Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Nuclear renaissance?
Posted by: McQ on Friday, September 28, 2007

I'll be interested to see how long this takes to become reality - if it ever does become reality:
If you're tracking the nuclear power revival in America, last Tuesday, September 25, was a milestone. For the first time since 1973, a new application for building a reactor was placed before the federal government.

[...]

The proposal submitted Tuesday is to build two new reactors with a total capacity of 2,700 megawatts at the South Texas Project site in Matagorda County, where two nuclear units have already operated for 25 years. The size of the reactors is unprecedented — the biggest American plants generally produce about 1,200 MW.
34 years. While we've been fretting about energy for the future, a part of the answer has been ignored for 34 years. And now, finally, we see our first submissions for new nuclear power plants since Three Mile Island.

Amazingly, one of the most efficient and pollution free means of generating much needed energy has been virtually ignored over the intervening decades:
In 1997 the Clinton Administration's Department of Energy zeroed out nuclear research for the first time since World War II. The Federal Energy Information Administration confidently predicted that existing plants would phase out over the next three decades.
But the recognized and inarguable increase in world demand for oil since that time has had many rethink their rejection of nuclear power. In terms of both capacity and safety, nuclear power plants are a top choice, or should be:
Whereas power plants traditionally ran at a "capacity factor" of 60 percent — meaning they are up and running 60 percent of the time — the nation's 104 reactors now run at a previously unimaginable capacity of 90 percent. (In South Korea, where nuclear provides half the electricity, the figure is 95 percent.) The average nuclear plant now runs uninterrupted for nearly two years before shutting down for refueling. Safety improvements have been spectacular. While there were 26 shutdowns of more than a year for safety reasons from 1987 to 1997 and 21 in the decade before, there has only been one over the past decade.
It is good to see this first proposal and hopefully it will be the first of many. But you can bet it won't be an easy ride and that the usual suspects will unquestionably mount an attempt to block the construction:
And so the question becomes, will the anti-nuclear forces — Greenpeace, Ralph Nader's Public Citizen, the Sierra Club, Natural Resources Defense Council and so forth — be able to mount one last-ditch campaign against the nuclear revival?
They'll also be among the first to criticize this nation as the leading polluter in the world and call for the US to use alternative and renewable fuels and break it's oil habit. The irony of their position, of course, will be lost on them.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
They’ll also be among the first to criticize this nation as the leading polluter in the world and call for the US to use alternative and renewable fuels and break it’s oil habit. The irony of their position, of course, will be lost on them.
Just as the irony of your own position — that increased government regulation leading to decreased oil dependency is abhorrent yet our dependence on oil makes us increasingly unsafe and vulnerable, thereby undermining the GWOT™ — is evidently lost on you.
 
Written By: David Shaughnessy
URL: http://
What? Who the hell is calling for more government regulation? It was government regulation that got us into this energy crisis in the first place! "You can’t dig for oil here, here, here, here or there’; ’no nuclear power’; ’no new refineries’.

when will you libs realized communism doesn’t work?
 
Written By: Joel C.
URL: http://
when will you libs realized communism doesn’t work?
When a certain location freezes over. Logic doesn’t come into a religious argument and their "belief" in that stuff is religious, not logical.
 
Written By: capt joe
URL: http://
David Shaughnessy is so much like mkultra that I figure that mkultra is posting under a new nomme de guerre.
 
Written By: capt joe
URL: http://
You know, if Mr. Bush just told these green folks that even France generates about 80% of its electricity via nuclear power, it might smooth things over some. Now that would be a funny sight to see - Bush outflanking the greens from the left!
 
Written By: James O
URL: http://
I want to see some plants that use the cool new technology like pebble bed reactors and such.
 
Written By: ChrisB
URL: http://
Ah, yes. David is so clever. Since oil dependency is a concern, more government must be the solution. Why can’t you idiots see that the further breakdown of capitalism and the advancement economically catastrophic extreme environmental policies are the only solutions? Oh, and terrorists aren’t a problem. /naive

Some people really are lost.
 
Written By: NeoconNews.com
URL: http://www.neoconnews.com

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider