http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=34233

If we developed every known resource we have enough oil (at roughly $40 to $50 a bbl) to last 50 to 100 years. What is stopping us? Greens.

We have 50 to 100 years of proven reserves of natural gas. So much that exploration has declined a lot in the last couple of years.

We should be developing that and our own oil to ease the transition instead of sending the money to the Middle East (a small fraction of our use - but still)

We need to replace older plants pronto.

The alternative energy bubble burst in Germany when Germany figured out it couldn’t afford it.

The bubble will burst in America if we decide we can’t afford the subsidies.

Now none of the deployment of wind and solar will do anything about our real problem: liquid fuels.

Now I do applaud research to lower costs until AE can compete without subsidies. But that is not happening.

I do like the fact that the US Navy is working on Polywell Fusion.

Bussard’s IEC Fusion Technology (Polywell Fusion) Explained

“I agree that you can put some blame on anti nuclear activists but some blame also has to be on the side of the nuclear industry. For example, you don’t trust the government but you expect folks to believe the assurances of an industry? Based on past performance?”
The civilian nuclear power industry in USA has been highly regulated and for the most part has a tremendous track record of safety.

” Would you trust the government more if they were more open?”
Yes.

“In your case probably not but the same goes for the industry. Even if they were much safer now (which they are) some will still remember Three Mile Island etc. ”
In TMI, there was a tremendous scare 30 years ago, but at the end of the day, nobody died. As the saying goes, more people died in the back of Ted Kennedy’s car. Compared with the deaths of coal miners, the deaths in transportation or construction, civilians western nuclear power is very safe as an industry. (Chernobyl is non-comparable: USSR technology based on unstable graphite reactors that had no containment vessels due to being built in 1950s by a communist govt careless about human lives.)

In fact, the containment vessel at TMI worked, the release of radiation was miniscule, and the various safety margins were proved out. Since then, much has been improved because of the hundreds of reactor-years of operations improving training, operations, efficiency, etc. We have had no incidents at the level of TMI since then.

“Mistrust of authority is very American attitude and that goes both ways left, right, Buchanan, Nader, Paul etc”
A truism that doesnt tell us why we should distrust those who inform us of the safety of nuclear power but trust those who push expensive boondoggles with promises of ‘you really need this because global warming is a crisis’ when it manifestly is not. It’s time to stop being sheep over Govt claims and UN IPCC politicized BS climate reports. Dont trust any UN bureaucrat over 30.

I dont trust the Governmentv or industry to tell me nuclear power is safe. I look at the track record and make my conclusions: 100+ reactors in operation and no serious incidents since Three Mile Island 30 years ago. Zero deaths due to nuclear power accidents throughout its entire history. If the airline industry was that safe, there would be less than one airline crash every 30 years.

I agree that you can put some blame on anti nuclear activists but some blame also has to be on the side of the nuclear industry. For example, you don’t trust the government but you expect folks to believe the assurances of an industry? Based on past performance? Would you trust the government more if they were more open? In your case probably not but the same goes for the industry. Even if they were much safer now (which they are) some will still remember Three Mile Island etc. Mistrust of authority is very American attitude and that goes both ways left, right, Buchanan, Nader, Paul etc

Indeed. This is a classic case of selfish pandering trumping the public interest, and fear-based NIMBYism gone mad.

1. the entire national nuclear energy waste stream is quite small volume-wise.
http://www.nei.org/keyissues/nuclearwastedisposal/factsheets/safelymanagingusednuclearfuel/
“All the used nuclear fuel produced by the U.S. nuclear energy industry in 50 years of operation—approximately 60,000 metric tons—would, if stacked end to end, only cover an area the size of a football field to a depth of about 7 yards.”
This is a tiny fraction of the volumes from any other industrial process at large scale.

2. Most nuclear used fuel is currently safely stored on site at active nuclear power plants, including the plants in Texas. The South Texas plant that services Austin is one. It takes up little space and is generally quite safe.

3. Because nuclear waste streams are small, it is feasible to store ALL the nuclear used fuel in a single repository. hence, yucca mtn. It’s a good idea, better than spreading it out, especially when it comes to tracking this stuff down and dealing with it long term (ie centuries). However, you cannot underestimates govt’s capacity for taking a simple idea and turning it into an expensive boondoggle, and you cant underestimate the duplicity of the eco-whackos, who oppose the better solution for nuclear used fuel (either reprocessing or a single repository) and force the least acceptable solution (near-permanent onsite storage) as the de facto solution.

I’ve concluded that anti-nuclear activists are in fact the enemies of the environment, wittingly or unwittingly. The reality is that nuclear energy is safe and environmentally friendly.

Why is this either/or and not both/and? DO both! … if the goal is energy independence and getting off of fossil fuels (not sure we need the latter, but if we do) then we need ALL OF THE ABOVE.

The real risk is wasted money in directions on things that simply dont work or are economically unwise. In terms of cost-effectiveness nuclear energy > wind > solar, so billions on solar while ignoring nuclear is wrong.