If you did not watch the Democrat debate a few nights ago you may not have heard about the remarks by the big 3, Hillary, Edwards, and Obama, about the Yucca Mountain Repository which is supposed to store up to 77,000 tons of nuclear waste for thousands of years.
Their response to the question posed by the moderator, “would you kill the Yucca Mountain project?”, was a resounding yes.
Obama’s answer:
I will end the notion of Yucca Mountain because it has not been based on the sort of sound science that can assure the people in Nevada that they’re going to be safe.
Not based on sound science aye? Well, you were a elected official of the State of Illinois, one that currently has the Zion nuclear facility in storage, along with thousands of tons of nuclear waste just sitting there waiting for storage. Think this could pose a health risk?
No worries about that but instead he panders to the voters and says he doesn’t believe a site built specifically to store this waste and prevent any health risks to the population is based on sound science.
Hillary is against it also and:
We do have to figure out what to do with nuclear waste.
How about doing what the French are doing? Making themselves much less dependent on oil and the countries that supply that oil by using nuclear power AND reprocessing that used nuclear fuel:
Over the past four decades, America’s reactors have produced about 56,000 tons of used fuel. Jack Spencer, research fellow for nuclear energy policy at the Thomas A. Rowe Institute for Economic Policy Studies, says this “waste” has enough energy to power every U.S. household for a dozen years.
As we’ve noted, France long ago achieved energy independence by relying on nuclear energy for most of its power needs. But it also leads the world in processing this waste to create even more energy.
The French have reprocessed spent nuclear fuel for 30 years without incident. There have been no accidental explosions, no terrorist attacks, no contribution to nuclear proliferation. Their facility in La Hague has safely processed more than 23,000 tons of spent fuel, or enough to power the entire country for 14 years.
Our country pioneered the technology to reprocess it but banned the process in the late 70’s because every time its reprocessed it increases the plutonium content. Our country was scared it could fall into the wrong hands. But France, Russia, and Japan have been reprocessing for decades with no problems which alleviates the problem of what to do with the waste.
Why not offer this up, with increased security measures to ensure the safety of the reprocessed fuel rather then banning nuclear power altogether as Edwards suggested here:
I am against building more nuclear power plants, because I do not think we have a safe way to dispose of the waste. I think they’re dangerous, they’re great terrorist targets and they’re extraordinarily expensive.
They are not, in my judgment, the way to green this — to get us off our dependence on oil.
Amazing. The only technology with the ability to replace fossil fuels known to man, that does not emit CO2, and Democrats are against it.
See author page
Another thing we can thank Carter for.
3-mile Island was caused by corruption and the investigation was mired by evidence theft including the investigators’ own equipment. It’s a crises that the Democrats can’t handle. Actually they can’t handle any alternative resource problem because they like to complain.
Wind generators kill birds, look “tacky” and are noisy so no wind generators in anybody’s back yard.
Nuclear power: could blow up like a dirty bomb when operated by corrupt people.
Hydro power from dams kill off fish such as salmon and change the enviroment that downstream environments so much, other life forms might die off.
Electric batteries (such as for electric cars) cause massive waste (batteries only last less than a decade at best and electric vehicals take like 6 batteries at a time) where they are recycled.
Geothermal generators have to be put in areas generally associated with prestine natural areas (aka near Yellowstone National Park for example), because they have to be put near volcanic activity (the same activity that makes those pretty mountains).
Biofuels still harm the environment.
Hydrogen fuel cells still require mining (liberals hate mines) for platinum, palladium and gold not to mention the hydrogen has to be stripped from other material in bulk. Either the stripping process or the material will upset them.
So far the only complaint of solar panels is that they are expensive. It’s so far the most expensive way of collecting energy. Scientists have shaped carbon which can absorb over 99.9% of sunlight complared to flat black paint which absorbs 5%-10%. This could reduce the number of solar panels needed, but the process might make the panels even more expensive. They will compain that because it’s expensive, it will hurt the poor.
Where do Democrats think uranium comes from? It’s mined, meaning it comes out of the earth. So if one mines the uranium, uses it and puts it back, it’s now toxic waste?
Not only do we have Zion, we have Byron in the State of Illinois.
Greg,
You are making too much sense. Please go and watch 5 hours of Paris Hilton so you can forget all these questions….
But seriously, you are absolutely correct. Every time we come up with something better, all we get are complaints and lawsuits. I heard, though cannot verify, that there are massive wind farms in California which are shut down due to environmentalists suing.
Every fix is shunned and we are back to square one each time. Years go by, prices go up, and we are still back to square one because someone does not understand nuclear power, wind power, why biofuels do little to stop the hyped CO2 boogyman, etc and so on.
Re: “Another thing we can thank Carter for.”
Can you show me the link to the Executive Order that President Carter signed that outlawed nuclear generators? I must have missed it.
Re: Windmills and bird kills.
This is the item you were (I believe) referencing.
It is also true that the shutdown only happens during the winter (migratory season) when the wind is lowest and the power to be benerated would be the least (and the power consumption, without air conditioners, would be lowest.
I’m still not sure that I am that sympathetic to the shutdown. But remember, birds are one of the largest consumers of insects as they travel, so killing them by the thousands is not “free” either as the insect populations would begin to explode.
Nothing in nature is “free” whether the solution is proposed (or opposed) by a Liberal or Conservative.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/09/23/WINDMILLS.TMP&type=printable
Re: “Where do Democrats think uranium comes from?”
And where do Conservatives believe most of the world’s oil comes from? Does anyone here think that we woule be in Iraq were it not for oil?
Does anyone think that Chavez of Venezuela would not be able to tweek the nose of Geroge W. Bush (or that the Bush Administration would not have tried to engieer a coup to oust him in 2002) were it not for Venezuelan oil?
Would Putin not be rebuilding the Russian military were it not for billions of oil $’s flowing into his treasury?
See my post above.
I do agree that fossil fuel alternatives are blocked by my (wrong-headed) Liberal allies.
But then, proposals that would have forced fuel efficiency on our American automobile industry were blocked by an (idiotic IMO) coalition of oil state Conservatives and Michigan Liberals.
The most efficient unit of energy that you could ever “generate” is the one you never use because of conservation or efficiency.
And that means government action, either through energy taxes, laws regulating energy usage or handouts to companies and individuals to conserve or switch to “better” sources.
Or all of the above.
Make no mistake, our actions will be controlled externally, whether by our own government to coerce us to “better” behavior or by our reacion to the Saudi’s as they route more of our money to al Qaeda recruiting schools. (extreme and singular example, but I assume you get my point).
And we’re all going to be unhappy to some extent. But I’d rather be unhappy in the direction that reduces energy consumption than in the direction that keeps trying to find “new” sources (as a rule).
Yup. Pretty much all of us who have common sense. Bring your liberal talking points to KOS or DummiesU where it will be welcomed with open arms instead of here seeing as most of here actually have some intelligence.
Iraq was for oil…..rofl.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/04/AR2006110401025.html
As he barnstorms across the country campaigning for Republican candidates in Tuesday’s elections, Bush has been citing oil as a reason to stay in Iraq. If the United States pulled its troops out prematurely and surrendered the country to insurgents, he warns audiences, it would effectively hand over Iraq’s considerable petroleum reserves to terrorists who would use it as a weapon against other countries.
“You can imagine a world in which these extremists and radicals got control of energy resources,” he said at a rally here Saturday for Rep. Marilyn Musgrave (R-Colo.). “And then you can imagine them saying, ‘We’re going to pull a bunch of oil off the market to run your price of oil up unless you do the following. And the following would be along the lines of, well, ‘Retreat and let us continue to expand our dark vision.’ ”
Bush said extremists controlling Iraq “would use energy as economic blackmail” and try to pressure the United States to abandon its alliance with Israel. At a stop in Missouri on Friday, he suggested that such radicals would be “able to pull millions of barrels of oil off the market, driving the price up to $300 or $400 a barrel.”
(President George W. Bush. November 2006)