Comments on: Even leading experts disagree about needs to electrify automobiles

By: Bryan Laviolette

Bryan Laviolette — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 19:37:57 +0000

It’s a good point. The stuff has to get to the nuclear facilities in the first place.

By: Steve Morton

Steve Morton — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 12:24:22 +0000

I’m confident that if we can transport nuclear weapons that have explosives built into them, then we could move the waste safely. I’m guessing the Frogs store that stuff under that glass pyramid.

By: Bryan Laviolette

Bryan Laviolette — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 14:10:41 +0000

Fear rules everyone’s thoughts on this and plenty of other issues. Besides the actual disposal of the waste, there would also be the problem of transporting it. The risk of an accident on the way to Yucca Mountain is great. Any idea where France stores its nuclear junk in that postage stamp of a country?

By: Steve Morton

Steve Morton — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 13:20:44 +0000

Don’t worry, we’ll likely never build another plant in this country. I wouldn’t mind living in Nevada with the waste, or even working at Yucca Mountain. It’s easy to secure the very small amount. It’s too late for the issue to gain political popularity no matter what the science is. The founder of Greenpeace is pro Nuke and it’s part of the reason they kicked him out of Greenpeace. We’ll see a windmill within sight of the Kennedy compound before we take advantage of nuke power’s potential. Just let me get a WRX STI and try to save some gas by trading in my V6!

By: Bryan Laviolette

Bryan Laviolette — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 16:54:24 +0000

Of course it’s a political issue, but isn’t everything in this country? France’s government has strong federal control, where we have strong state control. The problem is that one state has to host the site and of course, Nevada is the perfect choice. But if you lived there, would you want the rest of the country’s million-year (or whatever it is) radioactive junk?
The bottom line is we have to solve that problem before I would advocate building another nuke plant.

By: Steve Morton

Steve Morton — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 10:51:04 +0000

The disposal issue is just another legal problem. All of France’s waste from nearly 50 years can be stored in a building the size of a high school gymnasium. They’ve had Yucca Mountain ready for years. You could fight WWII on top of it and not harm the waste buried deep inside. And 90% of the old waste can be reused now. We’ve had nuke powered Navy vessels for decades. The government building the plants is to act as a shield from the endless ridiculous lawsuits.
My neighbor told me about a sweet zero resistance generator built into a windmill he worked on. Great potential!

By: Bryan Laviolette

Bryan Laviolette — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 12:26:32 +0000

I’m all for nuclear power, but I think we need to solve the disposal issue. A lot of nuclear plants (all of Michigan’s) are located along the shores of the Great Lakes and their waste is currently stored on site. The potential contamination of the Great Lakes is a huge concern. They have to solve that problem.
To your point about the government building the nuke plants, what if there were a federal insurance program to back them? But if the government building them were the answer, I’m fine with that, too.
But I think the current focus is really on renewables including wind and solar. Wind has huge potential, but it’s expensive. I’d also like to look at some of the new generators which use sea currents to drive generators.

By: Steve Morton

Steve Morton — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 12:14:29 +0000

Because electric cars are so expensive, I think we have time to find the juice. I love Tom Friedman’s plan of having the government build nuclear plants (because lawsuits make it nearly impossible to build them now) and then sell them to electric companies. Plenty of clean juice to electrify the highways. If FRANCE gets 80% of it’s power from nuclear starting from nearly 50 years ago, why can’t we? Power to the people!

By: Steve Morton

Steve Morton — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 11:47:03 +0000

I’m down. I want to import zero Mid East oil ASAP. It will have great benefits. But if the oil fields are not held secure for the rest of the world, an economic collapse will happen. The world’s economy runs on oil more than any other natural resource (except maybe water, but that’s easier to obtain). I would love if Western Europe would secure them, or if the Mid East powers had the competence to do it without us. And I don’t trust Russia or China to takeover the job. Huge new finds like the one off of Brazil offer hope. And if we hold it together for about 15 years, we’ll have enough solar for all our energy needs. Then Nascar can race electric cars at night!

By: Bryan Laviolette

Bryan Laviolette — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 16:44:50 +0000

But the vast majority of oil used in this country is turned into gasoline and diesel for transportation. Reduce the amount of oil that we import and it takes the pressure off. Once we take the pressure off, the oil power brokers won’t have the power anymore. They will need us as much as we need them. Right now, we need them.
It’s also possible that we could supply our oil needs from domestic — or at least less hostile places — if we weren’t counting on oil refined into gasoline to power our transportation system.