Savings Experiment: Snow Removal
The Money Man Behind Rick Santorum: Who Is Foster S. Friess?
From the this-is-long-overdue department, legislation introduced in the U.S. Senate would allocate as much as $20 billion in federal funds over 10 years to develop energy technology and double the nation's nuclear power output, Bloomberg News reported.Legislation co-sponsored by U.S. Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tennessee, and U.S. Senator Jim Webb, D-Virginia, would offer $100 billion in loan guarantees for nuclear plants, which would amount to a $10 billion federal government liability. The bill would also fund research in solar energy, carbon capture, and other energy technologies.
Senator Alexander is also backing a blueprint to build a 100 nuclear plants in 20 years.
Energy Analysis: One of the biggest policy mistakes by the United States in the last quarter of the 20th century was the nation's near abandonment of nuclear technology for power generation. Simply, the United States must, through the tax code and through guarantees, encourage the building of more nuclear power plants, to reduce the use of dirty, climate-change-inducing coal, and the use of other fossil fuels. If the nation commits itself, it can increase nuclear power as a percentage of electric power production from the current 20% to more than 40% in 20 years – and in the process create hundreds of thousands of new jobs.
Further, the nuclear waste can be processed and/or stored: France, which generates most of its electricity from nuclear plants, has successfully processed nuclear waste for more than 30 years.
More broadly, more-efficient power generating, transmission, and distribution techniques, including technologies used in the smart grid, can serve as a value-added export for the U.S., further reducing the U.S. trade deficit.
Goldman Earnings Sink After Buffett Dividend
Johnson & Johnson's Income Falls 23%
Burberry Shares Leap on Sales Update
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
11-17-2009 @ 6:56PM
al coholic said...
It's hard to believe that Americans couldn't think for themselves and for years bought into the propoganda peddled by a bunch of Hollywood fruitcakes who don't know their a** from a hole in the ground much less anything about nuclear power.
11-17-2009 @ 8:25PM
Bill said...
Anyone prefer to live near or next to a nuclear reactor? Why not? The government tells you that they are safe. Anyone perfer to live under or near electrical, high tension wires? Why not? The government tells you that they are safe. Anyone buy prescriptions from mail order drug stores in Canada? Why not? They were shipped to Canada from the USA; then sent back to us at half the price you buy them in our country. OK, the government says that they are dangerous and untested. Anyone believe that there is a shortage of oil or gas? Or that the Arabs are responsible for the price of energy? Why? Our storage capacity is full, ships ladded with oil are rented to be anchored off shore, oil refineeries are operating at 85% of capacity, energy consumption is flat and oil, gas and electric prices are going up every week. Anyone know the half-life of nuclear waste? Do you know of any container that will last that long? What do you think happens when nuclear waste leaks into the water supply?
11-17-2009 @ 9:30PM
richard smith said...
Hmm.....one wonders how the writer of the article came to the conclusion that one the of worst policy mistakes the US has made was a virtual abandonment of nuclear power, while seeming supportive of the fact that there may be Congressional approval of the building of 100 nuclear reactors backed by government loan guarantees.
We wonder how taking a step backward in technology time to burden this land with irredeemable waste product from more nuclear power plants, while at the same time we cannot deal with the noxious product already existing from yesterday's plants now closed.
Instead of attempting to revive obsolete and past technology, the major benefit going to those companies who specialize in designing and construction of nuclear power plants, the US should look toward new technology such as the installation of a solar array in orbit above the US transferring energy by micro wave transmission to receptors on the ground, a one mile by one mile array supplying enough energy to meet the current needs of the US. A working prototype of the array exists: estimated cost and time of installation - 10 yrs and $1T.
Development of such technology with reinvestment and reconstitution of the US power grid would create massive returns in the development of technology that could be sold world wide and also create literally millions of US jobs, not thousands in a return of 100 nuclear power plants.
The added benefit is that the power from the array will not produce millions of tons of radioactive material which we no idea how to successfully abate, with the power itself being literally free.
Seems rather odd that we don't move forward with such a plan post haste.
11-18-2009 @ 5:14AM
al coholic said...
I wouldn't characterize nuclear power as obsolete and past. New reactors minimize waste and operate with proven technology as we speak. The same can not be said for any pie in the sky dream of orbiting solar collectors that would require multiple technological breakthrouths and years of experimenting. I remember thirty years ago hearing that fusion was just around the corner. How's that working?
I'm a big believer in moving forward with solar, fusion, wind, geothermal, or any other possible solutions. But for the next thirty years our best chance of success rests in a nuclear solution.