It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

SCI/TECH: Bush Calls for More U.S. Nuclear Plants

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 04:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Passer By
To use Nuclear power is a time bomb waiting to happen.....


To continue using conventional power plants is a bomb already going off.

I certainly agree that a solution to the disposal problem needs to be found. I believe a rocket into the Sun (carrying stuff to be disposed of) is the way to go--surely we can develop a reliable rocket if we put our mind to it.

Wind power, solar power, thermoelectric power (from the oceans), orbiting solar collectors, etc... should also be pursued on a priority basis, as should fusion power, but I don't think we can wait much longer to start replacing conventional power plants. We demand more electric power every year and I don't see that demand going down.




posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 05:16 AM
link   
The disposal of the waste is still a problem that has not yet been solved. The statement that the amount of waste is small no doubt forgets about the plant itself when it needs to be decommisioned. Another slight of hand trick is to exclude the cost of decommisioning from the unit price of electricity produced.

Chernobyl and 3 mile island are not the only accidents. There are very many more but the industry is so secretive it gets away with keeping them quiet. Do some digging and you'd be shocked, scared even.

Nuclear power is the most extraordinary method of boiling water I know about. A glorified kettle that glows in the dark! Surely we are smarter than that.

Most houses have enough power shining down and blowing past them to be self sufficient and yet we make no use of that free source....madness. Now I take the point that individuals might not like to be responsible for the maintenance of such a setup. However if the government invested in the infrastructure to setup distributed power and low maintenance "home units" and "neighbourhood units" then I suspect the problem would disappear.

I have calculated that even my house (average 3 bed detached) in rainy Scotland could be self sufficient if it utilised wind and solar. The cost though is too high (especially solar) and I haven't determined what storage I would need for the times when its dull and still.

One last thing about Chernobyl, sheep in certain parts of Britain thousands of miles away could not be eaten. Nuclear accidents are not fixed with a lick of paint and you are entirely dependant on the "safety" record of other countries.



posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 07:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Murcielago
isn't there plenty of "green" sources out there
instead of nuclear. wind / waves / sun.


Sure. The good people of Massachusetts just tried to have wind
mills put up as an alternative energy supply. Hard-core dems
Kenndy, Kerry, and Cronkite all fought AGAINST the wind mills
claiming them to be 'an eyesore' and that they would ruin their
view of the bay.



posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 09:11 AM
link   
The thing about nuclear power plant accidents is that they are rare. When there is one it get lots & lots of press--partially because the news people in general are ignorant concerning radiation and just about everything else concerning science & technology--which scares the bejesus out of most everyone. However, I would be willing to bet that many more people die in one year of power plant emission related problems than have died in all the nuclear accidents combined.



posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 10:29 AM
link   
Yeah the old chestnut that nuclear powerplants are deadly whilst coal-fired powerplants are not is laughable.

Nuclear power should of been used since the 50's instead of coal power but now I think nuclear powers life should of ended. There are plenty of renewable energy sources nowadays that should be invested in instead.

Did any of you catch the Time magazine article where they have discovered a bacteria that converts carbon dioxide into hydrogen? If this bacteria can be created in a commerical scale our energy problems AND global warming problems could be fixed in one neat package.

I feel nuclear power is being pushed out now due to its centralized nature and revenue model. Something which corporates and their ilk can continue to exploit the population with when oil is prohibitively expensive. Environment be damned.

[edit on 23/6/05 by subz]



posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 10:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by subz
Did any of you catch the Time magazine article where they have discovered a bacteria that converts carbon dioxide into hydrogen? If this bacteria can be created in a commerical scale our energy problems AND global warming problems could be fixed in one neat package.


Link please? I'd like to see how in the world bacteria could convert CO2 -> H2...

It would require nuclear fission of carbon or oxygen, both of which are considered to take more energy than released I think.



posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 10:35 AM
link   
.
Bush has another vision (while his head is up his backside).

What does he see? The odiferous remains of yesterday's lunch.

When will we ever get an inspired leader with visions of the future and not myopic views of the past?

Wind energy is cheaper than Nuclear, but it does have the downside of not being on demand reliable.
I personally think many of the new wind turbines are very graceful and beautiful.
And if they mean my Utility bill is cheaper and the economy is better that a big plus too.

If someone can create a method of efficiently storing and efficiently releasing energy on demand, they could become a billionaire, heck maybe the first trillionaire.
.



posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 10:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by djohnsto77

Originally posted by subz
Did any of you catch the Time magazine article where they have discovered a bacteria that converts carbon dioxide into hydrogen? If this bacteria can be created in a commerical scale our energy problems AND global warming problems could be fixed in one neat package.


Link please? I'd like to see how in the world bacteria could convert CO2 -> H2...

It would require nuclear fission of carbon or oxygen, both of which are considered to take more energy than released I think.

The article is from this weeks issue of Time magazine dated June 20th 2005. The article is called "Mother Nature's DNA".

www.time.com...

The article lists some of the microbes discovered on expeditions carried out by J. Craig Venter. The man who took on the fight to map the human genome project.


Hydrogen Generator
A microbe that takes in CO2 and expels hydrogen



posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 03:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by subz
Link please? I'd like to see how in the world bacteria could convert CO2 -> H2...

It would require nuclear fission of carbon or oxygen, both of which are considered to take more energy than released I think.

The article is from this weeks issue of Time magazine dated June 20th 2005. The article is called "Mother Nature's DNA".

www.time.com...


Can you extract & paste the salient points of that article? I read the teaser, but I'm not a subscriber to Time and I don't want to pay to read it.



posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 04:11 PM
link   
Thats not quoting me, but djohnsto77


I dont subscribe to the online Time magazine. I bought it at a newsagent for my train trip back up north from London last weekend. I dont have the magazine here with me but I'll get it tomorrow and transcribe it for you.

It wasnt really the focus of the article, the focus was the amount of unique microbes being found in the most unusual places. The microbe that takes in Co2 and outputs hydrogen was listed as one of many unique microbes found on the expedition. It then went on to say that if the microbe could be reproduced in cows milk like some vaccines are it could be utilized in the energy sector.

But I will transcribe the relevant parts tomorrow for you.



posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 06:46 PM
link   
Well there has to be some other biological process that creates hydrogen, this can't be simply CO2->H2!

There is no such thing as free energy and processes such as the wind and tides, while promising, certainly can't fulfill man's current or future need. Nuclear fission, as imperfect as it may seem, is the best solution technically feasible now.



posted on Jun, 24 2005 @ 02:10 AM
link   
Sorry Subz, DJ's comment sneaked into the quote space by mistake.

The article did say the man was on a ocean voyage, so I have no problem visualizing some microbe breaking water bonds to free both hydrogen and oxygen, but short of breaking CO2 down into smaller elements I can't get a grip on how it is possible to extract hydrogen from carbon and oxygen. I'll await your post tomorrow.



posted on Jun, 24 2005 @ 09:26 AM
link   
As requested:


from the included TIME magazine article Mother Natures DNA - description accompanying an inset photo of a microbe
Hydrogen Generator
A microbe that takes in CO2 and expels hydrogen



Transcribed from TIME Magazine June 20, 2005 - Mother Natures DNA
But environmental indicators and surprising biology are only part of what makes wholesale gene prospecting so promising. Hydrogen has been touted as a clean-burning replacement for fossil fuels, for example, and, says Patrinos, "there are already bugs out there that produce hydrogen." If gene prospectors could isolate the responsible gene, he explains, and splice it into a common bacterium, just as genetic engineers have done for years with the gene that produces human insulin, "we can duplicate it on industrial scales."

Or take ethanol, the gasoline substitute manufactured today mostly from corn. It currently takes a lot of harsh chemicals to process ethanol, but microbes could do the same thing. "I think its doable within this decade," says Patrinos, "that we will develop a superbug that can make the conversion in a very clean way." Indeed, JGI, in collaboration with the San Diego-based biotech company Diversa, is sequencing communities of bacteria from the guts of termites in an effort to find genes that make hydrogen and ethanol. It's also looking for genes that enable microbes to metabolize radioactive waste.



posted on Jun, 24 2005 @ 09:47 AM
link   
Gott Compton says:


That is easy...just show them pictures of Chernobyl.
Guys, this is the coolest website in the world.
kiddofspeed.com...


Boy, it sure is! What a woman that Elena is! I recommend everyone read her site: Not only chernobyl, but the Serpent's Wall, her Kawasaki bike, the Orange Revolution, and everything else.



posted on Jun, 24 2005 @ 10:13 AM
link   
Thanks for the extraction Subz. However, the portion you provided does not address the conversion of CO2 to hydrogen. If you extracted that from some part of the Time article that said hydrogen was being extracted from CO2 then the Time reporter simply got something wrong because it just doesn't make sense.



posted on Jun, 24 2005 @ 11:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by malcr
Chernobyl and 3 mile island are not the only accidents. There are very many more but the industry is so secretive it gets away with keeping them quiet. Do some digging and you'd be shocked, scared even.


I find this claim to be ridiculous and I demand a source to back it up.

There have been several nuclear accidents, but the only two nuclear reactor disasters have been Chernobyl and Three Mile Island.

EDIT: Chernobyl was only kept secret because it occured in the Soviet Union. It wasn't a secret for long, however, due to the increased radiation levels in surrounding countries.

Zip

[edit on 6/24/2005 by Zipdot]



posted on Jun, 24 2005 @ 12:42 PM
link   
I think that, in fact, Bush wants to create secret, corporate-controlled, nuclear weapons, that will be used for the CIA's next attack on the US...



posted on Jun, 24 2005 @ 01:11 PM
link   
Chernobyl was the only true nuclear disaster to ever happen, mostly due to both design flaws and human error. Three Mile Island was a major incident where some radioactive water and other secondary material may have been released, and again it was mainly due to human error. All other nuclear incidents may be irregularities or anomalies in the smooth normal flow, but all problems were successfully handled and no nuclear material or dangerous radiation levels were leaked into the environment as far as I know.



posted on Jun, 24 2005 @ 01:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Moretti


I think that, in fact, Bush wants to create secret, corporate-controlled, nuclear weapons, that will be used for the CIA's next attack on the US...


Hehe, wow, you have a pretty dim outlook for your country...


Damn, I better start a corporation to get in on this action!

Zip

[edit on 6/24/2005 by Zipdot]



posted on Jun, 24 2005 @ 01:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Moretti


I think that, in fact, Bush wants to create secret, corporate-controlled, nuclear weapons, that will be used for the CIA's next attack on the US...


Oh please! Our nuclear programs aren't a secret, we manufacture leading-edge thermonuclear weapons at our Oak Ridge Tennessee Department of Energy facility, there's no need for obfuscation here.

I hope you meant this a joke Moretti.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join