« Morally bankrupt |
Main
| Mid-debate mood check »
Yay nuclear!
26 Sep 2008 09:32 pm
McCain stands up for nuclear energy. This puts a spring in my step and a song in my heart. I have to give him credit; when he has a bee in his bonnet, he is often willing to stand up for things, like free trade and immigration, that freak voters out.
Of course, he's violently opposed to storing any of the nuclear waste products in his own state, so he may not be the most credible on this subject.
The trouble is that being willing to stand up for X is not at all the same thing as being able to shift legislative/public opinion towards X.
Being a "maverick" and "not Miss Congeniality" is good positioning as Cassandra, prophet without honor, etc. I'd prefer a president who can make some progress (compromised, imperfect -- but progress) to one who so clearly revels in "here I am, all alone, taking hits from both sides, bloody but unbowed..."
[amateur psychologizing about the effects of the POW years omitted]
Freddie bet me to it.
Unless you have a solution for nuclear waste being in favor of nuclear power is a pipe dream.
Spencer, could you explain just what it is about nuclear waste that makes it so much worse than lead, mercury, fluorocarbons, or a lot of other substances that -- however imperfectly -- we learn to manage in far greater quantities with tolerable risk?
It can't be the "dangerous for NNNNN years," because lead, mercury etc. remain toxic for the entire age of the universe (barring possible neutron decay).
It can't be the ".00000N gram is fatal," or else we should ban canned food because one bad batch of cans can yield genocidal amounts of botulism toxin.
I'm forced to the conclusion that there's some special, magical mojo about it that I don't understand... but I'd like to, if you'd enlighten me.
Spencer, disposing of nuclear waste is a solved problem from an engineering standpoint, and has been for decades. No, disposing of nuclear waste is a _political_ problem. There are other problems as well, but they are decidedly (for the most part) _not_ technical problems.
As for whatever McCain says, well, I think even the dullest of us has figured out by now to take whatever he says with a grain of salt. In fact:
Really, would it be too hard to do a little fact checking before writing a post? All I did was google on 'obama nuclear power' and click on the first link that wasn't a video.
Nuclear should definitely be on the table, but the people getting so excited need to revisit the economics.
I live about 20 miles from a nuke plan and I was a supporter during its construction. Years later it's humming along fine with a perfect safety record. You'd think I'd be ecstatic, but I'm not. The construction and operational costs grew out of control and the power produced from the plant is barely competitive even today. Our per kwh cost is currently over $.17 which is one of the highest in the nation.
If energy deregulation gets another chance, which I hope it does (Enron side-show not withstanding), nuclear could help out, but as long as we're stuck with cost-plus, I'm not a big fan.
Nuclear waste? No problem. Reprocess it and burn it in fast reactors. The end product then needs only to be stored for less than a century before it's less radioactive than the uranium ore taken out of the ground in the first place.
So why aren't we doing that already?
1) Jimmy Carter killed waste reprocessing.
2) Bill Clinton's Energy Department, under pressure from John Kerry, killed fast reactor research.
3) The anti-nuclear lobby has prevented the construction of any new plants, so yellowcake is cheap and thus demand for reprocessed actinides low.
4) The socialization of waste disposal means the waste isn't costing anyone but the government anything, so there's no incentive for private efforts to pick up the slack for the above government failures.
I agree with the comment about doing factchecking.
During a meeting with U.S. governors, Obama noted that nuclear power does not emit greenhouse gases.
The cooling towers of nuclear plants put a heck of a lot of water vapor into the atmosphere and water vapor is a more significant greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. I feel a lot better about Barry's anti-global warming plans now that I know that he is completely uninformed about the basics of the issue.
Re: The cooling towers of nuclear plants put a heck of a lot of water vapor into the atmosphere and water vapor is a more significant greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.
Water vapor does not (and in fact cannot) stay in the atmosphere indefinitely and generally rains out of the atmosphere within days. And given that 70% of the Earth's surface is water any amount humans can add is utterly trivial compared to water naturally evaporates off the surface of the oceans.
And where is the evidence the nuclear power (as opposed to nuclear wepaons) freaks out the voters en masse? Sure there are some voters freaked out by it-- there are some voters freaked out by interacial dating, and quite a lot of voters freaked out by same sex marriage. So what? Can we base public policy on what some scares some minority of Americans? That would be a recipe for paralysis.
Er, no Jay, that's simply not true. At least not in the sense of what constitutes a greenhouse gas. The key is equilibrium. It is very hard to force concentrations of H2O in the atmosphere away from equilibrium because the mechanism which restores it is so powerful: the hydrological cycle. This is _not_ true of gases like CO2 or CH4. If all human activity ceased immediately, the excesses would be mopped up gradually and there would be an eventual return to equilibrium. But it would take years, not days. By your definition of 'greenhouse gas', is think that even nitrogen is one, btw.
Secondly, though power plants would emit large amounts of steam, in proportion to the water taken up by evaporation over the seas and lakes, the contribution is literally noise. Hundreds of years of industrialization have not sufficed to measurably increase the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere above what it would be from normal evaporation and condensation processes. This is not true of what are generally referred to as greenhouse gases(though natural emissions of CO2 are still many times that of what comes from natural sources.) In those cases, industrial contributions can clearly be measured.
In conclusion, no, Obama was exactly right.
France, of all countries, is the model for nuclear power. Because they are allowed to reprocess (as others have pointed out, is illegal in the States), the waste from a family a four throughout their entire lifetime is a glass cylinder the size of a lighter.
As for financing, new laws have made it easier and cheaper to get plants up and running. Rather than having to approve every single site for construction, the NRC now approves designs as a whole. Once these are approved, they can be built nearly anywhere.
Jim R: I'm open to the possibility that nuclear may not pay its way (I never liked the Price-Anderson indemnification myself). But no energy source should be off the table a priori, and I cling to the fond hope that we could move from the current zoo of tax breaks and subsidies and find out how it does on a more level playing field.
(Jay: perhaps you should avoid phrases such as "completely uninformed about the basics" while they fit you so becomingly.)
ScentOfViolets - During a meeting with U.S. governors, Obama noted that nuclear power does not emit greenhouse gases and therefore the United States should consider investing research dollars into whether nuclear waste can be stored safely for its reuse.
I wonder about this phrasing. I mean, if a candidate said "evolution is able to make some predictive assumptions and so we should consider investing research dollars into whether evolution-based theories should be taught as part of the public school curriculum" would you say that the politician was a creationist or not?
Granted, McCain asserted that Obama has taken a clear stand when Obama has left himself quite a bit of wiggle room. But we don't need money invested in research to tell us whether 2+2=4.
And why do you think Obama left himself that wiggle room, and who do you think he would be wiggling away from? He seems to have disappointed quite a few of the MoveOn set with his signing on to the FISA bill. No, Obama is not going to take a firm stance one way or another merely to gain the approval of the likes of you. Not when doing so would cost him a chunk of votes no matter what he said, and when not doing so has as it's most adverse consequence the activation the concern trolls.
I would not be a bit surprised to see him declare ten weeks into his presidency that he's now convinced that research has shown that there is a feasible solution to the problem of safely disposing nuclear waste. I would not be a bit surprised if he put projects like that on an indefinite hold during his term. I simply don't know, and don't pretend to.
Yay Nuclear! and Nuclear Engineers.
The problem with most people's view of nuclear power, especially in the United States, is that they are only familiar with an embodiment of the technology that was developed in the 1950s for nuclear submarines. This design worked okay for power generation when the first power plants opened up circa 1955, but the science of fission reactors has come a long way since then, and there are several proven designs that solve most of the "evils".
These new designs can be generally described as fast metal breeder reactors, and as Nuclear Lunatic pointed out, they solve the waste problem along with the following issues:
1. Safety. The reason Chernobyl happened was that the 1950s style reactors have to use ceramic fuel that does not expand much under heat. Fast metal reactors use metal fuel which expands orders of magnitude more. When it gets too hot, the uranium/plutonium atoms actually get too far apart for fission to continue, and therefore it is IMPOSSIBLE for fast metal reactors to melt down.
2. Reprocessing. Reprocessing ceramic fuels require the massive reprocessing plants that France, Britain, and Japan use. There aren't a lot of them so you have to transport the fuel to them and they use expensive and dangerous processes. Metal fuel can be reprocessed on site with a comparatively simple and cheap electromagnetic process.
3. Fuel costs. Current nuclear reactors require enriched fuel in the form of uranium dioxide. This adds to fuel cost. Fast metal reactors only need a portion of highly enriched fuel when they are first started up. The rest of the fuel is normal uranium metal. Considering the US military makes lots of bullets out of uranium metal, its clearly economical to produce. Once the breeder cycle is started, the breeder reactor will transform the uranium metal into plutonium through nuclear decay. This plutonium can be reclaimed with reprocessing and uses as the "enriched" fissionable material in the next fuel cycle.
Used in this manner we could generate all the electricy for the US for the next couple hundred years just on the Nuclear waste we have stored up so far. Our Uranium ore reserves would last thousands of years. But we'll probably just burn through it in old reactors, bury it at a massive cost, and blow the whole load in just over 50-80 years. Ah well, who knows, climate change could be fun.
And why do you think Obama left himself that wiggle room, and who do you think he would be wiggling away from?
Anti-nuclear hysteria exists, certainly, but I don't know anyone who's given a rational explanation for it so I don't respect those who pander to it. Gasoline has done far far more damage to human health in this country than nuclear power.
I would not be a bit surprised to see him declare ten weeks into his presidency that he's now convinced that research has shown that there is a feasible solution to the problem of safely disposing nuclear waste. I would not be a bit surprised if he put projects like that on an indefinite hold during his term. I simply don't know, and don't pretend to.
Thanks for being honest, but if we agree this is the case then it's totally appropriate that McCain called Obama for talking out of both sides of his mouth. If McCain is willing to take the hit in order to tell the truth and Obama can't make a firm statement, that's a testimony in McCain's favor, no?
No, Obama is not going to take a firm stance one way or another merely to gain the approval of the likes of you.
Nuclear power is a voting issue for me, since I see it as a good litmus test of a politician's honesty and competence on technical issues. I hope it hurts Obama far more than it is likely to, not because I have anything against Obama but because the kind of tactic he's using here shouldn't be rewarded.
He seems to have disappointed quite a few of the MoveOn set with his signing on to the FISA bill.
So a politician actually had to take a firm political stance and some people disagreed with that. I'm supposed to sympathize? I hate to restate the obvious, but he's going to have to actually make firm decisions once in office. If they're disagreeable, I want to know beforehand. If he can't make good decisions, I want to know beforehand.
The dude also said straight-out he would kill ethanol subsidies. How's that going to play in Iowa?
Now, if he hadn't said (and done) the same goddamn thing about the First Amendment...
Considering the US military makes lots of bullets out of uranium metal, its clearly economical to produce.
Ummm... careful there. Depleted uranium for armor-piercing rounds is available as a by-product of a big, hugely expensive infrastructure for extracting the fissionable isotope. That's different from being economical per se; if no one had wanted the U235, it's unlikely anyone would find it worthwhile to substitute the U238 for lead or other dense metals.
I get terribly, terribly bored with restating the obvious, but no one is going to be able to make those firm decisions unless they are elected. And unfortunately, there are single-issue voters that are being counted on deliver. For both sides. (I'll note that in a recent thread, a little digging showed that the lead mean Greenie himself, Al Gore, had an alternative energy plan that called for a large fraction of nuclear energy. He doesn't trumpet this, not because he's a panderer, but because he's a committed individual and he needs the support of certain parties.)
Well, there you go. As I understand it, the people for whom the subsidies are popular aren't going to vote for Obama anyway, in all likelihood. He can afford to take a 'prinicpled' stance. FISA? The calculation is that it costs him more votes to repudiate it than to cave.
None of this is particularly hard to fathom, btw. Yes, I'll ritually note that the way we elect our high officials leaves a lot to be desired. But calls for purity on the part of candidate or another at this point carries more than a whiff of concern trolling.
ScentOfViolets - I get terribly, terribly bored with restating the obvious, but no one is going to be able to make those firm decisions unless they are elected.
Then stop restating the obvious and address the point. Nothing you've said addresses the fact that McCain is willing to take a stand and Obama is not. The only sense I can make of your statement is that you feel some inexplicable empathy for Obama (or have made up your mind based on different criteria) and so you're willing to rationalize his other actions whatever they may be. I'm not sure that such loyalty is a good starting point for political decisions. It's not like we run the risk of noone being elected.
He later admitted, however, to the Associated Press that his plan relies on nuclear power for the 20% of US electricity it currently produces.
www.world-nuclear-news.org/EE_Nuclear_remains_a_foundation_in_Gores_plans_1807081.html\
I've done a little digging on Gore, too, and read prior threads. Gore certainly doesn't advocate tearing down existing nuclear plants, but then, who does? He does bring up a lot of bogus reasons not to build new plants. At the most generous, we can say that he damns with faint praise. Since Gore isn't an elected official any more, since his sole value is derived from his advocating the best technologies and opposing the worst, since nuclear power is the form of power that is most hampered by regulation and would most benefit from political support and since Gore utterly fails to work for that support, he lacks even the thin justification of needing to win an election that you grant to Obama. Gore does more harm than good by any sane standard. There isn't any movement that depends on him. There are quite a few Republicans as well as Democrats, conservatives as well as liberals, who would like to be free of foreign oil.
I always marvel at people who can state that Republicans favor "big oil" when Republicans have been the strongest supporters of fossil fuel replacements like nuclear. (which electric vehicles could run on)
He can afford to take a 'prinicpled' stance.
There are a lot of Republican farmers. McCain opposes ethanol subsidies (which he should.) Obama seems to support them. McCain will certainly take a hit for his views.
I'm truly undecided, and was quite happy when Obama beat Hillary. I liked Obama. But if you keep arguing that Republicans can take sane stances on technology while Democrats are forced, poor souls, to pander to special interests and hysterics, and be ambiguous lest they upset their constituency... well, that's pretty damning testimony for one political base.
I don't agree with this view, of course. I think McCain takes a hit for his stances just like Obama and deserves credit for it. But hey, it's your argument.
But calls for purity on the part of candidate or another at this point carries more than a whiff of concern trolling.
Please forgive me for comparing one candidate's stance with another's lack of a stance and expressing a preference. God knows such things have no place in a reasoned debate.
Okay, Bucko, that's it. Now, you either moderate you tone immediately, and promise not to do this again, or I consign you to the trash heap. Yeah, yeah, I know the drill, you're probably not going to do either of those things, and then I'll stop wasting energy on you, and you'll say that I'm 'running away', etc. Whatever, dude.
But I'm through with the escalating abuse thing - especially from people like you who either can't keep their facts straight, or just plain don't care whether they're straight or not in the first place.
Your call.
SOV - But I'm through with the escalating abuse thing - especially from people like you who either can't keep their facts straight, or just plain don't care whether they're straight or not in the first place.
If you have some sort of information which disproves anything I've said, please post. If not, then we're both probably better off if you don't reply.
As for tone, you've called me "Bucko" and insinuated that I was some kind of "concern troll" (huh?!) for pointing out that Obama wanted to have things both ways and my saying that it was legitimate to criticize him for that (as it would be for any politician.) I can understand why ambiguity might be good for Obama, sure, but not why it's good for those who vote based on his stance on the issues. If it was his intention to get people to vote against their perceived interests, and McCain does not on that particular issue, why isn't that a bad thing?
And then you insinuated, without a shred of support given, that I was a liar.
In contrast, I said that you weren't addressing the point. And you demonstrably weren't.
I'm all for courtesy. If you can set a superior example, you're more than welcome to ask me to rise to that example. If not, please follow your own advice and don't reply to my posts. Thanks.
Sigh. You just admitted that Obama took a firm stand with FISA. In fact, he's taken a clear stand on a lot of issues. But you either don't know or don't particularly care. Just as you apparently don't know that McCain has wobbled, flip-flopped, dissembled, and refused to take a stand on any of a number of issues.
That makes you someone who does not particularly care about the facts . . . at best.
Otoh, if Obama has to pass some sort of test wrt to just this energy policy issue, or it's all over for him, that just makes no sense. Why this issue? Why not something else? Because if McCain takes a firm stand it won't cost him any votes he wouldn't have had in the first place? Because if Obama takes a firm stand, no matter what, he's practically guaranteed to lose votes?
Which is important, because then you'll vote for him, right?
And this will be my last post on the subject, until you atone for this bit of nastiness:
I've done this repeatedly (and my statement, since you didn't get it, or are pretending not to, was a takeoff on _your_ rudeness. Don't like it? Then stop dishing it out.) But you are saying that it doesn't matter why he's not going to let himself be pinned down - He's not and that's that, no matter what I say.
So I think you're protestations are, to say the least, just a bit on the hollow side.
Frankly, I would have thought you imagined yourself operating on a bit higher plan than people like, say, Skullberg or Occam. But if not, well, I've got lots of other things to do with my time.
But you are saying that it doesn't matter why he's not going to let himself be pinned down - He's not and that's that, no matter what I say.
It doesn't matter why. He's refusing to take a side on what is arguably the most important issue the US will face in the next decade. It's annoying but ultimately not that harmful when Republicans have to waffle on evolution to appease fundamentalist nutjobs; it's far worse when Democrats can't advocate rational energy policies because of environmentalist wackos.
You just admitted that Obama took a firm stand with FISA.
I accepted your assertion since I don't follow that issue one way or another. It seemed believable. I'm not saying that Obama dosen't take a firm stand on any issue. I can understand how you might interpret my statements that way, given that it's a common criticism of Obama. But my intention here was to address the candidates stances on the issue of nuclear power only, and see what we could draw from that.
Why this issue?
1. Because it's tremendously important, in my view.
2. Because the expressed Democratic belief in catastrophic climate change should lead to a strong support for nuclear power if the person is logically consistent. The fact that nuclear power isn't a solid staple of Democratic agendas intrigues me.
3. Because it's an issue where there's a difference between the candidates, as well as (in my mind) a clear difference between a good and bad stance. This is important for me deciding who to vote for.
4. Because it's one of the few issues where all the above is true and I have enough background to parse the arguments. I'm more well versed on technical scientific topics than other issues.
5. Because I simply don't have time to parse a candidate's entire stance, so I look at one or two issues and use them as representative.
If there's some other technical issue that you think would meet these criteria, feel free to suggest them and I'll honestly consider them. I don't want creationism taught in schools, for instance, however I don't really care if it's supported by vouchers. The parochial schools I've heard of do a decent job there, and at the public school I went to (and the college!) they gave a grossly distorted view of the Urey Miller Experiment, which implies that life is far easier to create than it really is.
Obama's record on this issue is good, but still below McCain's since he hasn't clearly supported reprocessing yet. On the other hand, both candidates are going to alter their stances to get into the oval office so I'm interested what Obama plans to do going forward.
Just as you apparently don't know that McCain has wobbled, flip-flopped, dissembled, and refused to take a stand on any of a number of issues.
I'm sure McCain has many faults and I've never said otherwise. Both candidates are pretty vague, for instance, on the programs they plan to cut.
Because if McCain takes a firm stand it won't cost him any votes he wouldn't have had in the first place?
Why do you say that? I'd be interested to hear your reasoning.
Which is important, because then you'll vote for him, right?
It would tip me from about 60/40 in favor of McCain to 50-50 or so. There are other issues I vote on as well. Support for nuclear is a good stand-in for technical competence and honesty. I also agree with McCain's vow to cut ethanol subsidies. It seems a good way to free up some cash. But again, if you have any other technical issues with clear right/wrong answers that you think I should consider where Obama dominates McCain, please put them forward. I'd honestly love to hear them.
And this will be my last post on the subject, until you atone for this bit of nastiness:
Atone? Good lord! As I said, you're welcome to set a better example and ask me to follow it. You've engaged in all manner of name calling that you're more than welcome to 'atone' for if you think that's what's needed.
But something tells me that the demands you make of others don't apply to yourself. If so, duly noted. Noone is forcing you to post against your will. I'll assume you view the conversation as unproductive, and perhaps you'll be right. No honor lost.
since you didn't get it, or are pretending not to, was a takeoff on _your_ rudeness. Don't like it? Then stop dishing it out.
1. I wasn't the one demanding an apology. You're the one threatening to walk away in a huff and never respond to my posts if I don't "atone" as you put it. You're free to do what you like, SOV, you're not hurting me one way or the other. I do find your willingness to defend people like Gore as pro-nuke, even when other solid Democrats admit the guy is weak on nuclear, to be a bit odd. The anti-nuke political leaders don't ever call for an outright ban on nuclear power. Instead, we get useless regulation like Carter's ban on reprocessing, followed by complaints about nuclear waste (which not reprocessing the fuel contributes to.) Politicians know how to strangle a power plant without leaving their fingerprints on it.
2. I DO hate to restate the obvious. I don't feel I should have to explain why a candidate (any candidate) taking an ambiguous stance on an issue (this one or any other) is reasonably counted as a negative against the candidate in a voter's mind when considering that issue. But when I say in effect 'this is a negative for Obama' you seem to get indignant and defend him, and do the same with Gore. You're welcome to point out flaws in McCain (though they'd be off topic in a post on nuclear power.) If they're true I'll note them, count them against him, and move on. I haven't asserted that McCain was perfect and don't think he is. But since we're sitting around pointlessly ruffling our feathers, can you honestly tell me that your comment No, Obama is not going to take a firm stance one way or another merely to gain the approval of the likes of you is the most courteous way of phrasing things? Either way, it doesn't matter what you or I feel. It really doesn't. We're here to discuss an issue. I bring the (essentially pointless) topic up because you keep demanding an apology for the sins committed against you. You're more than welcome to go first and set an example. If you can't do that, I have no reason to follow. Neither of us will be worse off, either way.
Frankly, I would have thought you imagined yourself operating on a bit higher plan than people like, say, Skullberg or Occam.
I try to keep discussions factual when possible. My problem with insults is not that they're rude, per se. I don't take offense easily and I'm not worried about bruising my ego or other peoples', provided that emotions don't replace citations, research, and clear thinking.
But people use strong emotions to avoid carefully considering an issue. Strong emotion, when you get down to it, is like throwing the steering wheel out the window. It signifies to others that a person is willing to be irrational to defend their position. It's that irrationality that I hate, since people hide in it when they're confronted by contradictory evidence and don't want to change their views.