Posted on 06/22/2005 9:56:33 AM PDT by Tumbleweed_Connection
"There is a growing consensus that more nuclear power will lead to a cleaner and safer nation," President Bush said on Wednesday during a trip to a nuclear power plant in Maryland.
"It is time for this country to start building nuclear power plants again," he said to applause at the Calvert Cliffs plant.
"We're taking practical steps to encourage construction of new plants, Bush said, as he pressed Congress to send him an energy bill by August.
President Bush joked that he didn't understand all the buttons and dials in the control room of the Calvert Cliffs plant -- but he said he does know that when the people of Maryland flip a switch and see their lights come on, they need to thank the people working at the nuclear plant.
He said nuclear power is the one energy source that is "completely domestic, plentiful in quantity, environmentally friendly, and able to generate massive amounts of electricity."
The 103 nuclear power plants currently operating in America produce about 20 percent of the nation's electricity, Bush noted, without producing a single pound of air pollution or greenhouse gases.
In terms of safety, times have changed since the 1970s, Bush said. Advances in technology have made nuclear plants far safer than they were before. Yet no new plants have been built in the U.S. since the 1970s.
In his speech, President Bush noted that Americans are using energy faster they they're producing it. "We really haven't confronted this problem," he said, noting that he's been asking Congress to send him an energy bill for the past four years. All he's gotten is debate and politics but no results, he said. "So now's the time...for Cognress to stop the debate, stop the inaction, and pass an energy bill."
The House has passed an energy bill and the Senate needs to do so, the president said -- before the Senate's August recess.
President Bush said gasoline prices will not drop when he signs a bill. But making the nation less dependent on foreign oil will make life better for future generations, he said.
Surely you realize all conservatives are anti-conservation, too.</sarcasm>
I hate the fact that is so often a fact.
Nuclear power averages at 0.521 cents per Kwh.
That doesn't seem like a fortune in those terms but you'd definitely notice the difference in you monthly energy bill if you power was derived 100% from wind power... and oyu'd have a lot of blackouts.
I'd take one nuclear plant over 1 coal plant and 1500 windmills.
I disagree. There is no value in storing tons of dangerous material just in case the nation might someday want to make a bomb out of it. I would have to bet against that train of thought being prominent in government. Every existing nuclear power plant will have spent rods already waiting in the cooling tank that can be extracted for that purpose. Stockpiling more intentionally is risky and unnecessary. My opinion only.
Do you have a source for the .521, because my sources have it higher?
The data shows...the median of .498 cents per kilowatt-hour in 1999. In 1998...the median of .521 cents per kilowatt-hour.
In other words, one possible benchmark of fusion power status is that it should have a fuel cost in the range of .5 cents per KWh. As fission plants become more economical, that figure should drop. Obviously this is a hypothetical discussion, and fuel cost would be only one aspect of total cost.
The .521 was based on fuel costs alone. Add the cost of production and it's 1.83 cents per KWH total as of 2001, still considerably lower than wind energy. As a comparison, coa; plants average 2-3 cents per KWH, still better than the best wind generator. These numbers were based on the NEI and NMC calculations.
What's risky about it? Researchers ran over a storage container with a freight train in a test and it survived unscathed.
Billionaire investor Warren Buffett said his Berkshire Hathaway Inc. is willing to invest more money in the U.S. energy sector than the $10 billion to $15 billion he previously discussed, the Wall Street Journal reported on Wednesday.
Buffett also said he sees more opportunities in the utilities industry, including nuclear power. Buffett said he is keeping an open mind about investing in a new generation of nuclear-power plants that would not create air pollution.
Looks like the time for more nuclear plants have come.
I would stand next to U-238 all day. Perhaps with a sheet of paper between me and it. Had a friend who played in powdered U-238 at a National Lab.
Very long half-lives don't scare me.
Tiny amounts in a lab environment as compared to tonnage in a waste dump ... we're talking apples and oranges here.
Actually more people in America have died in Ted Kennedy's car than have died as a result of nuclear power.
Agreed! We need to build more nuclear power plants!
I want one under the hood of my truck, too.
YES!!
Add some new refineries while we're at it and we'll be all set.
Actually, our RV's come with generators already installed.;*)
I have read this whole thread and still do not have an understanding of what your fear of nuke plants is all about.
I lived 22 years west of a nuke plant and 5 years east of the same plant. I am still alive!! The only annoyance was the occasional test of the loud sirens announcing a disaster. They were only tests.
The best thing about building many smaller nuke plants in areas all around the country is reducing the problem of transmission of the electricity. We saw summer before last what can happen when transmission is disrupted. If the electricity doesn't have to travel so far from production to use point, it will be less expensive all around.
We'd also like to build some solar collection panels for heating water. Even if we can't keep a sufficient amount to have the right temp of hot water we need, we could raise the temp of the water coming in to the house so that the water heater wouldn't have to work as hard to bring the temp up. We'd save money on natural gas for the water heater!! Since we're retro-fitting our house for radiant, under the floor heat, and putting it in the addition we're building, we'll be using LOTS of hot water!
When we move back down South, you can bet we'll be looking HARD at solar electricity, passive solar heating and active water heating.
I think you've hit the nail on the head here.
There are a lot of greenies out there who don't realize they are just dupes of the world wide socialist worker's party.
Me, I've been partial to solar power satellites as advocated by physicist Gerald O'Neill while he was alive. (Energy would be beamed to Earth from satellites solar collectors in high orbit). Research done by his Space Studies Institute proved it was economically feasible to build the satellites from materials catapulted from the moon using his mass driver.
Now that oil is $60 a barrel it is more than feasible. An international consortium could finance building them. (like the one that financed the building of the Alaskan oil pipeline.
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.