Re: Question I'd ask Obama

In article <Lb2Lk.2714$%%2.1165@edtnps82>, john <john@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

On Mon, 20 Oct 2008 09:02:27 -0700, John B. wrote:

On Oct 18, 9:11 pm, Jack Hollis <xslee...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sat, 18 Oct 2008 15:36:51 -0700 (PDT), "John B."

<johnb...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Example: he says we can build 45
nuclear power plants "right away." That would be  absolutely
impossible.

The US has already built over 100 nuclear power plants, why couldn't it
build 45 more?  The US should have be producing 100% of it's
electricity with nuclear power decades ago.  It looks like nukes are
about to make a comeback, so the situation should begin to rectify
itself.

Just think of all the CO2 released into the atmosphere by the US making
electricity by burning coal over the years.  The environmentalists
really missed the boat on this one.

Why couldn't it build 45 more? Because each one costs upwards of $12
billion. Because there are 43 nuke plants under construction around the
world, none in the US, which means all the contractors who build them
are tied up elsewhere, as are all the manufacturers who make and supply
parts. If a US electric utility were to get a permit to start
costruction today, it would have to wait in line for 10 years just to
get the reactor housing.

Sad but true and it reinforces Jack's point, that environmentalists
really missed the boat on nuclear energy. It is the way forward but very
expensive.

James Lovelock, the man who first warned of the CO2 problem back in the
70's agrees.

http://www.ecolo.org/lovelock/lovebioen.htm

We could have (relatively) unlimited supplies of CO2 free electricity to
heat and cool our homes, supply power to recharge batteries of hybrid
vehicles.. What's not to like? Well, the cost is pretty high.

Environmentalist people should choose the least of the environmental
hazards, rather than reject everything with an environmental risk. We
can't go back to hunting buffalo after all.

Yes, it is true we missed the boat on nuclear power. But right now, we
may also be missing the boat on clean coal technology. The FutureGen
project was supposed to address the CO2 issue and was set to go until
the last minute.

The first plant was set to begin in Illinois, but for some strange
reason it was put on hold. Of course, we here in Illinois were of the
opinion that it is because they wanted to have it done in Texas, which
has no coal.

There was another clean coal idea that seemed to not get off the ground
and that was for peaking plants at the coal mine mouth. It did look
pretty good, but funding died off along the line.

Here in Southern Illinois, we have high sulfur coal, which does take
some cleaning up to burn. But it is also high BTU coal, higher in BTU
than the low sulfur western coal. The story around here is that we have
about 150 years of energy under our feet. I don't know if that is
totally true, but what is true is that there is a hell of a lot of coal
down here, most not being mined today.

Of course, it isn't literally under my feet, as they already undermined
this entire town years ago... :)
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Question Id ask Obama
    ... electricity with nuclear power decades ago. ... Because there are 43 nuke plants under construction around the ... Sad but true and it reinforces Jack's point, that environmentalists ...
    (rec.sport.golf)
  • Re: Discover who is REALLY behind the oil prices
    ... > SOARING OIL PRICES? ... > part of the energy crisis now afflicting the U.S. ... > to the environmentalists who have stopped development of our natural ... > imaginary dangers posed by nuclear power plants. ...
    (alt.politics.bush)
  • Re: Radioactivity leaked unchecked for three days
    ... The nuclear power station at Kashiwazaki-Kariwa pumped radioactive particles ... earthquake, The Times has learned. ... So, when I hear people saying that it's the environmentalists who killed the growth of nuclear power plants in the US, I just shake my head. ...
    (misc.survivalism)
  • Re: What great lines...
    ... If these people who keep saying there is global warming actually believed the entire earth was warming, and it was going to create a global catastrophe, they would be 100% behind nuclear power. ... Until I hear they have started building nuclear plants to prevent global warming I will accept it for what it is, ...
    (rec.boats)
  • Re: What great lines...
    ... If these people who keep saying there is global warming actually believed the entire earth was warming, and it was going to create a global catastrophe, they would be 100% behind nuclear power. ... Until I hear they have started building nuclear plants to prevent global warming I will accept it for what it is, ...
    (rec.boats)
Loading