Nuclear sleight of hand

[jpak]

http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/sun/2006/feb/26/566633495.html

The Bush administration's revival this month of a decades-old proposal to reprocess nuclear waste startled many of the nation's top scientists. They view the concept as virtually unworkable because of the enormous costs involved and its reliance on unproven science and technology that would at best take decades to develop.

The real purpose of the initiative, these scientists say, is political - and it has everything to do with Yucca Mountain.

In a few years, the nuclear industry will have produced enough waste to fill the proposed 70,000-ton capacity repository. At that point, the nation will face bruising fights over more nuclear waste repositories, even as the 20-year-old battle over Yucca drags on.

Reprocessing, or "recycling" waste, will eliminate the need for more repositories - and unwinnable political wars - for the next 100 years, they say.

<more>

[Dead_Parrot]

1. Breathtaking

And did Captain Concern suggest an alternative, or did he just stick his thumb back up his arse and go back to watching the icecaps melt?

[jpak]

2. And nucular is the only way to reduce GHG emissions????

I don't think so...

[Dead_Parrot]

3. I asked you in another thread about the 50 year timescale

Anlthough you still haven't answered the point. I aslo pointed out that your corrolation is total bullshit, unless you cherry pick the numbers to fit it.

[jpak]

4. Just the facts Jack - and use the right table for a change

In the US, growth in renewables - capacity or energy produced - will outstrip growth in nucular by a wide margin in the next 20 (or 50) years.

Last year the US installed >2500 MW of renewable electrical capacity vs 0 MW of nucular.

and will do the same this year as well.

and in 2007

and in 2008

You get the picture now don't you????

Nucular won't do jack to reduce US GHG emissions and Deadeye Dick's new nucular reactors will only keep pace with US reactor retirements in the next 10-20 years.

and Conservation????

All the pronuculars know this won't work either...

:rofl:

[Dead_Parrot]

6. For pity's sake

Which part of WE DO NOT HAVE 50 YEARS is confusing you?

[Dogmudgeon]

7. Fifty years, more or less ...

... it actually doesn't matter how much time we have.

We WILL be late with energy solutions, no matter what routes we choose, because the world's political and economic system is designed to produce crises. It lets the leadership off the hook and makes them look like heroes. When the fit hits the shan, it won't be "nuclear" or "renewables", it will be Energy.

Both nuclear and renewable energy resources should have been better evaluated over the past 30 years, but they weren't. There was too little money in it, and too much political risk involved.

Once the first crises hit, there will be an epidemic of finger-pointing. It doesn't take a psychic to predict that the blame will be placed on both nuclearists and renewablists the same way the the press likes to blame Republicans and Democrats simultaneously. But in this one, the politicians will be the beneficiaries, not the press.

I have to admit, though, it's difficult to understand why the anti-nuclearists see this as a Republican power grab, since the nuclear industry was stalling before TMI and the No Nukes concert. I kind of thought they were angling for more government money, which never materialized as planned -- then got whacked by the anti-nuclear atmosphere of the late 70s. (I thought that aspect of the DU argument was just a jpak-v-NNadir thing, but I guess not.) As our civilization reels under the shocks that are (de facto) planned, the rich and powerful will control all the energy sources anyway. They will happily be "Green" -- or not -- whatever it takes to consolidate their control over humanity. A crisis will be to their advantage -- and to our loss.

For large-scale, infrastructure power, dividend-paying publically-owned nuclear with strong oversight makes the most sense to me. I'm also quite supportive of using renewables to keep domestic residential power as independent of the grid as possible, for political reasons as well as to maintain system redundancy. And I'm more than willing to look at other solutions, as well.

But the drop off of Heinberg's Olduvai cliff won't just be an involuntary powerdown; it will also be a political power-grab to end all political power-grabs.

--p!

[Odin2005]

5. Anyone who thinks we can power everything...

...with renewables needs to get his or her head checked.

[jpak]

8. Why is that???

n/t

[Odin2005]

9. Because you cant't power everything with just renewables in most places...

..unless you expect people to live spartan lifestles.

[MrMonk]

10. Aw, c'mon

Last year the U.S. installed over 2500 MW of renewable energy sources.
How many heats of steel is that? :sarcasm: