<![CDATA[Grist - Comment Feed for McCain/Palin nuclear plan would make U.S. more dependent on Russia for energy]]> Grist Comment Feed en Comment #1 by amazingdrx http://www.grist.org/article/russian-ahead/ Wed, 01 Oct 2008 23:50:23 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/russian-ahead/1 Nuclear outsourced too?

Let me guess, China makes our nuclear plant components?  Is that a division of Walmart?

So the nuclear industry needs not only research, development, and testing of new experimental designs, but also massive capital to build mass production facilities here in the US.  

This is getting expensiver and expensiver.  As Palin might put it.

And it's going to take 450 nukes, not 45, if McCain wants to use them to stop burning coal and natural gas and use nuclear electricity and heat to turn tar sands, shale, and coal onto fuel for gas guzzling as usual.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

]]> Nuclear outsourced too?

Let me guess, China makes our nuclear plant components?  Is that a division of Walmart?

So the nuclear industry needs not only research, development, and testing of new experimental designs, but also massive capital to build mass production facilities here in the US.  

This is getting expensiver and expensiver.  As Palin might put it.

And it's going to take 450 nukes, not 45, if McCain wants to use them to stop burning coal and natural gas and use nuclear electricity and heat to turn tar sands, shale, and coal onto fuel for gas guzzling as usual.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

]]> Comment #2 by vakibs http://www.grist.org/article/russian-ahead/ Thu, 02 Oct 2008 00:18:46 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/russian-ahead/2 nuclear fuel is a non-issue !

If USA uses nuclear power with Generation 2 and Generation 3 reactors (as being planned by McCain) and uses nuclear power for all its energy needs, the total amount of Uranium it needs for the next 50 years can be provided by Australia and Canada. No need to be at the beck and call of Mr Putin. Ofcourse, Russia wants to earn some money by selling cheap Uranium to USA, but it cannot control the nuclear fuel supply by heading a cartel à la Saudi Arabia's OPEC.

Uranium costs account for a tiny morcel of total nuclear costs. Capital construction costs dominate for nuclear power. The fuel needs are extremely minimum.

Ofcourse, if USA builds generation-4 nuclear plants, it doesn't even have to look for Uranium. It can keep burning the existing "nuclear waste" for several hundred years and get all the energy that it needs.

Let's think in terms of eco-dollars.

]]> nuclear fuel is a non-issue !

If USA uses nuclear power with Generation 2 and Generation 3 reactors (as being planned by McCain) and uses nuclear power for all its energy needs, the total amount of Uranium it needs for the next 50 years can be provided by Australia and Canada. No need to be at the beck and call of Mr Putin. Ofcourse, Russia wants to earn some money by selling cheap Uranium to USA, but it cannot control the nuclear fuel supply by heading a cartel à la Saudi Arabia's OPEC.

Uranium costs account for a tiny morcel of total nuclear costs. Capital construction costs dominate for nuclear power. The fuel needs are extremely minimum.

Ofcourse, if USA builds generation-4 nuclear plants, it doesn't even have to look for Uranium. It can keep burning the existing "nuclear waste" for several hundred years and get all the energy that it needs.

Let's think in terms of eco-dollars.

]]> Comment #3 by redpanda http://www.grist.org/article/russian-ahead/ Thu, 02 Oct 2008 04:18:03 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/russian-ahead/3 the "all-of-the-above approach"

Obama has put a dollar figure on how much he wants to spend on R&D for getting off fossil fuels.  It's a very concrete kind of support.

When McCain talks about supporting carbon-free energy, I don't know what kind of support he's talking about.  Obviously McCain is for deregulating everything, but beyond that, what resources is he willing to commit to energy when he's reducing federal revenue with his tax cuts to the wealthy?

Is he only offering moral support?  I think we can do better than that from the federal government for one of the top two or three challenges the country faces for the next two or three decades.

]]> the "all-of-the-above approach"

Obama has put a dollar figure on how much he wants to spend on R&D for getting off fossil fuels.  It's a very concrete kind of support.

When McCain talks about supporting carbon-free energy, I don't know what kind of support he's talking about.  Obviously McCain is for deregulating everything, but beyond that, what resources is he willing to commit to energy when he's reducing federal revenue with his tax cuts to the wealthy?

Is he only offering moral support?  I think we can do better than that from the federal government for one of the top two or three challenges the country faces for the next two or three decades.

]]> Comment #4 by KenG http://www.grist.org/article/russian-ahead/ Thu, 02 Oct 2008 09:26:55 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/russian-ahead/4 Corrections are Called For

There are a few very misleading aspects of this post. Currently the US imports a lot of uranium, much from Russia. However, this is not a result of Russia having a monopoly on Uranium. It is a results of the nuclear weapon reduction program. Russia used enriched Uranium in many of their weapons and are downblending it to use up in reactors, providing a bargain source of fuel. This source will be gone in a few years. Uranium is plentiful. The US, Canada, Australia, Khazakstan, several African countries, etc all have major Uranium resources. Security associated with Uranium is just a non-issue.

Second, Daniel Weiss is misquoted in the above post. He says certain "key components" are built overseas, not "most of the components". In fact, the US is the number one supplier of nuclear technology. The post also seems to be trying to indicate that these supply limitations are a security issue. In fact the one limiting component (large forgings for reactor vessels) are currently built in Japan but plans are in place to also build them in the UK, France and South Korea, all countries very friendly to the US. There are US facilities that could be upgraded in a reasonable time to also build these components if the demand exists.

]]> Corrections are Called For

There are a few very misleading aspects of this post. Currently the US imports a lot of uranium, much from Russia. However, this is not a result of Russia having a monopoly on Uranium. It is a results of the nuclear weapon reduction program. Russia used enriched Uranium in many of their weapons and are downblending it to use up in reactors, providing a bargain source of fuel. This source will be gone in a few years. Uranium is plentiful. The US, Canada, Australia, Khazakstan, several African countries, etc all have major Uranium resources. Security associated with Uranium is just a non-issue.

Second, Daniel Weiss is misquoted in the above post. He says certain "key components" are built overseas, not "most of the components". In fact, the US is the number one supplier of nuclear technology. The post also seems to be trying to indicate that these supply limitations are a security issue. In fact the one limiting component (large forgings for reactor vessels) are currently built in Japan but plans are in place to also build them in the UK, France and South Korea, all countries very friendly to the US. There are US facilities that could be upgraded in a reasonable time to also build these components if the demand exists.

]]> Comment #5 by Kate Sheppard http://www.grist.org/article/russian-ahead/ Fri, 03 Oct 2008 05:09:32 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/russian-ahead/5 Correction

KenG, I've adjusted the "most" to say "key," which is a fair point. As for the Russian uranium, they are currently the No. 1 supplier -- I'm not saying they have the most supplies, but they are currently the country from which we buy the majority of what we use in power plants here, now. Not much to dispute there, regardless of where in the future we might be able to get that uranium.

Kate Sheppard

]]> Correction

KenG, I've adjusted the "most" to say "key," which is a fair point. As for the Russian uranium, they are currently the No. 1 supplier -- I'm not saying they have the most supplies, but they are currently the country from which we buy the majority of what we use in power plants here, now. Not much to dispute there, regardless of where in the future we might be able to get that uranium.

Kate Sheppard

]]>