tonight's AP newswire

[alocispepraluger102]

tonight's AP newswire is too good to be true.

have at it:

http://www.nytimes.com/pages/aponline/news/index.html

[Son-of-a-Weizen]

tonight's AP newswire is too good to be true.

have at it:

http://www.nytimes.com/pages/aponline/news/index.html

.............rather, too common sense & forward thinking to be true.

McCain calls for building 45 new nuclear reactors

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Published: June 18, 2008

Filed at 9:20 p.m. ET

SPRINGFIELD, Mo. (AP) -- Sen. John McCain called Wednesday for the construction of 45 new nuclear reactors by 2030 and pledged $2 billion a year in federal funds ''to make clean coal a reality,'' measures designed to reduce dependence on foreign oil.

[alocispepraluger102]

tonight's AP newswire is too good to be true.

have at it:

http://www.nytimes.com/pages/aponline/news/index.html

.............rather, too common sense & forward thinking to be true.

McCain calls for building 45 new nuclear reactors

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Published: June 18, 2008

Filed at 9:20 p.m. ET

SPRINGFIELD, Mo. (AP) -- Sen. John McCain called Wednesday for the construction of 45 new nuclear reactors by 2030 and pledged $2 billion a year in federal funds ''to make clean coal a reality,'' measures designed to reduce dependence on foreign oil.

...and out of the mouth of a u.s. senator. i posted that article half hour ago in my local forum titled "now this is excellent intelligent leadership".

Edited June 19, 2008 by alocispepraluger102

[RDK]

tonight's AP newswire is too good to be true.

have at it:

http://www.nytimes.com/pages/aponline/news/index.html

There are dozens of headlines. Can you narrow it down a little?

If you are referring to the nuke plants, then

[Shawn]

So, have they ever found a way to safely dispose of the toxic residue left over from nuclear reactors? Other than burying it underground or blasting into space?

[BERIGAN]

So, have they ever found a way to safely dispose of the toxic residue left over from nuclear reactors? Other than burying it underground or blasting into space?

Ask the French, or the Japanese. France gets what...75-80% of their electricity from nuclear plants???

[BERIGAN]

Yeah, well, you know...he's an old guy who doesn't give a shit about humanity obviously.

Because.......

[Jim Alfredson]

So, have they ever found a way to safely dispose of the toxic residue left over from nuclear reactors? Other than burying it underground or blasting into space?

It's a good question. How much waste would 45 new reactors produce and where will this waste go and how will we get it there?

[RDK]

It is a good question. But almost any source of energy will produce waste (or be impractical, as much of solar power still is). What are the choices: nuclear waste, polluting coal, petrol by-products, etc. If nothing else, nuclear is clean burning. I think it's at least worth exploring nuclear power after thirty years of ignoring any technological advances.

[Jim Alfredson]

I didn't say it wasn't, but nuclear waste is not only extremely dangerous environmentally, but also dangerous if it falls into the wrong hands.

The storage and transportation questions need to be answered before this can be taken seriously.

[catesta]

This will answer some questions on the waste...

Nuclear Waste Management

[Jazzmoose]

Nuclear waste is deadly and dangerous, granted. But it's not like we're not doing any damage with coal and gasoline. I'd say it's time to take our heads out of the sand and start looking into it.

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

This will answer some questions on the waste...

Nuclear Waste Management

Hm, I would automatically distrust any "fact sheet" issued on this topic by the nuclear industry, just as I would any "facts" adduced by the tobacco industry intended to minimise the impact on consumers of independent health research into the damage caused by smoking.

That said, human life depends on energy and getting it and converting it to usable forms has always been a source of environmental pollution. When the earth's population was small, it didn't matter. As population grew, it mattered more, but the west was able to hold things together for a couple of hundred years by developing a system in which the have nots were denied full access to energy. Those days are over. The line can't be held any longer. But everyone can't have access to energy on the scale we've been able to enjoy it in the west. So, billions must die or our demands for energy must be reduced (greatly) and access to energy arranged more equitably. How? Dunno. But it is not rational to think that any increase in demand for energy must be met by whatever means available.

MG

[Son-of-a-Weizen]

So, have they ever found a way to safely dispose of the toxic residue left over from nuclear reactors? Other than burying it underground or blasting into space?

Ask the French, or the Japanese. France gets what...75-80% of their electricity from nuclear plants???

Speaking of France, I recently read somewhere that China is adding (yearly) to their national power grid the equivalent of total French power output.....or something to that effect. There's no question that nuc power need be a center-piece of our long term energy strategy (we get 20% of electricty from nuc power??) and that we can't be left on the sidelines....but sadly we're so far behind the curve in reactorworld for the same reason that we still don't have metro rail service to Dulles Int'l Airport, gateway to the nation's capital -- pathetic lack of foresight and serious investment. The Congress most definitely must start to move seriously on this front although the decades long dithering/thumb-twiddling has left the industry ill-prepared to provide the quantity of reactor fuel that will be required the world over.

[JSngry]

I recently read somewhere that China is adding (yearly) to their national power grid the equivalent of total French power output.....or something to that effect. There's no question that nuc power need be a center-piece of our long term energy strategy (we get 20% of electricty from nuc power??) and that we can't be left on the sidelines....but sadly we're so far behind the curve in reactorworld for the same reason that we still don't have metro rail service to Dulles Int'l Airport, gateway to the nation's capital -- pathetic lack of foresight and serious investment. The Congress most definitely must start to move seriously on this front although the decades long dithering/thumb-twiddling has left the industry ill-prepared to provide the quantity of reactor fuel that will be required the world over.

http://www.organissimo.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=44244

[papsrus]

... But everyone can't have access to energy on the scale we've been able to enjoy it in the west. So, billions must die or our demands for energy must be reduced (greatly) and access to energy arranged more equitably. How? Dunno. But it is not rational to think that any increase in demand for energy must be met by whatever means available.

MG

I agree with this. Along with developing new energy sources, we will certainly have to adjust our consumption patterns across the board. And it won't just affect our consumption of energy, but also the production, distribution and consumption of things as basic as food and water, seems to me.

When they ask "paper or plastic?" at the supermarket checkout counter, why not answer, "I brought my own bag, thank you." ... adjusting behaviors.

Better yet, shop at the farmer's market! (The produce is fresher and less expensive.)

[JohnJ]

For the official IEA view the following may be of interest.

http://www.iea.org/Textbase/techno/etp/ETP_2008.pdf