[Rhodes22-list] Nuclear Energy

Bill Effros bill at effros.com
Sat Feb 19 15:14:04 EST 2005


"WASHINGTON -- President Bush today asked Congress for $651 million in 
the coming fiscal year for Yucca Mountain, far less than his $880 
million request last year." -- Las Vegas Sun Feb. 7, 2005.

That's more than $200 million, not $100 million.  The administration 
keeps saying publicly that the project will open by 2010.  It is so far 
behind, that is not possible.  The nuclear power industry wanted the 
facility and took the stand that they wouldn't start any new nuc power 
plants in the US until the Yucca facility was open.  Now they have 
changed their stance, having decided they can store the waste just as 
safely in Memphis as they can in Nevada.

"House Majority Leader Dick Armey entered the partisan fray over Yucca 
Mountain last week, raising the political ante for local Republicans 
whose congressional races could determine the balance of power in 
Washington.

In an interview with the Sun, Armey, R-Texas, said the best way Nevadans 
can fight Yucca Mountain is by electing Republicans to Congress." -- Las 
Vegas Sun -- Jan 21, 2002

"I think it is irresponsible to continue to waste millions upon millions 
of dollars on a project that is unsafe and in no way will solve our 
nation's nuclear waste problem," Rep. Jim Gibbons, R-Nev., said. -- Las 
Vegas Sun Feb. 7, 2005.

Rep. Jon Porter, R-Nev., said he does not believe the Yucca repository 
is a "done deal" and that the "scientific studies are still incomplete."

"I will continue to remain an active participant to oppose any funding 
or legislation that would require the transportation and storage of 
high-level nuclear waste to Nevada," Porter said. -- Las Vegas Sun Feb. 
7, 2005.

If Las Vegas were a betting town, they'd be betting against Yucca 
Mountain right now.

Bill

brad haslett wrote:

>Bill,
>
>Help me out, I can't find a reference to the Bush
>administration deciding we don't need Yucca Mountain. 
>The DOE did cut its 2006 Yucca Mountain budget request
>by $100 million because it couldn't use more money in
>light of the current litigation and environmental
>opposition, but nowhere can I find a statement by the
>current administration that we don't need the
>facility.  Website?  The nuclear power industry is
>currently storing on site because they have no other
>place to go.  They themselves are pushing for Yucca
>Mt., or somewhere, anywhere, because they know the
>current solution is not long-term feasible.  France
>doesn't seem to have this problem.  Perhaps we should
>study both their science and their politics.
>
>We are the Saudi Arabia of coal and for a price, coal
>can be burned very clean.  The Clinton administration
>pushed natural gas powerplants because that is what
>the environmentalists wanted.  This ignored that
>natural gas production follows the same production
>decline curve as oil and we are net importers of this
>product as well.  We could live on coal for quite a
>long time but it faces strong environmental group
>opposition as well.
>
>Hydro-electric is no longer a player.  We were able to
>build the TVA system because FDR had the power (there
>was little opposition) and the country needed the
>work.  Hydro can't pass the environmental groups
>opposition and local politics anymore.
>
>Wind is rapidly developing in places like North Dakota
>and Iowa (where they don't use that much power) but
>faces stiff opposition in places like California and
>Massachusetts (Ted Kennedy being one of the
>opponents).  But wind is economically competitive with
>coal and Florida Power and Light is one of the major
>producers.
>
>Solar works on a small scale but the technology hasn't
>progressed far enough to be competitive.
>
>Something has to give somewhere in the energy
>equation.  Sometimes I think the environmentalists
>would like us to return to the pre-petroleum age when
>we lit our lamps with whale blubber.  So much for
>"Save the Whales".  Only a fool doesn't want clean air
>and water but there is no such thing as a completely,
>emission or pollutant free fuel.
>
>We need a comprehensive energy policy and we need it
>today!  So far, the Bush administration has taken the
>same approach as every one preceding it, very little.
>
>Brad
>
>
>--- Bill Effros <bill at effros.com> wrote:
>
>  
>
>>Brad,
>>
>>Your answer begs the question.  Nuclear Power Plants
>>are not 
>>"off-the-shelf" technology.  We don't know what to
>>do with the wastes.  
>>I'm sure you've noticed that the Bush administration
>>has decided since 
>>the last time we discussed this issue on the list,
>>that Yucca Mountain 
>>costs too much, and that we don't really need this
>>facility.  Meanwhile, 
>>the Nuclear Power Industry has decided that it is
>>perfectly safe enough 
>>to continue storing the wastes right where they are.
>>
>>So much for 50% of the arguments put forward in
>>support of nuclear waste 
>>disposal last year.
>>
>>The last time I checked, the United States was the
>>Saudi Arabia of 
>>coal.  We were said to have a 500 year supply.  It
>>would seem simpler to 
>>reduce emissions from coal fired plants, than to
>>make nuclear wastes 
>>safe.  Then coal fired plants would be
>>"off-the-shelf" technology.  We 
>>could build coal fired plants all over the world,
>>and export our coal. 
>>
>>Hydro-electric is also "off-the-shelf" technology.
>>
>>The core of this planet is a molten cauldron of
>>stored energy.
>>
>>We know how to capture and covert energy from
>>sunlight, from wind, from 
>>sunflowers, and from cow farts.
>>
>>But maybe those aren't the right answers either. 
>>The point is that 
>>developing nuclear energy will inevitably develop
>>more nuclear weapons, 
>>and produce more nuclear waste, and we will never be
>>able to undo the 
>>damage we have done.  If we can see that so clearly,
>>and virtually 
>>everyone agrees on these points, we should do all we
>>can to stop it by 
>>developing other technologies--we should not proceed
>>in the name of 
>>expediency or short term profit.
>>
>>Bill
>>
>>brad haslett wrote:
>>
>>    
>>
>>>Bill, 
>>>
>>>Your concerns about the nuclear "genie" are
>>>      
>>>
>>precisely
>>    
>>
>>>those of the Los Alamos scientists.  An excellent
>>>      
>>>
>>book
>>    
>>
>>>on the subject is "Hiroshima in America: A Half
>>>Century of Denial" by Lifton and Mitchell. For some
>>>very recent perspective read;
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-allison17feb17,0,2948408,print.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions
>>    
>>
>>>Bill,
>>>
>>>
>>>http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0217/p09s01-coop.html
>>>
>>>http://wired.com/wired/archive/13.02/nuclear.html
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>http://realclearpolitics.com/Commentary/com-2_13_05_SC.html
>>    
>>
>>>The problem with "putting it back in the bottle" is
>>>that a number of responsible countries would have
>>>      
>>>
>>to
>>    
>>
>>>give up their primary power supply.  France, for
>>>example, gets 70% of their electricity from nukes. 
>>>      
>>>
>>As
>>    
>>
>>>Roger pointed out, Iran doesn't need nukes.  This
>>>isn't a matter of "fairness", it's a matter of
>>>responsibility.  A nuclear armed Middle East might
>>>have weapons pointed at each other but you can be
>>>assured, they would all have nukes pointed at
>>>      
>>>
>>Israel. 
>>    
>>
>>>It shouldn't be allowed to develop and the recent
>>>      
>>>
>>sale
>>    
>>
>>>of bunker busting bombs to Israel was most likely
>>>designed to prevent such a thing.
>>>
>>>The CEO of Chevron-Texaco went on record this week
>>>with the statement, "we are running out of cheap
>>>      
>>>
>>oil".
>>    
>>
>>>While this has been predicted for over a hundred
>>>years, we are just now hearing the largest players
>>>      
>>>
>>in
>>    
>>
>>>the industry state it.
>>>
>>>Nuclear power plants are "off-the-shelf" technology
>>>that we can implement right now.  And yes, some
>>>nations should be prevented from having them.  The
>>>United Nations is a morally bankrupt institution
>>>      
>>>
>>and
>>    
>>
>>>can't police this issue any more than it could "oil
>>>for food".  How do you keep nuclear products out of
>>>the hands of untrustworthy nations?  That Sir, IS
>>>      
>>>
>>the
>>    
>>
>>>question of the century.
>>>
>>>Brad
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>--- Bill Effros <bill at effros.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> 
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>>>Roger,
>>>>
>>>>Of course I wonder why they want it.
>>>>
>>>>But that's not the point.
>>>>
>>>>You and others argued for the continued
>>>>        
>>>>
>>development
>>    
>>
>>>>of Nuclear Energy.  
>>>>That carries with it the development of nuclear
>>>>energy by other 
>>>>countries, as well as us--meaning that everyone
>>>>        
>>>>
>>will
>>    
>>
>>>>figure out how to 
>>>>pack that energy into very small packages that can
>>>>be exported at will.  
>>>>Pakistan, a Muslim military dictatorship, has
>>>>        
>>>>
>>amply
>>    
>>
>>>>demonstrated this 
>>>>capability by exporting bomb technology all over
>>>>        
>>>>
>>the
>>    
>>
>>>>world.
>>>>
>>>>The President of the United States claims our
>>>>        
>>>>
>>Social
>>    
>>
>>>>Security system is 
>>>>in crisis because it will be underfunded in 75
>>>>years.  If we can look 75 
>>>>years ahead, and plan for the future, why can't
>>>>        
>>>>
>>Iran
>>    
>>
>>>>or any other 
>>>>country do the same thing?
>>>>
>>>>World problems are complex, and they are not
>>>>        
>>>>
>>solved
>>    
>>
>>>>by simplistic 
>>>>thinking.  I can make a case for Nuclear Energy,
>>>>however any case for 
>>>>nuclear energy must address the fact that everyone
>>>>who learns that 
>>>>technology will inevitably also learn how to
>>>>        
>>>>
>>create
>>    
>>
>>>>devastating weapons 
>>>>using the same knowledge.
>>>>
>>>>Nuclear weapons are one of the small number of
>>>>genies that can be put 
>>>>back into the bottle.  The whole world knew that
>>>>Iraq didn't have 
>>>>them--only the President of the United States
>>>>claimed to have better 
>>>>information than everyone else, justifying his
>>>>invasion, at a time when 
>>>>weapons inspectors on the ground said
>>>>        
>>>>
>>unequivocally
>>    
>>
>>>>that Iraq did not 
>>>>currently possess nuclear weapons.
>>>>
>>>>Nuclear power plants can mask the presence of
>>>>nuclear weapons.  That's 
>>>>why Iran wants them.  You can't say that we should
>>>>switch to nuclear 
>>>>energy, but at the same time we should prevent
>>>>everyone else from doing 
>>>>the same thing.  Either nobody gets them, or
>>>>everybody gets them.
>>>>
>>>>When push comes to shove, I think I fall on the
>>>>        
>>>>
>>side
>>    
>>
>>>>of nobody gets 
>>>>them.  We should work to develop other means to
>>>>harness energy.  While 
>>>>we may run out of oil, the current model of the
>>>>universe predicts that 
>>>>we will always have more energy than we can safely
>>>>use.  Certainly we 
>>>>won't have to worry about that for the next couple
>>>>of billion years.
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>=== message truncated ===
>
>
>
>		
>__________________________________ 
>Do you Yahoo!? 
>All your favorites on one personal page - Try My Yahoo!
>http://my.yahoo.com 
>__________________________________________________
>Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
>
>  
>


More information about the Rhodes22-list mailing list