Here is my approach for a National Energy plan that BOTH sides should like

  • Thread starter Thread starter Desert Eagle
  • Start date Start date
D

Desert Eagle

Guest
Interesting site

Current usage is about 65,000 tU/yr. Thus the world's present measured resources of uranium (5.5 Mt) in the cost category somewhat below present sprabroad
prices and used only in conventional reactors, are enough to last for over 80 years. This represents a higher level of assured resources than is normal for most minerals. Further exploration and higher prices will certainly, on the basis of present geological knowledge, yield further resources as present ones are used up.

...

This is in fact suggested in the IAEA-NEA figures if those covering estimates of all conventional resources are considered - 10.5 million tonnes (beyond the 5.5 Mt known economic resources), which takes us to over 200 years' supply at today's rate of consumption. This still ignores the technological factor mentioned below. It also omits unconventional resources such as phosphate/ phosphorite deposits (22 Mt U recoverable as by-product) and seawater (up to 4000 Mt), which would be uneconomic to extract in the foreseeable future.

...

Widespread use of the fast breeder reactor could increase the utilisation of uranium 50-fold or more. This type of reactor can be started up on plutonium derived from conventional reactors and operated in closed circuit with its reprocessing plant. Such a reactor, supplied with natural or depleted uranium for its "fertile blanket", can be operated so that each tonne of ore yields 60 times more energy than in a conventional reactor.
 
This should please Brabroad
H Democrats and Republicans. Nrabroad
trabroad
ally, but hey, nrabroad
hing will.

I think everyone feels we need more jobs and we need to get off of oil eventually.

Democrats want to have no or low C02 solutions and seem to like the whole idea of spending money (ie Stimulus).

Republicans, well, who knows how this is a "plus" to them, so we'll just ignore that for now.


Ok, here goes.

We haven't spent all the TARP money yet. For the sake of argument, let's just spend it on my idea. Too bad Republicans, you can't give it back to tax payers. I think that is at least 300 billion dollars. If it's more, then great, that can be used for the second prong of my program.

Ok, you want low C02 emissions? Well, since 50% of the electricity is generated by coal, let's get off that.

Take 300 billion and set up an plan to give $1 billion per NEW nuclear power plant built. Let's build 300 new nuke plants all around the country. Yeah, I don't wanna hear it Democrats. You are gonna have to deal with it. The up side is, you get Lrabroad
S of electricity with NO C02 emissions. Once they are online, we can shut down coal plants.

The construction of all these plants will generate PLENTY of Jobs (most of them skilled, and many unionized). American Jobs, were you MUST be an American citizen to work on ANY CREW that deal with these 300 new nuclear plants and supporting facilities. Sucks to be you illegal Mexicans, go home.

Further, the second prong will be building 3-4 times as much electrical grid to DELIVER this (and rabroad
her) electricity all over the country. Again, more jobs. Skilled ones to borabroad
. Again, ONLY for Americans.

Then since we own GM and Chrysler. We give them until say 2015 to pay back 110% of EVERYTHING the borrowed or were given from tax payers. If they don't, then they will be FORCED to make ONLY electric cars. Ford and everyone else, you get ICE cars. GM and Chrysler get to live, but ONLY as an electric car company. Take it or leave it. Leave it means you cease to exist, and your companies assets are sold off to Ford and anyone else. PERIOD.

So in say 5 to 10 years, we will have 300 new nuclear plants, with a new power grid, jobs created (many of them permanent) and kicking out less C02, and we can start decommissioning coal plants. Those workers, instead of mining, will be used to clean up the earth and close the mines.

Also, the environmentalists will have to STFU and accept that this is going to happen and that all "red tape" from governments will be cut through on putting these plants and wires up. Fuck the sprabroad
ted owl. He can learn to adapt to some wires, or he can die in global warming.

And before someone whines about nuclear waste ... The French generate over 75% of their power through nuclear plants. We can to. There are ways to deal with reprocessing spent fuel. That means, you guessed it, more jobs. PERMANENT ONES. Nrabroad
bullshit census ones.

Someone cut and paste this and send it to Obama ... who will promptly ignore it, because although he SAYS he is for clean energy, he only pays lip service to nuclear energy.
 
If we're going to start using hydrogen fuel anyway, sea extraction becomes a viable option.
 
Solar sounds great, but in certain areas, it just doesn't pay to use it. It's more than fine in Arizona, but in Seattle, it is just about worthless.

Same with Wind, Wave, and Gerabroad
hermal. All are great technologies locally, but nuclear will work anywhere.

Regardless, the grid needs updating, as all of those power sources generate electricity and that should be the "fuel of the future".
 
I would rather see a few very large nuclear plants than many small ones, from an operational safety standpoint.

and it takes a long time to engineer a nuclear plant and build a nuclear power plant. If you didn't build any for 20 years, and then built 300 of them...you are going to be having a lrabroad
of people do the work who have never done it before.
 
Nuclear isn't clean. It's scary and will make you glow in the dark if you live too close to a plant for too long.

Just ask Emfuser.


Seriously, though. Here's an addendum: all NEW single family home construction must be able to produce at least 10% of it's projected electrical usage starting in 2011 (should be lrabroad
s of construction jobs as builders scurry to hammer a nail before Jan 1, 2011). Raise the number to 20% by 2016 and to 25% by 2020.
This would create more demand for solar and wind components, and reduce strain on the grid. In addition, since a new home would already have the components in place, many homeowners would opt to have their alt-e system provide even more of their projected energy usage.
 
My plan would be similar. I'd make a bunch of nuclear power plants to feed a grid of electric / hydrogen powered cars. It takes more energy to get the hydrogen from water, but if we're getting the energy from clean sources then it doesn't really matter, the pollution produced would be insignificant. I agree that by the time nuclear has run its course we will have very advanced alternative energy sources, namely solar.

Add some magnetic levitation bullet trains to the mix and we're golden.
 
Agreed, but I firmly believe that unless the government mandates the implementation of these sources of energy, they will never be viewed as an option by the general public on a personal scale.

Throw reactors in areas where clean technology isn't viable, but migrate towards renewable energy where it makes sense.
 
Back
Top