Any MORE Doubts???

[LadyMod at scam.com]

:talktothehand: First read this, then read the article.

Still think it NOT about oil? Still believe that we are really friends to Israel? I don't think so. Blow up our buildings, kill thousands of innocent Americans and get away with it BUT ONLY if you have a lot of oil.
***************************************

The Egyptian Observer: (http://egyptianobserver.blogspot.com/2006/06/true-power-of-oil.html)


‘Power politics’ (a man-made creation) refers to the military or economic threat used by nation-states to further their own interests. History has shown an abundance of examples, most notably the Cold War.

Nevertheless, the irony of power politics is that contrary to the semantics of its name, there is an ‘implicit’ balance between the major powers of the world. The US has the world’s largest and strongest army and economy par none however its feebleness has recently came to the public sphere through its incredible reliance on a non-renewable energy source:

Oil.

The world’s economy relies heavily on oil however the US has (more than other country) revealed that it would take massive strides to secure a sufficient supply for its own health. The oxymoron in ‘power politics’ is that the US might not be as powerful after all. If one closely examines the list of the top oil producers in the world, an obvious yet nonetheless peculiar observation is made.

The following are the top world oil producers in 2004 ( OPEC members are in italic):

1) Saudi Arabia
2) Russia
3) United States
4) Iran
5) Mexico
6) China
7) Norway
8) Canada
9) Venezuela
10) United Arab Emirates
11) Kuwait
12) Nigeria
13) United Kingdom
14) Iraq (Safest country to blame and start a war with, they are the bottom of the totem pole, has mean dictator we no longer can control, no weapons that need worry us- HEY that's a good excuse, tell America they have WMD's and it's in the bag.)

The following are the world’s top oil net exporters in 2004: (See the United States in this list? Me neither!)

1) Saudi Arabia
2) Russia
3) Norway
4) Iran
5) Venezuela
6) United Arab Emirates
7) Kuwait
8) Nigeria
9) Mexico
10) Nigeria
11) Iraq
12) Libya
13) Kazakhstan
14) Qatar

The countries aforementioned are all in the ‘watch-eye’ of the United States because of their oil producing and exporting capabilities. Here is a quick and succinct summary of their relationship with the US:

Saudi Arabia: US ally
Russia: US ally with reservations and differences
Iran: US enemy and member of the ‘Axis of Evil’
Mexico: US ally
China: US pseudo-ally with reservations and differences
Norway: US ally
Canada: US ally
Venezuela: US enemy
United Arab Emirates: US ally
Kuwait: US ally
Nigeria: US ally
UK: US ally
Iraq: Occupied by the US, unclassified
Algeria: US ally
Libya: Recent US ally
Kazakhstan: US ally
Qatar: US ally

Here is a more detailed alliance analysis with a categorical numerical value (1 = staunch ally and 8 = staunch enemy).

Category 1: The UK, Norway and Canada can be categorized as staunch US allies. They are developed countries with economic and social systems similar to that of the US.

Category 2: Mexico can be categorized as a close ally. President Vicente Fox and President Bush have had their differences especially regarding the recent illegal immigration debacle and Mexico’s role in illegal cross-border immigration in California.

Category 3: Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Qatar, Nigeria and Kazakhstan can be categorized as allies. As much as Saudi Arabia has aided the US in the first and second Gulf wars, the majority of the 9/11 perpetrators were of Saudi origin. The extreme doctrine of Wahabism has bred Muslim militant extremists. Moreover, there have been numerous attacks on US property within Saudi borders and there continues to be extreme misunderstanding of both countries’ respective cultures. The Arab countries are in essence mini US strongholds in the Gulf. The US has struck business deals with all four countries and has troops stationed in all of them.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

U.S. Set to Offer Huge Arms Deal to Saudi Arabia
By DAVID S. CLOUD
Published: July 28, 2007

WASHINGTON, July 27 (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/28/washington/28weapons.html?_r=1&th=&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&emc=th&adxnnlx=1185626033-QMpFYuns+vm0qxBuz1fGZQ) — The Bush administration is preparing to ask Congress to approve an arms sale package for Saudi Arabia and its neighbors that is expected to eventually total $20 billion at a time when some United States officials contend that the Saudis are playing a counterproductive role (http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/07/27/africa/27saudi-web.php) in Iraq.

The proposed package of advanced weaponry for Saudi Arabia, which includes advanced satellite-guided bombs, upgrades to its fighters and new naval vessels, has made Israel and some of its supporters in Congress nervous. Senior officials who described the package on Friday said they believed that the administration had resolved those concerns, in part by promising Israel $30.4 billion in military aid over the next decade, a significant increase over what Israel has received in the past 10 years.

But administration officials remained concerned that the size of the package and the advanced weaponry it contains, as well as broader concerns about Saudi Arabia’s role in Iraq, could prompt Saudi critics in Congress to oppose the package when Congress is formally notified about the deal this fall.

In talks about the package, the administration has not sought specific assurances from Saudi Arabia that it would be more supportive of the American effort in Iraq as a condition of receiving the arms package, the officials said.

The officials said the plan to bolster the militaries of Persian Gulf countries is part of an American strategy to contain the growing power of Iran in the region and to demonstrate that, no matter what happens in Iraq, Washington remains committed to its longtime Arab allies. Officials from the State Department and the Pentagon agreed to outline the te.rms of the deal after some details emerged from closed briefings this week on Capitol Hill.

The officials said Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, who are to make a joint visit to Saudi Arabia next week, still intended to use the trip to press the Saudis to do more to help Iraq’s Shiite-dominated government.

“The role of the Sunni Arab neighbors is to send a positive, affirmative message to moderates in Iraq in government that the neighbors are with you,” a senior State Department official told reporters in a conference call on Friday. More specifically, the official said, the United States wants the gulf states to make clear to Sunnis engaged in violence in Iraq that such actions are “killing your future.”

In addition to promising an increase in American military aid to Israel, the Pentagon is seeking to ease Israel’s concerns over the proposed weapons sales to Saudi Arabia by asking the Saudis to accept restrictions on the range, size and location of the satellite-guided bombs, including a commitment not to store the weapons at air bases close to Israeli territory, the officials said.

The package and the possible steps to allay Israel’s concerns were described to Congress this week, in an effort by the administration to test the reaction on Capitol Hill before entering into final negotiations on the package with Saudi officials. The Saudis had requested that Congress be told about the planned sale, the officials said, in an effort to avoid the kind of bruising fight on Capitol Hill that occurred in the 1980s over proposed arms sales to the kingdom.

In his visit with King Abdullah and other Saudi officials next week, Mr. Gates plans to describe “what the administration is willing to go forward with” in the arms package and “what we would recommend to the Hill and others,” according to a senior Pentagon official, who conducted a background briefing on the upcoming trip with reporters on Friday.

The official added that Mr. Gates would also reassure the Saudis that “regardless of what happens in the near term in Iraq that our commitment in the region remains firm, remains steadfast and that, in fact, we are looking to enhance and develop it.”

The $20 billion price tag on the package is more than double what officials originally estimated when details became public this spring. Even the higher figure is a rough estimate that could fluctuate depending on the final package, which would be carried out over a number of years, officials said.

Worried about the impression that the United States was starting an arms race in the region, State and Defense Department officials stressed that the arms deal was being proposed largely in response to improvements in Iran’s military capabilities and to counter the threat posed by its nuclear program, which the Bush administration contends is aimed at building nuclear weapons.

Along with Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates are likely to receive equipment and weaponry from the arms sales under consideration, officials said. In general, the United States is interested in upgrading the countries’ air and missile defense systems, improving their navies and making modest improvements in their air forces, administration officials said, though not all the packages would be the same.

The $30.4 billion being promised to Israel is $9.1 billion more than Israel has received over the past decade, an increase of nearly 43 percent.


In defending the proposed sale to Saudi Arabia and other gulf states, the officials noted that the Saudis and several of the other countries were in talks with suppliers other than the United States. If the packages offered to them by the United States are blocked or come with too many conditions, the officials said, the Persian Gulf countries could turn elsewhere for similar equipment, reducing American influence in the region.

The United States has made few, if any, sales of satellite-guided munitions to Arab countries in the past, though Israel has received them since the mid-1990s as part of a United States policy of ensuring that Israel has a military edge over its regional rivals.


Their major concern is not a full-scale Saudi attack, but the possibility that a rogue pilot armed with one of the bombs could attack on his own or that the Saudi government could one day be overthrown and the weapons could fall into the hands of a more radical regime, officials said.

***************************************

Our soldiers die for OIL. That's pretty much what it's all about...no matter what "pretty paper" you want to wrap around it.


LM:banghead:

.

[Bill]

It probably makes more sense to die for oil than to die for the other fake reasons.

[LadyMod at scam.com]

It probably makes more sense to die for oil than to die for the other fake reasons.

Think where we would be now if the money spent to go to war and build up the weapon capabilities doing these deals, had been used to fund alternate fuel methods?

Hell, we might have affordable solar cars by now, who knows?

.:banghead:

[Southern Man]

If you liberals would face the music and realize that if the US is to be energy independent we must be able to drill for oil within our own borders and offshore, exploit natural gas reserves including the south east coast, site windmills where the wind is (coastal areas and mountain ridges), complete Yucca Mountain radioactive waste depository, and fully embrace nuclear power. As these are ALL initiatives that liberals are against, we have no alternative than to purchase oil from foreign sources.

Since this is our only practical alternative, it is a sensible startegy is to buy it all in the middle east if we can, and drain those sources as quickly as possible. When the arabs run out of an easy source of wealth, they will no longer be a threat to us.

[Bill]

Think where we would be now if the money spent to go to war and build up the weapon capabilities doing these deals, had been used to fund alternate fuel methods?

Hell, we might have affordable solar cars by now, who knows?

.:banghead:

But they didn't, and we didn't, and we don't.

Nor is there any real movement towards doing so.

I've said many times, if Bush had just been honest, and said we're hitting iraq to take their oil, americans would still be solidly behind the war.

[LadyMod at scam.com]

If you liberals would face the music and realize that if the US is to be energy independent we must be able to drill for oil within our own borders and offshore, exploit natural gas reserves including the south east coast, site windmills where the wind is (coastal areas and mountain ridges), complete Yucca Mountain radioactive waste depository, and fully embrace nuclear power. As these are ALL initiatives that liberals are against, we have no alternative than to purchase oil from foreign sources.

Since this is our only practical alternative, it is a sensible startegy is to buy it all in the middle east if we can, and drain those sources as quickly as possible. When the arabs run out of an easy source of wealth, they will no longer be a threat to us.


"If you liberals"????? :confused: Somehow I didn't see this as a "liberal" only problem. Do not conservatives use gas and oil too?

We are the third largest oil producing country and we still need to drill within our borders and offshore? Have you been to Texas lately? Or the Gulf of Mexico?

Apparently we are doing both things you suggest and we still aren't independent. That isn't the answer. You could have a well in every backyard of America and that won't help. Drilling more but not turning towards alternates doesn't exactly get us independent.

LM

[Southern Man]

"If you liberals"????? :confused: Somehow I didn't see this as a "liberal" only problem. Do not conservatives use gas and oil too?

We are the third largest oil producing country and we still need to drill within our borders and offshore? Have you been to Texas lately? Or the Gulf of Mexico?

Apparently we are doing both things you suggest and we still aren't independent. That isn't the answer. You could have a well in every backyard of America and that won't help. Drilling more but not turning towards alternates doesn't exactly get us independent.

LM
This is a problem caused by liberals since it is liberals who are against ALL the initiatives as I stated earlier, not just oil and natural gas. Even alternatives such as wind. And especially nuclear.

[LadyMod at scam.com]

This is a problem caused by liberals since it is liberals who are against ALL the initiatives as I stated earlier, not just oil and natural gas. Even alternatives such as wind. And especially nuclear.


Well, we have windmill farms, we have several nuclear plants in California. Winmill farms kill an awful lot of birds when they are placed in migration paths'
http://www.mrcranky.com/movies/incredibles/73/20.html

The Sun is free, doesn't slice up wildlife and is environmentally friendly. We don't need to lose our wildlife, nor increase our drilling for fossil fuels to have energy.

LM

[Moby]

This is a problem caused by liberals since it is liberals who are against ALL the initiatives as I stated earlier, not just oil and natural gas. Even alternatives such as wind. And especially nuclear.
OK, so when the neo-cons controlled congress for 6 years they implemented all of these things that you talk about? Of course they didn't and they had plenty of time to do it.

Why didn't they do it?

[Southern Man]

Well, we have windmill farms, we have several nuclear plants in California. Winmill farms kill an awful lot of birds when they are placed in migration paths'
http://www.mrcranky.com/movies/incredibles/73/20.html

The Sun is free, doesn't slice up wildlife and is environmentally friendly. We don't need to lose our wildlife, nor increase our drilling for fossil fuels to have energy.

LMWell, we have windmill farms, we have several nuclear plants in California. Winmill farms kill an awful lot of birds when they are placed in migration paths'
http://www.mrcranky.com/movies/incredibles/73/20.html

The Sun is free, doesn't slice up wildlife and is environmentally friendly. We don't need to lose our wildlife, nor increase our drilling for fossil fuels to have energy.

LM

1. Due to lawsuits fro liberal groups, there hasn't been a new nuclear plant built in California in 35 years. That doesn't make CA the bastion of clean energy, does it?

2. In order to supply the US with electrical power from photovoltaic cells, 14,450 square miles of cells would need to be built. http://www1.eere.energy.gov/solar/myths.html. This is roughly the size of Massachusetts and New Jersey, combined.


1. Due to lawsuits fro liberal groups, there hasn't been a new nuclear plant built in California in 35 years. That doesn't make CA the bastion of clean energy, does it?

2. In order to supply the US with electrical power from photovoltaic cells

[Southern Man]

OK, so when the neo-cons controlled congress for 6 years they implemented all of these things that you talk about? Of course they didn't and they had plenty of time to do it.

Why didn't they do it? You seem to think the GOP is controlled by "neocons", whatever that is, and these folks have the balls to stand up to liberal lobbying groups who demonize them as polluters and environmental rapists for having reasonable ideas on energy policy. Suppose for a moment that this were true. What about the entrenched Democrat-liberal bureaucracy at the EPA?

Until a majority of the American public- both Democrats and Republicans alike- understand the simple facts and tell the environmental whackos to simply SHUT UP we will continue to import most of our oil and burn lots of coal.
http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z256/glockmail/MakeupYourMind.jpg

[Bill]

The first generations of nuclear plants had their design flaws, so it's understandable that the environmentalists protested against them, even if they were dead wrong in their long term logic.

And we still don't have a good waste and toxicity strategy.

But, we should begin building the latest designs of plants as soon as possible, because wether we like it or not, fossil carbon is going to be too expensive to provide the energy we will need to survive.

Both in direct cost, and in the costs of climate change.

Even if we are successful in stealing Iraqs oil, that's only a short term solution. We need to develop an electricity based society as soon as possible, and nuclear power would have to be a foundation element of the electricity society.

[Southern Man]

Radioactive Waste
The radioactive waste products from the nuclear industry must be isolated from contact with people for very long time periods. The bulk of the radioactivity is contained in the spent fuel, which is quite small in volume and therefore easily handled with great care. This "high level waste" will be converted to a rock-like form and emplaced in the natural habitat of rocks, deep underground. The average lifetime of a rock in that environment is one billion years. If the waste behaves like other rock, it is easily shown that the waste generated by one nuclear power plant will eventually, over millions of years (if there is no cure found for cancer), cause one death from 50 years of operation. By comparison, the wastes from coal burning plants that end up in the ground will eventually cause several thousand deaths from generating the same amount of electricity.

The much larger volume of much less radioactive (low level) waste from nuclear plants will be buried at shallow depths (typically 20 feet) in soil. If we assume that this material immediately becomes dispersed through the soil between the surface and ground water depth (despite elaborate measures to maintain waste package integrity) and behaves like the same materials that are present naturally in soil (there is extensive evidence confirming such behavior), the death toll from this low level waste would be 5% of that from the high level waste discussed in the previous paragraph.
http://www.physics.isu.edu/radinf/np-risk.htm

[LadyMod at scam.com]

When they "sneak" these things in it just bothers me. This is in today's NY Times.
*****************************************
Energy Bill Aids the Expansion Plans of Atomic Power Plants
By EDMUND L. ANDREWS and MATTHEW L. WALD
Published: July 31, 2007

WASHINGTON, July 30 — A one-sentence provision buried in the Senate’s recently passed energy bill, inserted without debate at the urging of the nuclear power industry, could make builders of new nuclear plants eligible for tens of billions of dollars in government loan guarantees.

Lobbyists have told lawmakers and administration officials in recent weeks that the nuclear industry needs as much as $50 billion in loan guarantees over the next two years to finance a major expansion.

The biggest champion of the loan guarantees is Senator Pete V. Domenici of New Mexico, the ranking Republican on the Senate Energy Committee and one of the nuclear industry’s strongest supporters in Congress.

Senator Jeff Bingaman, Democrat of New Mexico and the energy bill’s author, has long argued that nuclear power plants do not need federal loan guarantees. Mr. Bingaman said that the industry was over-interpreting the provision and that it would provide loan guarantees for only the most innovative power plants.

But the provision has the potential to considerably expand the nuclear industry, which plans to build 28 new reactors at an estimated cost of about $4 billion to $5 billion apiece. And while the nuclear industry would be the biggest beneficiary, the provision could also set the stage for billions of dollars in loan guarantees for power plants that use “clean coal” technology and renewable fuels.

The nuclear industry is enjoying growing political support after decades of opposition from environmental groups and others concerned about the risks. An increasing number of lawmakers in both parties, worried about global warming and dependence on foreign oil, support some expansion of nuclear power.

But the provision could go much further than many lawmakers had in mind by giving the Department of Energy the power to approve an unlimited amount of loan guarantees for “clean” power generation. Under legislation enacted in 2005, nuclear power qualifies as a clean technology because it does not emit carbon gases that contribute to global warming.

Power companies have tentative plans to put the 28 new reactors at 19 sites around the country. Industry executives insist that banks and Wall Street will not provide the money needed to build new reactors unless the loans are guaranteed in their entirety by the federal government.

The federal government guarantees many billions of loans each year to help farmers, exporters, small businesses and students. The government does not actually lend the money but agrees to pay it back in case the borrower defaults. (Let a student default on one of those "loans" and see how fast the government makes their life miserable.)

While the nuclear industry says it will need $25 billion in loan guarantees in 2008 and $50 billion over the next two years, President Bush had proposed a far smaller amount — $4 billion — in new loan guarantees next year for “clean” electric power technologies, which include plants that run on so-called clean coal technologies and renewable fuels.

Many experts fear that the proposed subsidies could leave taxpayers responsible for billions of dollars in soured loans.

“Such projects, by their nature, pose significant technical and market risks,” the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office warned last month in an analysis of the provision. “Studies of the accuracy of cost estimates for pioneering technologies have found that estimates are consistently low.”

Michael J. Wallace, the co-chief executive of UniStar Nuclear, a partnership seeking to build nuclear reactors, and executive vice president of Constellation Energy, said: “Without loan guarantees we will not build nuclear power plants.”

The little-noticed provision in the Senate bill subtly refines and expands the loan guarantee program that Congress passed in the Energy Policy Act of 2005.

As before, the Department of Energy would be allowed to guarantee 100 percent of the loans and up to 80 percent of the total cost to build a reactor.

But the bill essentially allows the department to approve as many loan guarantees as it wants for both new reactors and plants that use other “clean” technologies.

That is a big change. Under current law, the government is only allowed to guarantee a volume of loans authorized each year by Congress. Last year, Congress limited the government to awarding just $4 billion in loan guarantees for clean energy projects during the 2007 fiscal year.

Mr. Domenici, who has been pushing the Energy Department to move much more aggressively in approving loan guarantees, has argued that there is no need for limits on the loan volume because power companies will be required to pay an upfront fee to cover the estimated cost of the guarantee. In essence, the “credit subsidy” payments would be used as a kind of insurance premium that could be used to cover the cost of any defaulted loan.

“It is very clear that this is a self-financing program,” Mr. Domenici told James Nussle, Mr. Bush’s nominee to become the White House budget director, at Mr. Nussle’s confirmation hearing last week. “There should already be $25 billion to $30 billion in the loan guarantee fund.”

But the Bush administration opposes the measure, fearing that it could prove extremely costly.

The provision would “remove appropriate controls over the size of the program and increase taxpayer liability,” the Office of Management and Budget wrote in an official position statement on the energy bill.

Michele Boyd, legislative director of the consumer advocacy group Public Citizen, said the measure would subsidize plants with conventional technology.

“None of these so-called ‘advanced’ nuclear reactors deal with the fundamental flaws of nuclear power, such as dangerous radioactive waste, vulnerabilities to air attack and excessive cost,” said Ms. Boyd, whose staff began investigating the provision shortly after the Senate passed the bill last month.

Mr. Bingaman, the bill’s primary architect, said that he was aware of the provision but believed that it would apply only to reactors with fundamentally new technology.

“I would be amazed if this generic loan program applied to most of the plants that are being proposed, either for the nuclear industry or coal industry,” Mr. Bingaman said Monday night. “The idea of this is not just to help an industry build plants. It’s to demonstrate new technology that meets the nation’s energy needs.”

But industry officials say the measure would directly affect the reactors on the drawing board.

“I think we can say that with all the projects moving forward on the schedule they are now on, that there could be a need for $20 to $25 billion in loan guarantees,” said Richard Myers, vice president for policy development at the Nuclear Energy Institute, a trade association.

The House is hoping to pass its own energy bill this week. But leading House Democrats have made it clear they oppose any kind of loan guarantees for nuclear reactors.

The House recently passed an appropriations bill for energy and water programs that included $7 billion in loan guarantees for projects involving renewable energy and specifically excluded nuclear plants.

Representative Peter J. Visclosky, Democrat of Indiana and chairman of the House Appropriations Committee’s panel on energy and water, said last month that the nuclear industry had estimated a need of $25 billion in guaranteed loans for next year and “more than that” in 2009.

The industry’s request, Mr. Visclosky warned, “overwhelms” what the committee had been willing to offer the entire energy industry.

Still, nuclear industry executives say they hope the Senate’s loan guarantee provision will be adopted by House lawmakers.

.

[nofear]

ok oil..fine why didnt we just have the fed res just print more bs paper and buy the oil and not have to kill and destroy another part of the planet and its people..

its much more than oil..

[LadyMod at scam.com]

ok oil..fine why didnt we just have the fed res just print more bs paper and buy the oil and not have to kill and destroy another part of the planet and its people..

its much more than oil..

You are unaware that WAR is PROFITABLE? Rebuilding countries brings in a lot of profits to American companies. Especially the big ones that Cheney is connected to.


LM

[Southern Man]

When they "sneak" these things in it just bothers me. This is in today's NY Times. ....

.

"Sneak" is your term, but after all it is an "energy" bill. If it was a single payer health care provision you probably wouldn't have a problem with it.

The provision makes sense, as the power industry cannot afford the risks associated with fickle, liberal, liberally funded anti-nuclear power groups delaying the permit process for a decade or more and then having sleep-ins, shutting down construction access.

If I wrote the provision it would be to put the providers of these frivolous lawsuits and their long-haired protestors in jail.

[LadyMod at scam.com]

"Sneak" is your term, but after all it is an "energy" bill. If it was a single payer health care provision you probably wouldn't have a problem with it.

The provision makes sense, as the power industry cannot afford the risks associated with fickle, liberal, liberally funded anti-nuclear power groups delaying the permit process for a decade or more and then having sleep-ins, shutting down construction access.

If I wrote the provision it would be to put the providers of these frivolous lawsuits and their long-haired protestors in jail.

If it was so great, why stick it in the middle and not mention it? And why listen to lobbyists in the first place?

LM

.

[Southern Man]

If it was so great, why stick it in the middle and not mention it? And why listen to lobbyists in the first place?

LM

.

It has to be put someplace. How do you propose that every provision be adequately "mentioned" to your satisfaction? Professional lobbyists perform an important function: education of the lay legislature.

[nofear]

You are unaware that WAR is PROFITABLE? Rebuilding countries brings in a lot of profits to American companies. Especially the big ones that Cheney is connected to.


LM

of course there is profits..but these folks are not American Companies thats a common misconception..they are transnational companies..the people capable of this kind of chaos and death and descruction dont give 2 shits about a country idea..its control and power ONLY..

[Linkster]

First - in reference to that quote above about radioactive waste - its a bunch of BS - the real solution is already in place - and does not involve burying anything - a new design that has been in use for a few years for storing the spent fuel uses concrete storage facilities above ground and works incredibly well - the next step is to simply reprocess the waste into reusable fuel which is being worked on now and will completely solve this problem

Second - the wording in opposition to licensing new nuclear plants is completely wrong - the licensing process has already been completed for many new plants including one near me - and the process eliminates the delays caused by protestors etc as that "hearing" is open to the public for comment - and the one we had here had two people in opposition compared to the hundreds that showed up in support.

Third - a common misconception about the relative harm from operation of a nuclear plant compared to a coal-fired plant - coal fired plants produce tons more radioactive waste that is totally unaccounted for - and is blown into the sky every day by every coal plant in the country. A good example is the Crystal River plant on the gulf in Florida - it has two coal plants and one nuclear - the guys working at the nuclear plant have to monitor and record the radioactivity in the outside air every day to prove that the coal plants are causing the alarms that the nuclear plant gets continuously.

Last - with the consumption of oil at todays rate - without any increase whatsoever (ever) current estimates are we have enough in the ground and undiscovered so far - to last until about 2029 - some estimates give it about 15 years or so. A nuclear plant onthe new fast-track building schedules still takes about 5 years or so to build - so I would think that loan guarantees are about the best way to get them built now

Of course if someone were really working on other clean alternatives in addition to the nuclear plants which in my experiences are the cleanest option out there - they would also need some loan guarantees as they arent going to risk their own money

[Bill]

First - in reference to that quote above about radioactive waste - its a bunch of BS - the real solution is already in place - and does not involve burying anything - a new design that has been in use for a few years for storing the spent fuel uses concrete storage facilities above ground and works incredibly well - the next step is to simply reprocess the waste into reusable fuel which is being worked on now and will completely solve this problem

Clearly, reprocessing the waste to extract the usable energy out of it is the way to go.

But, Linkster, the last I checked the only plants that can actually reprocess are small demonstration and university reactors, and we haven't actually begun any kind of energy extraction reprocessing.

And, our current storage solutions are ageing and decaying.

I hadn't heard that any of the fast-neutron nuclear plants (the kind that can be used to reprocess spent fuel) were licensed, or even planned, at this time. Do you know of any?

I think you are painting a bit of a rosy picture of the waste problem as it currently stands.

I'm fairly sure it's a solvable problem, but it looks to me like it could take as much as 40 years before a system with all the bugs worked out is actually functioning.

And then, you have to start thinking about breeder reactors, and the problems of plutonium.

[Linkster]

First off - the current storage facilities have just been built in the last 5 years - they exist at many nuclear plant sites - and yes it is a new design that isnt decaying or ageing :)
There are many old waste plants left over from warhead processing - but the nuclear energy industry has never had waste to take to dump sites - they always stored the used fuel in pools on site that are no where near decaying or ageing - as a matter of fact they are in the reactor buildings of active plants.
There is a small amount of solid low-level radioactive waste that is generated at nuclear plants - just like any facility that uses radioactive equipment - hospitals etc - nuclear plants are required to compact it (saves a bunch of money) and then ship it to one of the facilities at the warhead sites (DOE) where it is usually encased in glass (vitrified) if its waste like paper etc or buried if metal.
You would be amazed at the low level of this waste they have to ship - its actually lower level radioactive waste than hospitals can throw in the normal trash or wash down a city drain system - and they do on a daily basis.

The only real issue with nuclear plants (electrical generating) has always been running out of room on-site to store the fuel rods which plants store normally inside the conatinment building in pools after use. The pools can only hold so many - some have "re-racked" their pools to hold more for a few years - while some have recently taken the step of the concrete storage "dry casks" I was mentioning earlier - again though this is all on-site and not shipped anywhere.

The reprocessing of these fuel rods is beoing worked on my the major fuel producers (Westinghouse, Siemens and GE) and should be up and running very soon although they are really not needed for at least 20 years.

The breeder reactors etc dont really concern me as they have nothing to do with generating energy - they are only used for the development of weapons and that is a totally different issue

[Bill]

Except for the re-racking of spent fuel rods, none of this information is reaching the mainstream science press (scientific american, new scientist, and the like). So I have no references to confirm the claim that new storage facilities have been built to replace the 40 year old ones that are known to be decaying.

Most of what I've been reading lately talks about the huge cost of decommisioning plants and handling the ponds and buildings full of waste - and the waste is not described as repackaged, the problem is described as a problem of taking waste and repackaging it in new heavier casks and containers, to hold it untill reprocessing plants can be built.

You got any idea of where to look for such references, in a place accessible to the public?

The most recent big article in Scientific American is this one - http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=0000137A-C4BF-14E5-84BF83414B7F0000&pageNumber=4&catID=2

In the magazine, there were illustrations that described re-racking, and mention that new container systems are being developed for a hundred year storage plan. And this article suggests that the waste problem be handled by the US Government accepting title to the waste, taking it off the hands of the industry and accepting responsibility for it, to aid the industries profitability.

"To address the waste management problem in the U.S., the government should take title to the spent fuel stored at commercial reactor sites across the country and consolidate it at one or more federal interim storage sites until a permanent disposal facility is built. The waste can be temporarily stored safely and securely for an extended period. Such extended temporary storage, perhaps even for as long as 100 years, should be an integral part of the disposal strategy. Among other benefits, it would take the pressure off government and industry to come up with a hasty disposal solution.

Meanwhile the Department of Energy should not abandon Yucca Mountain. Instead it should reassess the suitability of the site under various conditions and modify the project's sched-ule as needed. If nuclear power expanded globally to one million megawatts, enough high-level waste and spent fuel would be generated in the open fuel cycle to fill a Yucca Mountain-size facility every three and a half years. In the court of public opinion, that fact is a significant disincentive to the expansion of nuclear power, yet it is a problem that can and must be solved. "


So, I still think you are painting a rosier picture than is the reality. And I'm a lifelong fan of nuclear power, not an opponent.

I metion breeders because, as I understand it, if we build enough reactors to replace a substantial proportion of the energy now supplied by oil, we start running out of cheap uranium by about the end of the century - and start a series of uranium wars well before that time.

The only longterm solution is using breeder reactors, to produce plutonium from u238.

I'll be dead long before breeders become critical, but, a long term electrical society requires breeders, as I understand it.

[Linkster]

The current storage facilities are far from decaying - they are merely pools in the current reactor buildings built of stainless steel and sheilding - and having seen many of them (probably 30 different facilities) not a one has a problem, they all have constant cooling from water systems, they are monitored constantly, and the reracking projects just make more room in the pool (each reactor building has one pool) by changing the amount of space between the rods which is no big deal.
High level waste is not being produced very much anymore - most of it is being reprocessed locally by utilities - and the only byproduct of it is some resin that can be set in small metal casks and then encased in glass after melting the resin at high temps. The information that article uses is the publics misconceptions ( and propaganda from a few diehards from the 60s) about the amount of waste that comes from the plants.

The new system used for fuel storage which is good forever basically is described here http://www.nrc.gov/waste/spent-fuel-storage/dry-cask-storage.html and has been in use since the 1980s - and doesnt leak or decay - since there isnt anything to leak. http://www.nrc.gov/waste/spent-fuel-storage/diagram-typical-dry-cask-system.html shows a typical dry system in use at most plants

The statement about filling a Yucca size facility in 3 years is total BS as you would be talking about each of 100 reactors refueling twice (each changes out around a third of its fuel rods each 18 months) - and have been doing so for over 30 years at most plants - and still havent completely filled their small pools in the containment building - we're only talking maybe 120 sq ft per floor size each refuel - so using their numbers - that would mean that Yucca would only be able to hold 24,000 sq ft x 20 ft tall??? Seems like an awful waste of a mountain that could hold 1000 times that in the salt mines that have been abandoned - and in these casks you dont have the problem of leakage since they are filled with inert gas and welded shut

As far as decommissioning - the information you usually hear is a mix between nuclear warhead plants and actual electrical plants - only two plants have been decommissioned recently - the last I remember was Big Rock - and friends I had working there sure had glowing reports about how much money they saved by not having large waste costs.

Last - keep in mind that Yucca Mtn is currently being discussed not just for electrical generation waste - its biggest contributor would be the DOE that runs the plutonium facilities that have been shut down due to the cold war ending - and they are the ones that need the most storage - most of the plants had incredibly high volumes of waste and areas that were contamintated back in the 1950s that still havent been cleaned up - including some facilities Im aware of where even the lawns and parking areas need to be disposed of as waste :) The size of those waste facilities are huge - I would gestimate the waste from all electrical plants operating for the next 20 years wouldnt generate the volume that exists at just one plant that was used for weapons development

[Southern Man]

Clearly, reprocessing the waste to extract the usable energy out of it is the way to go.

But, Linkster, the last I checked the only plants that can actually reprocess are small demonstration and university reactors, and we haven't actually begun any kind of energy extraction reprocessing.

And, our current storage solutions are ageing and decaying.

I hadn't heard that any of the fast-neutron nuclear plants (the kind that can be used to reprocess spent fuel) were licensed, or even planned, at this time. Do you know of any?

I think you are painting a bit of a rosy picture of the waste problem as it currently stands.

I'm fairly sure it's a solvable problem, but it looks to me like it could take as much as 40 years before a system with all the bugs worked out is actually functioning.

And then, you have to start thinking about breeder reactors, and the problems of plutonium.

In 1977 President Carter established national policy that prohibited reprocessing based on the premise that limiting plutonium would limit the spread of nuclear weapons around the world. Although President Reagan reversed this policy, reprocessing has never been initiated in the US. http://www.chemcases.com/nuclear/nc-13.htm

One more legacy of last centuries worst president, and a current darling of the liberals.