Posted on 06/18/2007 4:42:11 AM PDT by Schnucki
WASHINGTON: Nuclear power would curb climate change only by expanding worldwide at the rate it grew from 1981 to 1990, its busiest decade, and keeping up that rate for half a century, a new US report says. That would require adding on average 14 plants each year for the next 50 years, all the while building an average of 7.4 plants to replace those that would be retired, the report by environmental leaders, industry executives and academics said.
Currently, the US, the world's top nuclear power producer, has 104 plants that together generate 20 per cent of the country's electricity. Nuclear power, which has near-zero emissions of carbon dioxide, has recently come back into fashion as an alternative to generating electricity from coal and other carbon-based sources that contribute to global warming.
While the report also supported storing US nuclear waste at power plants until the long-stalled Yucca Mountain repository opens in Nevada, in the US's west, 10 dumps its size would be needed to store the extra generated waste by the nuclear generation boom.
That outlook was too optimistic in light of how many new nuclear plants were currently on the drawing board, the report said. The needed rate of expansion would be faster than during the industry's first 40 years and than the Energy Information Administration's forecast for the next 30 years in the US.
Some individuals differed, though, on how much the industry would expand, and said it could still make some type of impact.
(Excerpt) Read more at theaustralian.news.com.au ...
nice sentiment, but seeing as how climate change is not caused by man, the only thing that would help any global warming scenario, would be for the big nuke in the sky, the SUN, to go into a less energetic mode, and when this happens all the planets in the solar system that have been experiencing shrinking ice caps etc, will benefit...
For some dumb reason I thought this thread would be about the desirability of nuking Iran.
Guess I have a one track mind lately. I’m going to have more coffee.
Completely agree. However, I like nuclear power and I like how it diminishes the influence of the Middle East. I would like the US to expand it’s nuclear energy effort — and if the Greens have a hard time with that, maybe we can smile and say “What about Global Warming, dude?”
One caution is that we need to avoid installing nuke power in the American Southwest, which is soon to be annexed by La Raza.
But we should still declare sovereignty over Yucca Mountain and dump all of our nuclear waste there.
“huge nuclear explosion would also do the trick.”
Might I suggest persia?
LLS
So the greenies now want to bring back atmospheric testing. LOL
Yes. I hope electrical energy storage technologies improve rapidly, so that nuclear-produced, electricity-powered cars as powerful as those fuelled by oil can begin to show up. Then, the Islamaniacs can mix their crude with their sand, and suck on it!
In some alternate and hopeful version of reality, we might one day get legislators who will tell the 10,000 American Greenies that their irrational pet causes don’t trump the security and safety of their 299,090,000 fellow citizens.
>> One caution is that we need to avoid installing nuke power in the American Southwest, which is soon to be annexed by La Raza.
LOL! But couldn’t we just leave the Spanish off the sign that says CAUTION — HIGH RADIATION AREA — DO NOT ENTER WHILE REACTOR IS IN OPERATION?
I’m down with continuing to bury waste in Harry Reid’s figurative backyard. In fact, I’m down with dumping any kind of waste in Reid’s literal backyard!
We need nuke plants but not because of global warming.
“What about Global Warming, dude?”
Well, you could certainly say that but the Greenies would only counter with: “What about conservations, dude?” leaving you where we are now.
The problem with all these new energy sources is that the Greenies don’t want any new energy, they want us to do with less energy.
That’s how I read the headline.
A reassertion of Jimmy Carters fallacy that spent nuclear fuel could be easily diverted to nuclear weapons production
The extraction of Plutonium from spent nuclear reactor fuel requires a huge industrial complex and generates vast quantities of highly toxic, highly radioactive chemical waste.
This type of industrial facility could only be built by a national government or with the consent of a national government if built by a private enterprise. Such a facility could not be built covertly by a terrorist group.
Just more leftist scare tactics.
During the first energy crisis in the 1970’s the environmentalist wacko slogan was “Split wood not atoms” since wood was a “natural” and renewable resource. It is ironic that the latest environmentalist crowd may have to ban wood burning and embrace nuclear power to save us from global warming.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.