of years. Bottomline Global Warming being hastened by fossil fuel consumption is a good guess at best. That being said, the need to drastically reduce the world's dependance on fossil fuels should be followed through based upon:
#1 - It's a limited resource and we'll be literally be left out in the cold at the rate we're going.
#2 - The dependance on fossil fuels has become the US's Achilles Heel in regards to the Middle East further entrenching our interests in their region (Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia).
#3 - Given #2, reduction of our dependance by maybe 25% will provide th US enormous leverage in the region without dropping a bomb or firing a bullet paving the way for real, viable diplomatic solutions to the ills plaging the region without the spector of ulterior motives.
#4 - Undeniable localized pollution caused by the burning of fossil fuels leading a plethora of health concerns.

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).

[dr_venkman]

[ QUOTE ]
TEAM BUSH promotes nuclear power as solution to climate change.

[/ QUOTE ]


Just not for Iran. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[player24]

Nice post johnc - rational and informative.

[slickpoppa]

I think that nuclear power is a great option as a clean source of energy for the US. I would be very wary about promoting it in developing countries like India and China, though. My biggest concern is not nuclear weapons, but the possibility that they will build crappy nuclear plants that malfunction. The governments of India and China have yet to show that they really give a sh*t about the safety and health of their people.

[bholdr]

Nuclear energy has had a bad rap for a long time, but, with the exception of the cherynobyl disaster and the relitivly minor three mile island event, it has been very safe. Also, there has not been a new reactor built in the U.S. since the sixties- modern reactor designs have been touted as meltdown-proof, and the storage problem is more of a result of poor planning than technical difficulties.

Bottom line? the nuclear boogyman has kept the U.S and other countries (germany, U.K) form realizing the potential of this very clean and safe energy source. Nuclear fission, if done properly, is, IMO, an excelent energy source.


wired article on pebble bed reactors

an opposing veiwpoint

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
Nuclear energy has had a bad rap for a long time, but, with the exception of the cherynobyl disaster and the relitivly minor three mile island event, it has been very safe. Also, there has not been a new reactor built in the U.S. since the sixties- modern reactor designs have been touted as meltdown-proof, and the storage problem is more of a result of poor planning than technical difficulties.

Bottom line? the nuclear boogyman has kept the U.S and other countries (germany, U.K) form realizing the potential of this very clean and safe energy source. Nuclear fission, if done properly, is, IMO, an excelent energy source.


wired article on pebble bed reactors

an opposing veiwpoint

[/ QUOTE ]

OMG , bholdr and I agree on something!!! [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[bholdr]

[ QUOTE ]
OMG , bholdr and I agree on something!!!

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] are you satirizing the post i just made in response to jaxmike in the child rape/ child murder thread?

[vulturesrow]

Of course I am. But I have long been a supporter of nuclear power in the United States.