Obama calls for a new generation of nuclear energy?
The President reiterated a campaign viewpoint to revive nuclear power in the United States in his State of the Union Address, and this is expected to ...
The President reiterated a campaign viewpoint to revive nuclear power in the United States in his State of the Union Address, and this is expected to be made tangible by a reservation of billion in the 2011 budget for loans to nuclear developers looking to break new ground.
For some background, the establishment of nuclear power plants in the US (responsible for 20% of the nation’s electricity, and about 70% of its non-polluting energy) has a troubled history, starting up very optimistically in the 1960s and basically flatlining around the early 1980s, with very few plants having been built in the decades following. The movement was killed largely out of slowdowns spurred by public resistance (nuclear power was developed haphazardly quickly during the Cold War, resulting in highly public and easily preventable disasters on both sides of the war), with this slowdown interfering with the streamlining of the economic process and eventually resulting in prohibitive costs to establishing new plants.
My view on nuclear energy, as well as that of most physicists, is a temporarily positive one: in the next century, we’ll doubtlessly see the development of new power sources that will simply be without many of the problems of our current options, but currently, nuclear fission is one of our best options in terms of both environmentalism (it doesn’t burn fossil fuels or emit pollutants, and unlike during the cold war era, nuclear waste storage isn’t quite the scary, uncertain problem it used to be) and economic feasibility (globe-spanning solar cells are a pretty idea, but, at least currently, are economic fiction).
But that’s my take. Politically speaking, I’m not sure if outspoken support for new nuclear development is a good idea or not. What’s your take on it?
In the interest of making this category-appropriate: given that my gonads are external and therefore more vulnerable to high-frequency radiation than women’s, is nuclear fallout sexist? 
I’m not quite sure what your question is; could you clarify?
I don’t see anything inappropriate about Obama endorsing nuclear power. The reality is that if we want to continue to have an industrial civilisation we will need to move from a fossil fuel energy base and economy to a fission fuel one. The US is rather late in coming to that realisation and it’s not clear that you get it yet.
Meanwhile, other countries have been going forward with nuke developments. I’m sure you are aware of the situation in Canada, France, Japan and Sweden with nuclear programmes that are decades old. You can add China, S. Africa, Argentina, Korea, Singapore, and Taiwan. As the US is maybe pondering the nuclear option, several other countries are going forward with commitments, probably motivated by "no coal, no oil, no choice" considerations.
And nuclear technology is not a 2 guys in a garage thing, it is Very capital intensive and regulatory (for obvious safety reasons) intensive that is comparable to aerospace or semiconductors. We’re not talking about Silicon Valley start-up economics. For a country to develop a viable nuclear power industry, there will have to be significant government support.
So, yes, I think it is reasonable for Obama to speak in support of nuclear power. And I think it would be more appropriate if the US were to develop a rational energy policy, for nuclear and other sources.
Or was your question about whether it is in Obama’s political interest to be associated with nukes?
p.s. re the nuclear waste problem, it is really a non-issue. Spent fuel rods can be recycled to yield more fuel as plutonium either through processing or with a heavy water reactor as part of the normal operating process. Even in storage, nuclear waste is not a big issue because the volume is minuscule compared to the waste from fossil fuel products. I really don’t know why Americans (and many others) believe that nuclear waste is such a killer problem, except of course ignorance of basic science.
For real, there is far more radiation (and carcinogenic and teratogenic substances) emitted by coal burning plants than ever from nukes.
I hope that we’ll have the much cleaner nuclear fusion option within 30 years. I wouldn’t want to live near a nuclear fission power station because there will always be the risk of small radioactive material leaks into the local environment as well as catastrophic explosive risks. Nuclear power won’t stop us being dependent on oil for transportation so environmental problems will persist. France already gets most of it’s power from nuclear but it still has a large carbon footprint.
Nuclear power stations are expensive to build and uranium is expensive to mine.
I think that the threat of global warming has been exaggerated (recent press reports) and this makes the case for nuclear fission power less convincing. Power generation through nuclear fusion would be great though.
In Scotland the SNP Holyrood Government reckon Scotland can be totally Green by 2020. We have got an advantage in that type of technology and it’s raw resources, ie wind and generally bad weather with a massive coastline that can be used to harness wind and wave energy. Not every country has this however and with oil running out I think nuclear is the only answer for affordable heating and energy for America, Until something else can be discovered then simply decommission.
I personally think Nuclear fusion is the most likely answer to all our energy problems.
Austin, the average Joe in the street thinks that nuclear energy is no good for him, because of what he’s read, and has been told. He thinks that a local nuclear power plant is going to make the ground glow and him light up.
So, consequently, he’s going to be against it and will vote against any bill, or politician, that proposes nuclear power. If the Obama administration was smart, and that seems to leave a little to be desired, they would educate John Q. Public on the positive attributes of this technology.
I am in agreement with you that this is needed, but it’s next year, not right now; unless things change drastically, and in a hurry.
I’m in favor of nuclear energy, and developing renewable energy.
In the interest of making this category-appropriate: given that my gonads are external
and therefore more vulnerable to high-frequency radiation than women’s, is nuclear fallout sexist?
Amusing
. Of course nuclear fallout is not sexist. It is inanimate. If it presented a serious and widespread health concern for men, I would totally support government $ being used to prevent/treat it.
I am with you – nuclear power is the best alternative we have for now – I expect a new "better alternative" to be developed within 10 years.
I’m sorry but this question is much too grown-up for G&WS.
Edit
Why can’t we just harness the tantrums of feminists? Surely this would at least power the lights in N.O.W. headquarters and a few women’s shelters or something?
If you’re wearing undies the fall-out is gender neutral since the radiation will have to go through layers of clothes. The real problem Obama will face is finding communities willing to house the nuclear energy. Even if science calls it clean and safe the average citizen won’t believe it.
thank god. Hopefully they will create a breeder reactor in order to produce less waist.
The idealistic idea that we could somehow solve our climate problems through renewable energy was about as absurd as the clean coal idea. We have a choice. Destroy our plaint through pollution and global warming or through nuclear waist in 50,000 years. I think all take the second.
Category appropriate answer: I have actually read in National Geographic that women’s gametes are more affected by radiation than men’s. This is because men are constantly producing new ones.
Answer: My views on nuclear energy are the same logical ones as yours. However, everyone knows about Chernobyl, and that taints their views on the matter. When you ask a regular person on the street what their opinion is, they will most likely say "I don’t want to be blown up and turned into green goo" or something along those lines – demonstrating how ignorant people are of nuclear power.
France is almost entirely powered by nuclear power. They have never had any serious accidents. But in many other countries, there is an irrational hatred of it and anything with the word ‘nuclear’ in it. There is even a group opposed to nuclear fusion in the UK. Until this attitude can be changed, by which time it will be too late to reduce emissions (if it isn’t already), politicians will be stuck fighting with farmers and fishermen over building wind farms. "Ruining the view" is literally the strongest argument against these, but it is apparently a strong, widely supported one. I love how rational people are.
If we took nuclear fusion on as a private project (eg www,nufusion.com) then we are liklely to be much quicker that the government funded projects which normally take 4 times as long and cost significantly more. Support me as the profit go to building a better world and not the rich getting richer.