Results 1 to 28 of 28

Thread: Hurray - Gates + Obama

  1. #1

    Thumbs up Hurray - Gates + Obama

    http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/02/17/bill.gates.nuclear/

    ---------------------------------------------------------------

    (CNN) -- Say you were to give Bill Gates a really great present -- like the ability to cure crippling diseases or to pick all U.S. presidents for the next 50 years.

    Gates would like those gifts, sure.

    But you wouldn't have granted his one, true wish.

    The Microsoft-founder-turned-philanthropist said at a recent speech in California that, more than new vaccines for AIDS or malaria or presidential selection power, what he really wants is clean energy at half its current cost.

    To do that, he said, we'll need new technology.

    Gates -- a father of the personal computer and quite the tech powerhouse -- said one of the brightest hopes for clean, cheap power is a new form of nuclear power plant that reuses waste uranium from existing nuclear reactors.

    It's kind of like radioactive recycling, and, on its face, can sound like a miracle.

    Gates actually described energy innovation in those terms: To prevent famine, poverty and the hardship that will come with global climate change we need "energy miracles," he said at the TED Conference in Long Beach.

    Some nuclear scientists and critics say the nuclear technology Gates highlighted is misguided, naive and expensive.

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    I would copy over the whole story but that website is annoying as it pulls in crap from the sides. Feel free to read the full link.

    Nuclear power is the way to go even if the technology they are looking at doesn't pan out.

    And even Obama sees the light!

    http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/02/...obs/index.html

    ********************************

    Washington (CNN) -- President Obama announced $8.3 billion in loan guarantees Tuesday for two nuclear reactors to be built in Burke County, Georgia.

    A new nuclear power plant has not been built in the United States in three decades.

    The new reactors are to be part of an expansion of an existing nuclear facility near Augusta, Georgia, operated by Atlanta-based Southern Co.

    The loan guarantees will help create 3,500 on-site construction jobs and 850 permanent operations jobs, administration officials claimed. The reactors will help provide power to over 550,000 homes and 1.4 million people, it said.

    "This is only the beginning," Obama said during a visit to an International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers training facility in Lanham, Maryland. "We'll continue to provide financing for clean energy projects ... across America."

    The president acknowledged that construction of new nuclear facilities will meet with some political resistance. Nuclear development has traditionally been opposed by more progressive elements of the Democratic Party. But nuclear power, he said, remains the country's largest source of fuel that produces no carbon emissions.

    "To meet our growing energy needs and prevent the worst consequences of climate change, we'll need to increase our supply of nuclear power. It's that simple," he said.

    At the same time, the president argued, traditional Republican proponents of nuclear power should acknowledge that comprehensive energy legislation is needed to help provide incentives to make clean energy more profitable.

    Any new nuclear facilities, he promised, will "be held to the highest and strictest safety standards."

    Leading congressional Republicans -- including both Georgia senators -- were quick to praise Obama's decision.

    "This announcement represents a step in the right direction," said Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Georgia. "The power generated by [the Burke County facility] is safe, reliable, emissions-free and environmentally responsible."

    **********************************

    Take that you dirty hippies! It is about time America moved forward into the 21st century! I don't like Obama very much but the fact that he's willing to ignore the blubbering greens is something I can respect.

  2. #2
    Senior Member Flixy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    6,435
    I do think this is a good idea, but you might be a bit worried about the 6 billion guarantee, that apparently has only 50% chance of being paid back...
    Keep on keepin' the beat alive!

  3. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by Flixy View Post
    I do think this is a good idea, but you might be a bit worried about the 6 billion guarantee, that apparently has only 50% chance of being paid back...
    I'm not cheering the specific proposal but the idea of nuclear power as a whole.

  4. #4
    Life is a cartoon...

  5. #5
    Spin it let's begin it. Angel_Mapper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Cape Suzette
    Posts
    338
    It's about freaking time we started building more nuclear power plants.
    Angel Mapper - Prometheus

    To have said goodbye to things!

  6. #6
    Agreed Angel.
    Quote Originally Posted by Steely Glint View Post
    It's actually the original French billion, which is bi-million, which is a million to the power of 2. We adopted the word, and then they changed it, presumably as revenge for Crecy and Agincourt, and then the treasonous Americans adopted the new French usage and spread it all over the world. And now we have to use it.

    And that's Why I'm Voting Leave.

  7. #7
    We're all agreeing with Lewk who is agreeing with Obama.

    WTF?

    ----------

    Seriously though, I agree too. Nuclear fuel provides both safe, clean energy and energy security that doesn't rely upon the whims of the Middle East/Moscow. I'd rather be sourcing our fuel from the Australian desert (where there's plenty of uranium) than the Middle East/Russia.

  8. #8
    I wish hippies would stop hijacking the environmentalist movement. There are absolutely no environmental grounds for opposing nuclear power, and yet they all do anyway. It's ridiculous.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  9. #9
    I think the economic case for nuclear power - when discounting environmental/carbon/geopolitical reasons for wanting nuclear power - is still pretty weak. Without massive government subsidy, it seems unlikely to be price-competitive with coal or other forms of electricity. *shrugs* Doesn't mean it is a bad idea, given the other advantages, especially in the carbon-conscious future. But let's be honest about its price.

    Also, remember that for Americans, a relatively small chunk of our electrical power is sourced to oil or even natural gas - only about a fifth in total. Half is indigenously sourced coal, and another fifth is nuclear. So for the US, the geopolitical angle is not as critical as for other Western countries (our oil use for other purposes, of course, is quite another story - just as in France, which is heavily dependent on oil imports despite having virtually no fossil fuel-powered plants). Sustainability isn't even a big concern - our coal reserves are gigantic. The only real concern here is environmental, balanced against cost.

  10. #10
    Yes, that's the one thing that struck me as odd in the article, the words "cheap power". To be fair that was referring to a science that isn't put into practice yet but still ...

  11. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    There are absolutely no environmental grounds for opposing nuclear power, and yet they all do anyway.
    There are when compared to their preferred forms of energy generation: wind, solar, etc. What they won't admit to is the fact that we simply can't generate enough power with those forms of energy, plus their unreliability etc.

    Of course, nuclear is far cleaner than fossil fuels.
    When the sky above us fell
    We descended into hell
    Into kingdom come

  12. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by RandBlade View Post
    Yes, that's the one thing that struck me as odd in the article, the words "cheap power". To be fair that was referring to a science that isn't put into practice yet but still ...
    To be fair, marginal costs of nuclear power plants are far lower than fossil fuels. It's just the fixed costs that are so high.

  13. #13
    Let sleeping tigers lie Khendraja'aro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    In the forests of the night
    Posts
    6,238
    Breeder reactors and Transmutation
    Maybe even throw Thorium into the mix.
    When the stars threw down their spears
    And watered heaven with their tears:
    Did he smile his work to see?
    Did he who made the lamb make thee?

  14. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by Steely Glint View Post
    There are when compared to their preferred forms of energy generation: wind, solar, etc. What they won't admit to is the fact that we simply can't generate enough power with those forms of energy, plus their unreliability etc.

    Of course, nuclear is far cleaner than fossil fuels.
    Nuclear waste isn't really an environmental issue (i.e. it doesn't hurt the environment). Heck, wind power often has an adverse effect on animals in the immediate environment.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  15. #15
    There are still plenty of environmental effects caused by nuclear power if you exclude radioactive waste - uranium mining and waste heat, for example, and it still causes greenhouse gas emissions indirectly, though in tiny quantities compared to fossil fuel plants.
    When the sky above us fell
    We descended into hell
    Into kingdom come

  16. #16

  17. #17

  18. #18
    Senior Member Flixy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    6,435
    Quote Originally Posted by wiggin View Post
    I think the economic case for nuclear power - when discounting environmental/carbon/geopolitical reasons for wanting nuclear power - is still pretty weak. Without massive government subsidy, it seems unlikely to be price-competitive with coal or other forms of electricity. *shrugs* Doesn't mean it is a bad idea, given the other advantages, especially in the carbon-conscious future. But let's be honest about its price.

    Also, remember that for Americans, a relatively small chunk of our electrical power is sourced to oil or even natural gas - only about a fifth in total. Half is indigenously sourced coal, and another fifth is nuclear. So for the US, the geopolitical angle is not as critical as for other Western countries (our oil use for other purposes, of course, is quite another story - just as in France, which is heavily dependent on oil imports despite having virtually no fossil fuel-powered plants). Sustainability isn't even a big concern - our coal reserves are gigantic. The only real concern here is environmental, balanced against cost.
    You could argue there is a 'price tag' on the pollution. Even without looking at global warming, coal is incredibly polluting and has an impact on the area surrounding it. And IIRC coal prices have been rising too, last time I looked at those, but I could be wrong there.

    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    Nuclear waste isn't really an environmental issue (i.e. it doesn't hurt the environment). Heck, wind power often has an adverse effect on animals in the immediate environment.
    Uranium mining is pretty polluting. Agreed on wind power. Not sure what you mean nuclear waste doesn't hurt the environment - if it leaks it does, which is the entire issue. But you're right, compared to coal power nuclear plants are clean.
    Keep on keepin' the beat alive!

  19. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by Flixy View Post
    You could argue there is a 'price tag' on the pollution. Even without looking at global warming, coal is incredibly polluting and has an impact on the area surrounding it. And IIRC coal prices have been rising too, last time I looked at those, but I could be wrong there.
    Of course. I specifically was excluding externalities because most people don't think about that when they think about cost. If we were able to accurately price in the cost to the environment/geopolitics/etc., that might be a different story. As of yet, though, we can't do that, and we're left with vague assertions that the added cost of a nuclear reactor justifies its somewhat lower pollution. Without quantification, it's hard to know whether it's worth it. Even attempts to price stuff in aren't particularly market- or science-driven.

  20. #20
    Senior Member Flixy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    6,435
    Do you happen to know any estimates on the price tags of processing the waste? Who pays for that, the production companies, or do they sell it? Or does the government take care of it? I think it's government funded here, but I think energy production was still nationalised when our nuclear plants were built.
    Keep on keepin' the beat alive!

  21. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by Flixy View Post
    Do you happen to know any estimates on the price tags of processing the waste? Who pays for that, the production companies, or do they sell it? Or does the government take care of it? I think it's government funded here, but I think energy production was still nationalised when our nuclear plants were built.
    Nuclear waste in the US is a giant mess just because we have no permanent storage facility - rather everything is stored on-site or in temporary facilities. That will work for now, but obviously a longer-term solution is necessary. I think it's paid for by some tax/fee system on the plants.

    The costs of processing nuclear waste are normally factored into the calculation of its economic viability, though.

  22. #22
    Should pay some third world country to bury it. Assuming the new tech Gates was referring to doesn't bear fruit.

  23. #23
    Because giving a third world country a ton of nuclear waste that can be used in dirty nuclear bombs etc is the brightest idea ever

    Oh wait ...

    Japan, one of the highest-density nations in the world manages to process nuclear waste. Why can't America?

  24. #24
    Politics. Also, expense.

    For that matter, Japan doesn't have a permanent storage facility for high radioactivity waste, either. Nor does France. They reprocess it more to get a somewhat more efficient fuel cycle, but they're hardly perfect in that regard.

  25. #25
    I read an article in an engineering paper (shut up!) last week about the new generation of reactors which'll burn even more efficently and stuff. Won't be built for a few years yet though.
    In the future, the Berlin wall will be a mile high, and made of steel. You too will be made to crawl, to lick children's blood from jackboots. There will be no creativity, only productivity. Instead of love there will be fear and distrust, instead of surrender there will be submission. Contact will be replaced with isolation, and joy with shame. Hope will cease to exist as a concept. The Earth will be covered with steel and concrete. There will be an electronic policeman in every head. Your children will be born in chains, live only to serve, and die in anguish and ignorance.
    The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.

  26. #26
    Ness - isn't France helping you guys build a 3rd Generation reactor? When's that supposed to come on line?
    The Rules
    Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
    Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
    Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)

  27. #27
    I was talking about fourth generation reactors. And our new one is technically 3+. And I'm not responsible for its construction, you look up when it comes online.
    In the future, the Berlin wall will be a mile high, and made of steel. You too will be made to crawl, to lick children's blood from jackboots. There will be no creativity, only productivity. Instead of love there will be fear and distrust, instead of surrender there will be submission. Contact will be replaced with isolation, and joy with shame. Hope will cease to exist as a concept. The Earth will be covered with steel and concrete. There will be an electronic policeman in every head. Your children will be born in chains, live only to serve, and die in anguish and ignorance.
    The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.

  28. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by Nessus View Post
    And I'm not responsible for its construction, you look up when it comes online.
    Just thought you might know something about it.
    The Rules
    Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
    Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
    Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •