Global warming heats up a nuclear energy renaissance

Aug 28, 2010 Full story: KOTA-TV Rapid City 32

Use of this site section and any information contained on or provided through this site section is at your own risk and any information contained on or provided through this site section is provided on an "as is" basis without any representations or warranties.

Full Story
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

“bar0ckalypse n0w”

Since: Mar 10

Northport, NY

#2 Aug 28, 2010
This article is mis-titled. It should read "Decades of enviroterrorist effects on petroleum industry belatedly forces America to realize we should use more nuclear power." The US Navy has 140+ nuclear powered ships and submarines. The biggest problem is where to put the waste. We had a good spot at Yucca Mtn., but suddenly the 12 people that live there get to tell us we can't use it anymore. If the French can use nuclear, so can we. You just don't put the reactors in heavily populated areas. Put them in AK, or Canada or Mexico.
McCarthy was right

United States

#3 Aug 28, 2010
(You might think this post is off-topic, but itís not. Itís about our energy policy and the rip-off from our government and the special interests when it comes to our energy policy and mandates.)

Through their activism, the Greenies have kept the U.S. from keeping up with the rest of the world in creating nuclear power. Now, theyíre beginning to push nuclear, but we donít hear a word from them on the environmental and economic disaster that is corn ethanol.

Why is that important? Because the nuclear discussion takes attention from another energy sleight of hand energy mandate. Word comes that OUR GOVERNMENT IS GOING TOPUS FOR INCREASING ETHANOL CONTENT IN GASOLINE FROM 10% TO 15%.

But here are a few facts about ethanol that the Greenies and the government donít want to talk about:

-From start to finish, it takes nearly double the energy to deliver ethanol to your neighborhood gas pump as it delivers, meaning it costs moreÖand for this, you get reduced miles per gallon fuel economy.

-Corn requires more water than most crops, further diminishing already strained aquifers

-Corn has a shallower root system than other crops, so it has more runoff of soil and fertilizers. This has created a massive and growing dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico.

-Worldwide, wheat, soy and other foodcrops have been replaced by corn for ethanol, causing the price of those commodities to rise for third worlders.

-This disaster grows daily, but all the government and the Greenies can talk about is the one-time BP oil spill.

-Finally, ethanol isnít profitable, and requires massive subsidies from the government.

Think about that every time you fill your carís gas tank.

“Did U plug the damn hole yet?”

Since: Jan 08

Rowlett, TX

#4 Aug 28, 2010
mjjcpa wrote:
This article is mis-titled. It should read "Decades of enviroterrorist effects on petroleum industry belatedly forces America to realize we should use more nuclear power." The US Navy has 140+ nuclear powered ships and submarines. The biggest problem is where to put the waste. We had a good spot at Yucca Mtn., but suddenly the 12 people that live there get to tell us we can't use it anymore. If the French can use nuclear, so can we. You just don't put the reactors in heavily populated areas. Put them in AK, or Canada or Mexico.
The left thinks if they can prevent the production of conventional energy then America will be forced to adopt alternative energy no matter how stupid the idea may be otherwise.
impeach obama

United States

#5 Aug 28, 2010
The was the whacko environmentalists who filed lawsuits for decades to stop nuclear power plants from being built in the US.

Now, idiot obama is backing legislation which outlaws US citizens from planting garden plots and possessing or selling privately grown produce.

Will the insanity never cease?
David Christman

Lakewood, OH

#6 Aug 28, 2010
mjjcpa wrote:
This article is mis-titled. It should read "Decades of enviroterrorist effects on petroleum industry belatedly forces America to realize we should use more nuclear power." The US Navy has 140+ nuclear powered ships and submarines. The biggest problem is where to put the waste. We had a good spot at Yucca Mtn., but suddenly the 12 people that live there get to tell us we can't use it anymore.
Actually the people who live there are fine with the future fuel storage site. It is people who live farther away who want to stop progress. President Obama is the one who thought he could get some votes by violating the law and stopping construction.
LessHypeMoreFact

Orangeville, Canada

#7 Aug 28, 2010
"An Associated Press examination of U.S. Department of Energy records and information provided by utilities and trade groups shows that more than 30 traditional coal plants have been built since 2008 or are under construction."

In constrast, none of these nuclear power plants is even licensed. Talk about saying one thing and doing another. And 'traditional' coal power plants add a burden of about 50% extra coal emissions for the same power. Their only advantage is that they cost less to build. But that extra coal means extra emissions, costs and waste to RUN them.

Already 21 states have toxic sites from coal ash deposits and contamination of rivers. Wake up people. WHile you dream of a nuclear renaissance, the bean counters are trading away your future.
LessHypeMoreFact

Orangeville, Canada

#8 Aug 28, 2010
impeach obama wrote:
The was the whacko environmentalists who filed lawsuits for decades to stop nuclear power plants from being built in the US.
Yes but not because of fears of nuclear power. It was over fears of nuclear proliferation.

http://www.wired.com/science/planetearth/news...
impeach obama wrote:
Now, idiot obama is backing legislation which outlaws US citizens from planting garden plots and possessing or selling privately grown produce.
Will the insanity never cease?
Not as long as you are around, and probably not even then.
LessHypeMoreFact

Orangeville, Canada

#9 Aug 28, 2010
McCarthy was right wrote:
(You might think this post is off-topic, but itís not. Itís about our energy policy and the rip-off from our government and the special interests when it comes to our energy policy and mandates.)
Nah. It is off topic. And somewhat insane or ignorant. Not sure which.
McCarthy was right wrote:
Through their activism, the Greenies have kept the U.S. from keeping up with the rest of the world in creating nuclear power.
The main problem back then was not the environmentalists but government regulation (most fears from 'NUMBY' political activists) and double digit interest rates. But maybe you are too young to remember.
McCarthy was right wrote:
Now, theyíre beginning to push nuclear, but we donít hear a word from them on the environmental and economic disaster that is corn ethanol.
Maybe because there isn't one? Or even the most basic evidence for one.
McCarthy was right wrote:
Why is that important? Because the nuclear discussion takes attention from another energy sleight of hand energy mandate. Word comes that OUR GOVERNMENT IS GOING TOPUS FOR INCREASING ETHANOL CONTENT IN GASOLINE FROM 10% TO 15%.
Sounds like a sound plan. But 15% should be the maximum as above that it tends to become less cost effective. The range is to keep it in the level needed as an 'oxygenator' and 'octane booster' where it replaces much more expensive and toxic productes like MTBE. One good effect is that it supports grain prices for farmers without having to dole out money in direct subsidies.
http://www.computer.org/portal/web/csdl/doi/1...
LessHypeMoreFact

Orangeville, Canada

#10 Aug 28, 2010
McCarthy was right wrote:
But here are a few facts about ethanol that the Greenies and the government donít want to talk about:
Your facts are bullshit. No wonder you cannot find anyone to agree with you.
McCarthy was right wrote:
-From start to finish, it takes nearly double the energy to deliver ethanol to your neighborhood gas pump as it delivers, meaning it costs moreÖand for this, you get reduced miles per gallon fuel economy.
Actually ethanol converts some less mobile fuels such as coal ( heating and electicity power for the farm) to liquid fuel. The 'exergy' for this is well over unity in any well run farm specializing in the 'fuel grade' corn production.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/3...

Unnoted by most are the energy savings of not having to manufacture an alternative oxygenator or octane booster, and the energy saved in refining by allowing a lower octane base.
McCarthy was right wrote:
-Corn requires more water than most crops, further diminishing already strained aquifers
One valid criticism, yet corn is not often farmed in drought stressed regions primarily BECAUSE it is a water hog. A criticism against farming corn, NOT ethanol in fuel.
McCarthy was right wrote:
-Corn has a shallower root system than other crops, so it has more runoff of soil and fertilizers. This has created a massive and growing dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico.
This can be fixed by better soil conditioning (perhaps biochar) and not disturbing the cover (plowing) that saves more energy. Because the corn does not have to meet visual appeal, there is less need for the energy intensive cultivation of sweet corn. A criticism against farming corn, NOT ethanol in fuel.
McCarthy was right wrote:
-Worldwide, wheat, soy and other foodcrops have been replaced by corn for ethanol, causing the price of those commodities to rise for third worlders.
Totally bogus. Most corn for ethanol competes only with grain feed and often is too 'low grade' for even feed. Ethanol production forms an 'alternate market' for low grade grains, not just corn. And the resulting 'residual feed' is very good feed in itself with higher protein content.
McCarthy was right wrote:
-This disaster grows daily, but all the government and the Greenies can talk about is the one-time BP oil spill.
Whining, off topic and not very reasoned.
McCarthy was right wrote:
-Finally, ethanol isnít profitable, and requires massive subsidies from the government.
False. Ethanol is cheaper than MTBE or refining heavy crude to meet gasoline requirements without an octane booster.
McCarthy was right wrote:
Think about that every time you fill your carís gas tank.
And ignore this pile of used food. He is wrong about McCarthy too..
McCarthy was right

Fort Worth, TX

#11 Aug 29, 2010
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
Your facts are bullshit. No wonder you cannot find anyone to agree with you.
<quoted text>
Actually ethanol converts some less mobile fuels such as coal ( heating and electicity power for the farm) to liquid fuel. The 'exergy' for this is well over unity in any well run farm specializing in the 'fuel grade' corn production.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/3...
Unnoted by most are the energy savings of not having to manufacture an alternative oxygenator or octane booster, and the energy saved in refining by allowing a lower octane base.
<quoted text>
One valid criticism, yet corn is not often farmed in drought stressed regions primarily BECAUSE it is a water hog. A criticism against farming corn, NOT ethanol in fuel.
<quoted text>
This can be fixed by better soil conditioning (perhaps biochar) and not disturbing the cover (plowing) that saves more energy. Because the corn does not have to meet visual appeal, there is less need for the energy intensive cultivation of sweet corn. A criticism against farming corn, NOT ethanol in fuel.
<quoted text>
Totally bogus. Most corn for ethanol competes only with grain feed and often is too 'low grade' for even feed. Ethanol production forms an 'alternate market' for low grade grains, not just corn. And the resulting 'residual feed' is very good feed in itself with higher protein content.
<quoted text>
Whining, off topic and not very reasoned.
<quoted text>
False. Ethanol is cheaper than MTBE or refining heavy crude to meet gasoline requirements without an octane booster.
<quoted text>
And ignore this pile of used food. He is wrong about McCarthy too..
Haha! I seem to have upset a Greenie into an angry, whining, rambling, but ultimately empty feel-good defense of the environmental and financial disaster that is corn ethanol.
McCarthy was right

Fort Worth, TX

#12 Aug 29, 2010
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes but not because of fears of nuclear power. It was over fears of nuclear proliferation.
Hahaha! Thatís ANOTHER Greenie lie. Typical of the back-door methods of the Greenies,ďfear of nuclear proliferationĒ was an invention used as a method of preventing the construction of new nuclear plants. Drowning prospective projects in regulatory red tape was another.
McCarthy was right

Fort Worth, TX

#13 Aug 29, 2010
P.S. Your posts are full of Greenie lies like the suggestion that Ethanol mandates were instilled because its "cheaper than MTBE."

In fact, the Greenie-inspired mandate for MTBE was discontinued when it was discovered that it was contaminating aquifers.

BTW, Ethanol is nothing more than a government payoff to agribusiness. The Greenies are willing to go along because it fits their "alternative fuel" rhetoric.

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#14 Aug 29, 2010
Global Warming is a figment of the democrats imagination. They got it from Willy Wonka. I think they all come from Willy Wonka Land. Democrats are flakier than filo doe.
LessHypeMoreFact

Orangeville, Canada

#15 Aug 29, 2010
McCarthy was right wrote:
<quoted text>
Haha! I seem to have upset a Greenie into an angry, whining, rambling, but ultimately empty feel-good defense of the environmental and financial disaster that is corn ethanol.
Wrong again.
LessHypeMoreFact

Orangeville, Canada

#16 Aug 29, 2010
McCarthy was right wrote:
P.S. Your posts are full of Greenie lies like the suggestion that Ethanol mandates were instilled because its "cheaper than MTBE."
In the energy sense of course. It costs less energy to produce ethanol than to produce MTBE. And I listed the major advantages of using ethanol to replace it without even invoking the fact that MTBE is toxic.

“Denying those who deny nature”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

#17 Aug 29, 2010
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
In the energy sense of course. It costs less energy to produce ethanol than to produce MTBE. And I listed the major advantages of using ethanol to replace it without even invoking the fact that MTBE is toxic.
Actually producing MTBE takes far less energy than producing ethanol. Then there is the damage it does to engines. Ethanol actually takes more energy to produce from planting to delivery of the final product than is gained from it.
McCarthy was right

Benet Lake, WI

#18 Aug 29, 2010
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
In the energy sense of course. It costs less energy to produce ethanol than to produce MTBE. And I listed the major advantages of using ethanol to replace it without even invoking the fact that MTBE is toxic.
The point is, my disingenuous Greenie, MTBE wasn't discontinued in favor of Ethanol because of cost (as you dishonestly claimed) but because it was discovered to be contaminating) the aquifers.
GEEWIZ

Broken Arrow, OK

#21 Aug 30, 2010
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
"An Associated Press examination of U.S. Department of Energy records and information provided by utilities and trade groups shows that more than 30 traditional coal plants have been built since 2008 or are under construction."
In constrast, none of these nuclear power plants is even licensed. Talk about saying one thing and doing another. And 'traditional' coal power plants add a burden of about 50% extra coal emissions for the same power. Their only advantage is that they cost less to build. But that extra coal means extra emissions, costs and waste to RUN them.
Already 21 states have toxic sites from coal ash deposits and contamination of rivers. Wake up people. WHile you dream of a nuclear renaissance, the bean counters are trading away your future.
Coal is the cheapest and safest,emissions are under control and flyash is just another green spinning joke.coal ashes are good 4 your garden work it into your soil.only thing TOXIC is all this green spinning.
Robert

Brooklyn, NY

#22 Aug 30, 2010
Another serious matter that has not received much attention;



May God bless and have mercy on us.
LessHypeMoreFact

Orangeville, Canada

#23 Aug 30, 2010
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually producing MTBE takes far less energy than producing ethanol.
False. MTBE is produced by reacting methanol and isobutalene, both of which cost energy to produce from natural gas and butane. Even extracting the butane has an energy penalty.

Whereas Ethanol's exergy is about zero in terms of the farm energy equation and positive in terms of reducing refining energy use.

As usual, you just pull this from you ass and hope that nobody checks it.
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
Then there is the damage it does to engines.
Again false. Ethanol did have problems with early engines due to seal deterioration but this is not a problem in any car on the road today. Most of the ones that couldn't take ethanol also couldn't use unleaded gasoline and service stations don't sell leaded gas any more.
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>Ethanol actually takes more energy to produce from planting to delivery of the final product than is gained from it.
Nope. Most studies of the ENTIRE production process and all inputs and outputs show a positive exergy where it is specifically farmed ( less pesticide, plowing, etc) and specific grains designed for ethanol production.

The contrary studies almost always used food grade corn as an input with major plowing,fertilizer and pesticide inputs, to distort the issue. I imagine that the MTBE industry was a bit behind this 'tobacco science'.

It may be true that for food grade products the exergy is negative but the only food grade corn used would be cracked, mildewed, or otherwise 'not fit for human consumption' and it is a case of recovering value from what otherwise would be garbage.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Senator Mark Udall Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Winners and losers of the 2014 election, first ... Jan 12 tha Professor 75
Cory Gardner says he's 'a new kind of Republican' Jan 7 swedenforever 14
The Seven Biggest Liberal Fails Of 2014 Jan 4 Who 113
Election results sobering for gay-rights movement Nov '14 Wondering 76
The Worst Political Calculation the Democrats M... Nov '14 ronnie 2
What if Democrats had told the truth about Obama? Nov '14 Bama Yankee 4
Election Leaves Immigration Advocates Frustrate... Nov '14 wild child 5
More from around the web