nuke energy in U.S. prez debates

NUKE ROCKY44 · Senior Member

nuke energy in U.S. prez debates

John · Senior Member

I doubt the candidates will say much on this. I thought that Giulliani said something favorable about nuclear engergy in the context of his overall energy policy. I expect that Thompson will be pro-nuclear too. The lastest issue of the Econimist points out that there is a growing number of applications for new nuclear contruction on the way. With the mainstream increasingly embracing the "globa warming" hysteria while the population continues to grow what other real alternative is there? It will be interesting to see on the Democrat side who wins out the global warmers or the antinukes! If a Republican wins nuclear energy goes forward. That will ultimately be favorable to increase space applications. The Democrats face the real political problem that support for radical environmental ideas is strong only when it doesn't effect the supporters. When the air conditioning goes off the support drops like a rock! smile

GoogleNaut · Guru

Well, I think it should be obvious that anyone who is serious about energy policy (and they all should be serious as this is a national security issue!) must address the need for growing domestic energy supplies in a world where petroleum energy supplies cannot grow much more or have peaked, and where demand for said energy will only increase.

So, obviously we must increase our domestic power production using something other than fossil petroleum--ergo, we must look at other indsutrial sources of power. And currently, nuclear power is the only contender (besides coal power) which can meet the demand. Therefore, anyone who says they are serious about energy, or claim to have a decent energy policy must address nuclear power as one of the principle sources. Otherwise, the candidate is just huffing carbon dioxide and increasing global warming with each exhalation!

Atleast that's my take on it!

Ty Moore

-- Edited by GoogleNaut at 05:16, 2007-09-18

NUKE ROCKY44 · Senior Member

Yup...Tend to agree with both of you. Republicans=increased nukes generally.
Democrats, I'm not sure which way they would fall on the question of nuclear power production or the recycling of reactor fuel or how it would fit into an overall energy policy?

I know that candidate Richardson comes from a state NM that depends on research and has a storied past with regards to nuke potential.

My fear is that most of the Democrat candidates side with the "Gore" hysteria and the way to treat global warming which are with Green alternatives: Solar, wind, crops, ocean tide power etc. as cure-alls. Not to mention addressing the international political dependency issue of fossil fuels.

So far the nuke issue is not part of the debates for fear of confusing the voter and confusion on complex nuclear issues is not the best cards to play with if you want to get elected. Do you think that could be a reason to stay mute on the nuclear power issue?

10kBq Jaro · Senior Member

NUKE ROCKY44 wrote:
So far the nuke issue is not part of the debates for fear of confusing the voter and confusion on complex nuclear issues is not the best cards to play with if you want to get elected. Do you think that could be a reason to stay mute on the nuclear power issue?

McCain has spoken out numerous times in favour of nuclear -- what more can he do ??

.

John · Senior Member

Yeah, McCain is good on nuclear energy too. But, I still think the Democrats will have let nuclear energy continue. I the air conditioners go off there will be hell to pay. I don't give the Democrats much credit but I don't think they are politically suicidal to that extent! All of these green ideas are interesting concepts but they aren't reliable enought on which to bet a parties future.

NUKE ROCKY44 · Senior Member

FAHEY: This is for Mayor Giuliani.

Sea levels around the world are rising. Average temperatures are increasing. A U.N. report written by scientists from 113 countries recently said that climate change is very likely man-made and may affect us for centuries to come.

Is science wrong on global warming? And what, if any, steps would you take as president to address the issue of climate change?

GIULIANI: I think we have to accept the view that scientists have, that there is global warming, and that human operation, human condition contributes to that.

And the fact is that there is a way to deal with it and to address it in a way that we can also accomplish energy independence, which we need as a matter of national security.

It's frustrating and really dangerous for us to see money going to our enemies because we have to buy oil from certain countries. We should be supporting all the alternatives.

We need a project similar to putting a man on the moon. That project started with Eisenhower. It was carried out by Kennedy and then Johnson and then Nixon. And that was two Democrats and two Republicans working (inaudible) Democrats working in the national interest.

BLITZER: Thank you. Thank you, Mayor.

I want Governor Romney to weigh in as well.

There's a perception, at least among some, that Republicans are -- at least the Republican Party -- very close to big oil. A lot of Americans are suffering now from the price of gasoline -- high price of gasoline. What do you say to the audience out there who believes that there's too much of an alliance, if you will, between the big oil companies and Republicans?

ROMNEY: Well, first of all, Rudy Giuliani is right, in terms of an Apollo project to get us to energy independent. And the effects of that on global warming are positive. It's a no-regrets policy. It's a great idea.

Secondly, with regards to big oil, big oil is making a lot of money right now. And I'd like to see them using that money to invest in refineries.

Don't forget that when companies earn profit, that money's supposed to be reinvested in growth. And our refineries are old.

Someone said to me -- Matt Simmons, an investment banker down in Houston -- he said, "Our refineries today are rust, with paint holding them up."

And we need to see these companies, if they're making that kind of money, reinvest in capital equipment.

But let's not forget that where the money is being made this year is not just -- and throughout these years -- is not just in Exxon and Shell and the major oil companies. It's in the countries that own this oil.

Russia last year took in $500 billion by selling oil. Ahmadinejad, Putin, Chavez -- these people are getting rich off of people buying too much oil.

And that's why we have to pursue, as a strategic imperative, energy independence for America.

And it takes that Apollo project. It also takes biodiesel, biofuel, ethanol...

BLITZER: Thank you.

ROMNEY: ... cellulosic ethanol, nuclear power, more drilling in ANWR.

We have to be serious also about efficiency.

BLITZER: Thank you, Governor.

ROMNEY: And that's going to allow us to become energy- independent.

BLITZER: Senator McCain, do you have a problem at this time with these oil companies making these huge profits?

MCCAIN: Sure. I think we all do. And they ought to be reinvesting it. And one of the areas that they ought to be involved in is nuclear power. Nuclear power is safe. Nuclear power is green, does not emit greenhouse gases. Nuclear power is used on Navy ships which have sailed around the world for 60 years without an accident.

And of course we ought to be investing in alternate energy sources.

Recently there was a group of retired military officers who said that climate change and energy independence is a national security issue. It is. We've got to reduce our dependence on imported oil.

We can do it through a wide variety of alternative fuels. But we have to be serious about it and we're going to have to go to places where we have never gone before. And nuclear power is one of the major issues, but also all kinds of ethanol as well.

BLITZER: Thank you, Senator.

Let me bring Congressman Paul back into this conversation.

In 2005, President Bush signed an energy bill that provided billions of dollars in tax break subsidies to the oil companies, with the goal of boosting domestic production. At a time of these record profits, do you believe these companies need a helping hand from the federal government?

PAUL: I don't think the profits is the issue. The profits are OK if they're legitimately earned in a free market. What I object to are subsidies to big corporations when we subsidize them and give them R&D money. I don't think that should be that way. They should take it out of the funds that they earn.

But also, you can't discuss energy without discussing our foreign policy.

Why do we go to the Middle East? We know the oil is very important about the Middle East and why we're there. Why did we, our government, help overthrow Mosaddeq in 1953? It had to do with oil.

So, our foreign policy is designed to protect our oil interests.

The profits, that's not the problem. It's the problem that we succumb to the temptation to protect oil interests by literally going out and fighting wars over oil.

BLITZER: Governor Gilmore, you agree?

GILMORE: I agree that if you make profits of the open marketplace, that that's an appropriate thing to do. I also believe that they should be going in and putting this additional money into additional drilling, into additional exploration.

But it's going to have to be bigger than that. We're going to have to in fact look to all sources: ethanol, biomass, coal, clean coal, the opportunities for natural gas, and nuclear power. And by the way, nuclear power will help this whole issue of global warming.

And one more point in direct answer to your question: The Kyoto treaty was, in fact, fatally flawed. That was a treaty that in fact was going to basically just transfer our money directly to Russia for nothing, because they were going to get credits because simply that their economy had declined.

The truth is, we're going to have to get a program in place, an international diplomatic answer, that is going to include every nation of the world in this entire project. And that includes China and India.

(APPLAUSE)

BLITZER: Thank you, Governor.
[source]

Ok...Mr. McCain did make a strong point about nuke power.

Uh...yea. Thanks Jaro.

GoogleNaut · Guru

Personally, I don't think there is a single 'magic bullet' that will be the 'one solution' to the energy problem. I think that only an entire spectrum or 'suite' of saolutions will do.

The biggest single, sector energy demand in the US economy is transportation: fully about 2/3 of petroleum consumption is encompassed in this single sector which includes all automobiles, trains, aircraft and shipping. I believe most western industrialized nations have similar demand figures.

So any comprehensive energy strategy must address this.

The next biggest single sector energy demand is electrical energy production: both industrial and domestic uses acount for most of the rest of the petroleum burned and almost all of the coal burned for energy in the US. Again, for the most part, most industrialized countries more or less follow this same pattern.

Domestic and industrial heating accounts for a relatively small--but still very substantial fossil fuel consumption.

Nuclear power can 'shoulder the load' but only if the grid is expanded to take the increased demand. We can thus directly offset a substantial petroleum consumption--but we cannot eliminate it completely. Even if we were to take on the electrification of the rolling land transportation--no small technological task as this entails vast expansion of the electrical distribution infrastructure as well as vast expansion of the total generating capacity--this still does not elimate petroleum from the energy mix.

Going to liquid hydrogen or more realistically liquid ethanol as a carrier of energy--we could fuel aircraft and truck transports using more or less conventional gas turbine technologies...

The carbon for the ethanol could possibly come from biomatter such as fast growing ash trees or grass crops specifically grown for the purpose--and then using a combination of partial combustion followed by Fischer-Tropsch synthesis with makeup heat from nuclear power to synthesize almost pure ethanol for clean, biodegradeable transportation fuels. Such a scheme could offset nearly all of the petroleum that would otherwise be consumed by the US.

It takes the realization that petroleum is currently an energy source, and not just an energy carrier. We need to SOURCE new energy and then adapt a carrier to that source in order to displace petroleum. This is why it is going to be so darn difficult to replace petroleum--a suitable replacement requires creating/expanding not just one set of infrastructure, but possibly as many as three. This is why it starts to look like a $1-2 Trillion job--and probably more than that.

But how much would a global Energy War cost in terms of lives, lost properties, etc if the US has a showdown with Russia and China? I would much rather spend the money to find a way to eliminate the need or atleast reduce the demand for petroleum--because the way we are headed is starting to look very bleak!

-- Edited by GoogleNaut at 04:34, 2007-09-20

John · Senior Member

Politicians have been talking energy independence since Nixon. It just never happens because up until now the oil price will be maintained low enough to undercut these alternative sources. I'm not very fond of ethanol as it provides only 75% of the energy per gallon as gasoline. If supplies get tight enough coal can be turned into liquid fuel. The Air Force has some sort of biofuel project. I'm a little hopeful that electric cars may soon become feasible. There are so interesting no batteries and super capacitors based on nanotech that may make the electric car competative.

GoogleNaut · Guru

The only reason I find ethanol attractive is that it can be easily synthesized with Fischer-Tropsch synthesis, it is biodegradeable so spills have less of an environmental impact, fires are easy to extinguish, and it can also be used to help synthesize other biofuels like biodiesel. However, by tweaking the composition of the catalyst bed and the conditions of pressure, temperature and flow, virtually any liquid hydrocarbon can be synthesized from any carbon containing feed stock. This is how the 'Gas to Liquids" people turn natural gas into No.2 diesel fuel.

The "Super Electrics" is interesting too--and I suspect that diesel electric hybrids, or in the case of busses and freight trucks, possibly a gas-turbine electric hybrid can do some good things too...

NUKE ROCKY44 · Senior Member

Politicians have been talking energy independence since Nixon. It just never happens because up until now the oil price will be maintained low enough to undercut these alternative sources.

Precisely, why government and industry need to drive these new fuels and energy and make them available 24/7 at a reasonable cost to the consumer without 'carbon tax' arm twisting. Let the energy provider/manufacturer and consumer/public pick and chose which best suits them. Until there is real competition in the energy sector to provide power and efficient fuels there will be no alternatives to typical fossil fuels use.

NUKE ROCKY44 · Senior Member

Someone just told me if Clinton wins in 2008 and Jeb Bush wins in 2012 and Chelsea Clinton in 2016 that would mean two families would control the executive in US government:

Bush Sr.>Clinton(He)>Bush Jr.>Clinton(Her)>Bush (Bro.)>Clinton(daughter).

Oh my!

But that would be expected as was noted with the court decision in the 2000 and the continuing low voter turn out, wasted vote and disenfranchisement of voter in the "First Past the Post" or "Winner Take All" system of voting.
Of the least representative governments in western democracies are Great Britain, USA and Canada. Tory Conservative vs Liberal Grit in Canada, Democrat Donkey vs Republican Elephant in the U.S. and the Labour Rose vs the Tory Conservative in the UK. PR-democracy (Proportional representation) could at least be tried in a by-election to get some representation in Congress or the Senate.
Japan, Ireland, Italy, Germany, Israel, Australia etc. are some countries that have some sort of PR-democracy. But this needs a lot of voter education.
Cambridge Ma. and Minneapolis/ St Paul, MN are two cities that use the Single Transferable Vote and there are other fair measures.

Seems to me this is better than the 'train wreck' of selecting members of government winning every seat every time for hundreds of years.

[FAIR Vote Link]

-- Edited by NUKE ROCKY44 at 05:00, 2007-10-13

Andrew · Senior Member

Precisely, why government and industry need to drive these new fuels and energy and make them available 24/7 at a reasonable cost to the consumer without 'carbon tax' arm twisting.

How? Almost every one of these fuels are not ready for economical and industrial applications and allot of money already is going into them.

NUKE ROCKY44 · Senior Member

Biofuels, hydrogen, even cleaner burning hydocarbon fuels are being processed in the future with the help of nuclear power as a turnkey. Guess who's preparing to make the switch to future fuels processing?

Yup...you guessed it!

BIG OIL.

Andrew · Senior Member

So? It is logical to assume that they will try to keep their industry running, even if they have to switch sources.

GoogleNaut · Guru

Once you get into Fischer-Tropsch synthesis, it becomes possible, atleast as far as fuels and lubricants go, to synthesize nearly all long chain hydrocarbons and simple aromatics from very simple feedstocks. Most often natural gas is mentioned or coal as a feed stock. In principle any source of carbon will do, even limestone, provided one supplies the makeup energy to reduce the carbon from an oxidized form (in CO2) to a reduced form (as in -CH2- in hydrocarbons.) This is one of the exciting possibilities offered by a nuclear fission base power system--a gas cooled nuclear reactor can supply much of the reducing energy in the form of heat--easily and readily extractable from the carrier (coolant) gas. As far as "global warming " is concerned, a "carbon neutral" cycle could in principle be developed in which carbon derived from agricultural sources could supply the source carbon for a synthetic hydrocarbon fuel economy...although in the US there is the necessity of supplying nearly a billion tons per year of carbon, which if derived from organic (agricultural) biosources, could mean the necessity to harvest 4-5 billion metric tons of plant matter each year--and herin is the problem--this is not a trivial amount! The World Consumption of hydrocarbons could in principle be totaly displaced by harvesting and converting (with 100% efficiency) 16-20 billion tons per year, and again this is not a trivial amount!

But something like this is probably necessary...