TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Bush to push for new nuclear power plants, more refineries

Bush to push for new nuclear power plants, more refineries

quote:

Bush to push for new nuclear power plants, more refineries By KEN HERMAN Cox News Service Wednesday, April 27, 2005 WASHINGTON � President Bush will offer proposals on Wednesday aimed at increasing domestic energy supplies by building refineries on closed military bases and jump-starting the construction of nuclear power plants, senior administration officials said late Tuesday. The proposals, to be detailed in a speech at a Small Business Administration conference in Washington, also will include more federal authority over the permitting of liquefied national gas terminals, additional tax credits for fuel-efficient vehicles and what aides called "expanded international cooperation" to promote increased use of nuclear and coal-fueled power around the world. The Bush proposals come as the nation's economy continues to be threatened by high gas prices. Nothing in the new proposals would have any impact on current prices, White House aides said. Instead, they are targeted at "the root problem of our energy situation," a senior administration official said. An overview of the proposals was offered during a conference call with Bush aides that the White House would allow to be identified only as senior administration officials. The package is consistent with Bush's long-held view that government has gotten in the way of the development of infrastructure needed for the United States to reduce its increasing dependence on foreign energy supplies. Bush wants to get more nuclear power plants on line � none have opened in the U.S. since the early 1990s - by reducing the risk and uncertainty in the licensing process. Included will be a call for the Department of Energy to provide risk insurance to mitigate the additional cost of unforeseen delays, an aide said. The insurance is seen as a way to help clear the way for construction of new nuclear power plants that are considerably different than the ones built in the 1970s and 1980s and are most susceptible to accidents in the first two years of operation. Bush believes government-backed risk insurance would protect against the kind of regulatory delays that scare off investors. The nation now has 103 reactors producing power, but there has not been an order for a new plant since the Three Mile Island partial meltdown in 1979. Bush long has been a fan of nuclear power, and used his State of the Union address this year to call for the production of "safe, clean nuclear energy." The administration also believes economic and regulatory concerns have stalled refinery construction. A Bush aide said energy companies have opted to expand capacity at existing refineries rather than build new ones. Under those constraints, capacity has increased by only 0.5 percent a year, growth that doesn't come close to keeping up with increasing demand. The president will call on federal agencies to work with state and federal officials to encourage the building of refineries on closed military bases. Bush aides said details have not been worked out how that would be accomplished, including whether the former bases would be sold to energy companies. Bush will address the need for additional terminals for liquefied natural gas by urging Congress to give the federal government authority over location selection for those facilities. There are now only four. Thirty-two potential sites have been proposed, but some are caught up in state and local regulatory battles. A Bush aide said the president wants "certainty in the permitting process" by giving the federal government the final say. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission once had that authority, but, according to a Bush aide, legislation approved in 1992 put that authority in question. The Bush plan also will included tax credits for some diesel vehicles, in addition to hybrid vehicles now eligible for such incentives. http://www.oxfordpress.com/news/con...85p280RDYNxU14p!-283841684?urac=n&urvf=11146266369190.7723345202014258

I'm watching his speech now. He really wants to switch the country over to nuclear? Interesting.

Agree we need to open some more nuclear power plants. Democrats have forced us back into fossil fuel sources and those are increasing in price at ever alarming rates.


[[[smoke]]]

I think this is a fairly positive step for the US. However, I disagree with

quote:

The Bush proposals come as the nation's economy continues to be threatened by high gas prices. Nothing in the new proposals would have any impact on current prices, White House aides said. Instead, they are targeted at "the root problem of our energy situation," a senior administration official said.

as the measures are really more like peeing one's pants on a cold winters day: It provides initial comformt, but later on it will only make matters worse.
Both nuclear and coal energy sources will run out - and the day when they do will approach rapidly once oil and natural gas have been exhausted. The more long-sighted solutions would be windmills, solar panels, wave mills, research in fusion, and investments in mass transit systems.

quote:

Originally posted by smokeape Agree we need to open some more nuclear power plants. Democrats have forced us back into fossil fuel sources and those are increasing in price at ever alarming rates. [[[smoke]]]

why was their reasoning for doing so?

open some more nuclear power plants is a good thing, but more refineries is dumb, as oil becomes increasingly expensive and pollutes much.

Makes me wonder why Iran isn't allowed to use Nuclear plants..

When I heard about this I cheered, inwardly, as I heard that nuclear plants will finally begin construction again for the first time in 30 years. Now there are, of course, critics of nuclear power. They state:

1. Opens ourselves to catastrophic terrorist attacks.
Now, unless a member of the Taliban somehow manages to slip into a nuclear facility undetected and then gain access to the highly guarded and secure nuclear rod room, all while managing to slip in a large explosive of some kind, it is extremely unlikely that a meltdown could be caused.

A 2002 study using computer modeling by internationally recognized experts found the structures that house nuclear reactor fuel -- including dry storage containers -- would protect against a release of radiation even if struck by a large commercial jetliner.

A test at Sandia National Labs confirmed a computer analysis of the impact of a plane crashing into a concrete structure like a containment building. An F-4 Phantom jet was destroyed when it hit at 480 miles per hour. The maximum penetration to the concrete wall was 2.4 inches.

2. We will run out of nuclear fuel.
Yes, I must admit, we will run out of uranium to fuel the nuclear plants. However, this will happen in oh about hundreds, if not thousands of years.

Present reactors that use only the U-235 in natural uranium are very likely good for some hundreds of years. Bernard Cohen has shown that with breeder reactors, we can have plenty of energy for some billions of year.

Cohen's argument is based on using uranium from sea water. Other people have pointed out that there is more energy in the uranium impurity in coal than in could come from burning the coal. There is also plenty of uranium in granite. None of these sources is likely to be used in the next thousand years, because there is plenty of much more cheaply extracted uranium in conventional uranium ores.
http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/...uclear-faq.html

3. Nuclear waste.
Here, the critics have a point. There really hasn't been much of a solution for nuclear waste, other than cooling tanks. As of right now the U.S. cooling tanks are near capacity, and more will need to be built. Hopefully, as time passes and the U.S. invests more into nuclear power research a better solution will be found.

quote:

Originally posted by kush paintings 3. Nuclear waste. Here, the critics have a point. There really hasn't been much of a solution for nuclear waste, other than cooling tanks. As of right now the U.S. cooling tanks are near capacity, and more will need to be built. Hopefully, as time passes and the U.S. invests more into nuclear power research a better solution will be found.

More waste from the 300 atleast wind farms (100ft+ towers and 50ft+ blades) you need for each nuclear power plant?

I'm a medium term nuclear fan, I'd wait until renewable tech is further developed and tested elsewhere. But short term fossil fuel based plants are obviously going to kill us via global warming.

The terroist thing does worry me though a F4 is a tiny plane compared to say a 747 (not even starting on the A380!). But any nuclear reactor will have a huge amount of "stuff" i.e. building around it before you get anywhere near the reactor pressure vessel.

One thing to rember though is given the failure rate (as low and expensive as it is) of nuclear power plants an accident will happen or atleast is predicted.

But unless you intend on closing up all the old (most likely to break actually) power plants in the short term then the risk exposure of new ones isn't that much of an added risk so long as the tech used is proven.

In short well done on this one George you bit the bullet unlike the arse holes here who just love to shy away from it that is Tony Blair (in fact I spoke to a guy who's talked to him about it and he knows the situation he's just keeping it quiet till after the election).

quote:

Originally posted by Dervish I'm a medium term nuclear fan, I'd wait until renewable tech is further developed and tested elsewhere.

You mean like on planets near Alpha Centauri?

Regarding nuclear fuels, I read some five years ago that the supplies would last about 300 years, with *current* consumptions, but less than 40 if the entire earth's energy requirements should be met by nuclear fission. Don't know if the technology has matured enormously since then, or much more resources have been found, but if not, then building nuclear power plants cannot really be said to be the solution.

quote:

Originally posted by trancaholic You mean like on planets near Alpha Centauri? Regarding nuclear fuels, I read some five years ago that the supplies would last about 300 years, with *current* consumptions, but less than 40 if the entire earth's energy requirements should be met by nuclear fission. Don't know if the technology has matured enormously since then, or much more resources have been found, but if not, then building nuclear power plants cannot really be said to be the solution.

Nah maybe Germany.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.