Nuclear Power - Why We Need a Real Energy Policy that Includes It

In response to this, I posted this (h/t The Sub Report), thought you might like to read:

"Thank you all for the reasoned comments, many obviously coming from people who have worked in the industry (Navy or civilian). Clearly, when McCain points to the Navy's record, it is a pretty impressive one.

"To dismiss nuclear power or delay it indefinitely, is tantamount to telling the American people that you don't care about the single most green, and readily available source of power today. When a candidate does that, we need to question his motives, and, in Obama's case, that means following the money, which will lead you to groups whose motives are not always about safe, clean energy, but something else. These range from Greenpeace on the radical left side (who want to end the Western way of life) to farmers on another side (who want to see corn-based, government-subsidized ethanol).

"Nuclear power is a threat to these groups, as it doesn't fit their agenda. Same for drilling for more oil and natural gas in this country. These technologies, which are available TODAY, will not be pursued by an Obama administration. Instead, we will get more years and years of research into (unlikely to help much) technologies like solar power, electric cars, and, of course, those same ethanol subsidies. Meanwhile, energy costs will rise and our dependence on foreign oil will increase (yes, it could).

"Meanwhile, we could be switching transportation to a natural gas-based infrastructure, switching our electric grid to something more like 60% nuclear, 25% hydro/wind, and the rest natural gas/coal, and we could do this all with native resources, and probably make a good dent in 10 years, and be done in 25.

"But, if we never start, it won't happen. With Obama, it will never start. Mark my words (to quote a famous VP nominee)."

end..

Nuclear Power: It's not just for France anymore...

My local paper, The Atlanta Urinal-Constipation, recently had the nerve to print this opinion piece touting the incredible safety record in the civilian nuclear power industry.

I don't believe that global warming is being caused by man, nor that it's entirely a bad thing, but I do think nuclear power is a great way to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and a way to reduce the demand for that oil.

But, I'll speak more about that some other time.

Nothing after the jump...
And here is the rest of it.

Brazil and Argentina Cooperating on Something Nuclear

Argentina and Brazil are building a nuclear submarine together...or are they? Brazil says no, it's just for power.

Brazil Eyes Nuclear Sub to Defend Oil

From the , AP November 16, 2007 comes this story (also on Drudge today). I say to the Brazilians, welcome aboard! But, instead of building it themselves, why don't we just refit one of our LA class boats for them, and subcontract the nuclear plant operations to American subcontractors....

"SAO PAULO, Brazil (AP) — This month's discovery of a monster offshore oil reserve justifies Brazil's plan to build a nuclear submarine because it would be used to protect the find, the defense minister said.

"When you have a large natural source of wealth discovered in the Atlantic, it's obvious you need the means to protect it," Nelson Jobim said Thursday at a defense conference in Rio de Janeiro.

Jobim said Brazil must safeguard the Tupi field and its 5 billion to 8 billion barrels of oil reserves from other nations and from "actions that could come from the area of terror," the government's Agencia Brasil news service reported.

Brazil has been talking about building a nuclear submarine for decades, but the project got a boost in July when President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva announced $540 million in funding for uranium enrichment and the sub program.

Jobim said earlier this month that he wants to come up with an outline within three months to build a submarine for about $1.2 billion, the Agencia Estado news service reported.

Brazil has no South American enemies and has not experienced terrorist attacks, although U.S. government reports have sporadically raised suspicions that the nation's Triple Border region near Argentina and Paraguay is a fundraising source for radical Islamic groups such as Hezbollah and Hamas.

The Brazilian navy's nuclear program, begun in 1979, has already mastered part of the uranium enrichment process. But it lags in developing and constructing a submarine reactor entirely from Brazilian technology.

Silva has frequently touted nuclear power as a way to diversify energy sources and meet growing demand in South America's largest nation and economy.

His government moved in June to restart work on a long-planned third nuclear power plant that has been stalled since the 1980s by lack of funds.

Jobim on Thursday ridiculed the idea that Brazil's uranium enrichment program would ever be used to make a nuclear bomb.

"That's total nonsense," he said."

I Thought You Guys Were All Proud Killers???

Well, you might hear some submariners boast of being "steely-eyed killers of the deep." Our Commanding Officer, being an attack boat sailor, liked to use this phrase to describe those submariners who stealthily sought their prey, usually after hours spent tracking and trailing it, then pumped a MK48 torpedo into the victim, who was oblivious to his fate until the torpedo exploded beneath them, breaking their keel and taking the ship down.

Unfortunately, that didn't really describe us.

Not that we didn't love every moment we served on my boat (we didn't), but, life on a fleet ballistic missile submarine (aka a "boomer") wasn't exactly the most exciting. We didn't spend a lot of time seeking prey, instead, we avoided being preyed upon. Since the act of hiding requires little speed, no interaction with other ships, and lots of boredom, and since sailors are, generally, complainers by nature, we adopted the "sleepy-eyed whiners of the deep" moniker.

Actually, we used to take "sleepy" a little further than just this mocking phrase. I don't know if other ships held sleeping contests. Certainly none of my friends on attack boats could ever fully appreciate being in a 1 in 5 watch rotation, the slow pace of SSBN life, the lack of a fire control tracking party for 6 hours after their scheduled watch, being away from the boat with no duty days for 3 months in port, or going home at for lunch during off-crew and staying there, so this probably really would anger them (hey, look, they made the decision to go to sea in a boat that operated at high tempo's and required their devotion 365 days of the year, I knew better!)but, in the slow days of patrol life, those junior officers senior enough to have completed shipboard qualifications (and knew we weren't making a career out of the Navy, and didn't feel a need to show our devotion by doing meaningless work 24/7) would hold sleeping contests and see who could stay in the rack the longest. We had some enlisted guys, too, who would participate in our impromptu, and unofficial contests. I knew a couple of ELT's who could sleep 24 hours - pretty impressive, I think 18 hours was the longest I ever went in my rack, but, I did get up once to go to the head, so it invalidated the record.

Of course, when we weren't asleep, we were usually complaining about submarine life, making us, thus, the whiner part.