Thoughts on the Energy Bill
Published: 1 year ago (Jul 3, 2009) in PoliticsTags: energy · Print This Post · Leave a Comment
If you briefly skim through sections the “American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009“, you’ll find that the primary focus of the bill is to cut greenhouse gas emissions. Whether or not these emissions contribute to global warming is up for debate; however, you can’t argue that they’re doing harm.
This bill outlines has provisions dating till 2050, so if we want to make sure we stay ahead of the technology curve, nuclear power is a must. To date, France probably has one of the most advanced, cleanest, and future-proof energy grids in the world. Just take a look at the map of their nuclear plants. These power sources are scattered nicely across the country and provide power not only for France but surrounding countries.
I just wish the United States could make a genuine effort to implement nuclear power. 
Similar Posts:
Share This Post:
Published: 1 year ago
You might want to give the newsflash of those emissions doing harm to many of the GOP politicians who don’t believe it, no matter what scientific peer reviewed studies come out. Of course these are the same anti-science, education is “elitist” crowd, that thinks the Earth is only 5,000 years old, global warming is the End of Days as alluded to in the Bible, and John Boehner who thinks those emissions are due to cow farts (which aren’t actually CO2 emissions, but methane): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bVpse3VFNMs
I’m still waiting for rightwingers to tell us where in the United States we plan on storing and disposing of all that radioactive waste. You didn’t actually think nuclear power, was a simple panacea did you? You see, liberals tend to want to see the entire picture (BEFORE we do something irreversible like contaminating our air and water), not just the ones that appeal to us in our gut or to make an easy buck. If Republicans had it their way, we’d dump it in landfills without regards to safety (after all meeting safety standards is bad for business, right?)
It’s like the GOP who thinks offshore drilling is the key to our energy problems when the United States consumes 25% of the world’s oil. So what do you think will happen if we continue to drill domestically as our main source? Eventually, we would in fact run out of oil to the very last drop (due to our very high rates of consumption), and then we’d be REALLY at the mercy of the Middle East and OPEC. Just another example of those on the right not really thinking through solutions fully.
What I don’t understand is why right wingers are so against energy such as solar, wind, biofuels, etc. to where even people like Ann Coulter equate solar energy with abortion clinics (2:35): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=erMa0F_DCJE
Published: 1 year ago
This is totally independent of any political administration, but with the new bill’s passing in the House, I just fear the direction America is steering towards for the ultimate goal of energy independence.
It’s true that the spent fuel rods will accumulate over time, and properly handling them will become a growing (and more expensive) concern if we delve into nuclear power; however, fission plants aren’t what I’m interested in. In the future when fusion becomes a contained reaction, countries operating fission plants will automatically pursue it. Though it still produces radioactive waste, it’s “safer” (smaller half-life) than that produced by fission. It produces far more energy and has significantly cheaper reactants.
At this point, all alternative energy forms have their disadvantages, but from an environmental standpoint (which is apparently what the bill is trying to focus on), nuclear is the way to go. We already know how to safely dispose of fuel rods, and until we can streamline the efficiency of solar/wind/etc., fission will suffice.
Going off of the notion that the planet is 5,000 years old, I love the conservatives who are firm believers in their SUV-filling-gasoline coming from prehistoric remnants which were already in the ground to begin with.
Published: 1 year ago
When did it happen, Rishi, that America turned its back on nuclear energy? The ever growing demand for electricity could only be filled with a civilian nuclear power program. Nuclear power is the cleanest form of energy around, so why is it all back of the bus? The answer is misinformation of the American people, which leads to irrational fear. The Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) once did a study for JFK, and found it to be the best viable option, an energy source that could be priced competitively and would take the least toll on the environment. Since Otto Hahn’s and Lise Meitner’s discovery of fission in 1938-39, scientists have dreamed of harnessing this power. We are in 2009, and that dream has not come to fulfillment, not by a long shot.
Nuclear power reached a wall with the 1979 Three Mile Island incident in Pennsylvania, when a “partial core meltdown” occurred and released iodine-131 and other radioactive noble gases. One misstep and most American people wanted nothing to do with nuclear power. I believe it is sad that just one incident, in which there was no loss of human life, crippled the propagation of electricity-producing nuclear reactors so significantly. Look at Japan where nuclear power supplies over 34% of its total electricity, and at France, where the Électricité de France produces over 78% of the country’s total electricity and has enough left over to export some to its neighboring countries. Over there, nuclear energy is accepted and approved of, their plants work like a charm. Here? Environmentalists are hindering its growth, affecting us all. Do you really think the Japanese and the French have better reactors than us? No way! Their designs are based on American models. You hear of people dying in car accidents, in airplane accidents, is it often that you hear they die in nuclear power plants around the world? I have yet to hear it happen. Environmentalists would argue the Chernobyl incident… utterly ridiculous. American reactor designs have nothing in common with the Chernobyl design; the latter did not even have containment structure.
If you guys have time to read stuff other than Google, I highly recommend Glenn T. Seaborg’s “Adventures in the Atomic Age: From Watts to Washington”. The principal discoverer of Plutonium and nine other transuranium elements has a lot to say about nuclear power (and even about storing nuclear waste)!
“I’m confident nuclear power will make a comeback when we finally realize its value… Perhaps the increasing air pollution will make people reconsider nuclear power, perhaps global warming, perhaps energy shortages. Perhaps inspired leadership will provide a turning point- I have often counseled candidates that the antinuclear view is a minority one.” (Glenn T. Seaborg, 1951 Chemistry Nobel Prize Winner… manigga)
And LOL, my best friend, a born-again Christian, thinks the world is only 5,000 years old! That the dinosaurs were wiped out by the great flood. I tried telling him about carbon dating and such, and he says I’m wrong. =/