Maddow interviews Gore on issue of nuclear energy

[kristopher]

MADDOW: Are you worried that a big expansion of nuclear power may be part of what's needed for a political compromise in order to pass legislation here?

GORE: I think there probably will be a provision added to the bill in the Senate to increase yet again the subsidies for nuclear power.

MADDOW: And you say "yet again," because it's already a heavily subsidized...

GORE: It is very heavily subsidized. But I do think it's responsible to research and develop new generations of nuclear power. I think that the market has turned thumbs down on nuclear power. There's also a weapons proliferation risk.

The new technologies for enriching nuclear materials shorten the distance from reactor fuel to weapons-grade material. And during the eight years I worked in the White House, every single nuclear weapons challenge that we faced was connected to a reactor program. Look at what's going on in Iran right now and North Korea right now.

So it's not an option that's scalable very easily on a global basis. And in developed countries, there is yet another problem that's probably even more formidable, and that's cost. The present generation of nuclear reactors are very expensive. They've been a huge disappointment to the utility industry.

They only come in one size - extra large. And utilities don't want to bet the farm or their whole construction budget on an uncertain prospect. Not a single reputable engineering firm in the world that I know of is willing to back up an estimate of how long it will take to complete one of these plants or how much it will cost to do so.

The cost has been increasing 15 percent per year for quite some time now. A lot of reasons behind that. There may be some solutions. But no matter the size of the subsidies, I think the market is highly resistant to this choice, particularly as conservation and efficiency and renewables begin to capture a progressively larger share of the energy marketplace...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33828773/ns/msnbc_tv-rachel_maddow_show/

[appal_jack]

1. excellent analysis by Gore

Nuclear power will never be able compete in an open market, and it will always come with significant weapons-proliferation, waste- and security-risks.

k&r

-app

[eppur_se_muova]

2. *sigh* -- I couldn't help but picture Al and Rachel passionately ...

working together on this problem, he as rightfully elected POTUS, she as head of HHS. One of the great might-have-beens.

[jpak]

3. Proof that Algore is a scientific illiterate who doesn't give a rat's ass

:evilgrin:

:rofl:

[TheWraith]

4. No, just hopelessly idealistic.

Like thinking that a Presidential election (circa 2000) is based on who has the best policy, and not personality.

[NNadir]

9. Probably.. His father, who was instrumental in the development of the MSR, and was

photographed with John F. Kennedy and Alvin Weinberg in the control room of an Oak Ridge nucler reactor. Gore Sr. was obviously better informed on nuclear issues than was his son. (Weinberg famously eviscerated dumb fundie anti-nukes, albeit too gently, in one of his more famous popular books.)

Here is a photo of Gore Sr., Kennedy, his wife, and the incomparable genius Weinberg who wrote a great book on the subject subtly eviscerating the anti-science stupidity of dumb fundie anti-nukes.



Al Gore Jr. did good work on the plutonium treaty in 1998 and helped to place U-235 from dismantled Soviet weapons in diluted form into nuclear reactors.

He spoke at Chernobyl on nuclear power and was quite reasonable.

If this is true and not taken out of context, however, Gore has jumped the shark and basically gone over to the cult side.

Opposing the world's largest, by far, form of climate change gas free energy as 2010 approaches on the grounds that one is fearful about a fantasy of nuclear war - which is NOT observed - while not calling for the banning of oil - which does cause war - is dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb and completely stupid.

I note that zero dumb fundies here call for banning oil even though practically every major war in the 21st century - and most major wars, including the Second World War - were essentially oil wars.

Basically, the anti-nuke cults are worshipful organizations, with saints and angels, just like any fundementalist religion. Every word that proceedth from the mouth of Al Gore is not true because Al Gore says it. He's not Jesus, that other object of cult thinking.

Have a nice dumb fundie giggly face day.

[jpak]

10. LOL!!!!1111

:rofl:

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Nederland]

5. Question for Al Gore

How many power producing commercial nuclear reactors have been involved in the creation of nuclear weapon material?

[Terry in Austin]

6. 42

:7

[madokie]

7. I'll doubt seriously he'd bother to answer your question

I also doubt that he knows not what it is he speaks concerning nukes and nuke plants.

[Nederland]

8. Then he should shut up (nt)

[madokie]

11. Why cause he knows what hes talking about?

My money is on AL

[bananas]

12. LOL - pro-nukes who can't do math want Al Gore to shut up!

:rofl:

[bananas]

13. Do you have a reading comprehension problem?

Or are you using the sleazy Republican tactic of claiming Al Gore said something which he didn't say?

[kristopher]

15. A nukenut arguing against a straw man?

Please say it ain't so...

[Nederland]

16. I never claimed Gore said anything (nt)

[kristopher]

17. Right...

OP: "The new technologies for enriching nuclear materials shorten the distance from reactor fuel to weapons-grade material. And during the eight years I worked in the White House, every single nuclear weapons challenge that we faced was connected to a reactor program. Look at what's going on in Iran right now and North Korea right now."

Neds: Question for Al Gore. How many power producing commercial nuclear reactors have been involved in the creation of nuclear weapon material?

OP: "The new technologies for enriching nuclear materials shorten the distance from reactor fuel to weapons-grade material. And during the eight years I worked in the White House, every single nuclear weapons challenge that we faced was connected to a reactor program. Look at what's going on in Iran right now and North Korea right now."

You just ignored his stated reasons for relating nuclear power to nuclear weapons proliferation and attempted to reframe the discussion by substituting an irrelevant one of your own.

I might have been a bit wrong about the straw man...

I suppose it would more accurately be described as a red herring within a straw man.

[Nederland]

18. The point I was making was this

Countries that are seeking to develop nuclear weapons don't build large GW power plants, they build small reactors for "research". As Gore says, reactors come in one size - extra large (he's wrong about that, BTW). Those types of large, commercial reactors have never been used to obtain weapon material, because they are not suited for that purpose. One can be opposed to one while supporting the construction of the other.

Here is an article explaining the difference:

http://www.wrmea.com/archives/sept03/0309028.html

[excess_3]

19. >because they are not suited for that purpose>

big reactors, can still be used to make
Plutoniom

[Nederland]

20. The correct spelling is "Plutonium"

Did you know there are different isotopes of plutonium, and that not all are suitable for weapons? Did you read the link?

[excess_3]

21. bombs have been made with reactor-type-amounts of Pu-240 .nt

[kristopher]

22. Did Gore say that countries seeking nuclear weapons build large GW reactors?

No, he didn't, the statements are not only different conceptual categories, but they aren't even located in physical proximity with one another. The relationship you question is the strawman you created to argue against.

Perhaps your confusion rests with the transcript. I've reordered on sentence because it was misplaced in the original. It is in bold"

MADDOW: Are you worried that a big expansion of nuclear power may be part of what's needed for a political compromise in order to pass legislation here?

GORE: I think there probably will be a provision added to the bill in the Senate to increase yet again the subsidies for nuclear power.

MADDOW: And you say "yet again," because it's already a heavily subsidized...

GORE: It is very heavily subsidized. But I do think it's responsible to research and develop new generations of nuclear power. I think that the market has turned thumbs down on nuclear power. There's also a weapons proliferation risk.

The new technologies for enriching nuclear materials shorten the distance from reactor fuel to weapons-grade material. And during the eight years I worked in the White House, every single nuclear weapons challenge that we faced was connected to a reactor program. Look at what's going on in Iran right now and North Korea right now. So it's not an option that's scalable very easily on a global basis.

And in developed countries, there is yet another problem that's probably even more formidable, and that's cost. The present generation of nuclear reactors are very expensive. They've been a huge disappointment to the utility industry.

They only come in one size - extra large. And utilities don't want to bet the farm or their whole construction budget on an uncertain prospect. Not a single reputable engineering firm in the world that I know of is willing to back up an estimate of how long it will take to complete one of these plants or how much it will cost to do so.

The cost has been increasing 15 percent per year for quite some time now. A lot of reasons behind that. There may be some solutions. But no matter the size of the subsidies, I think the market is highly resistant to this choice, particularly as conservation and efficiency and renewables begin to capture a progressively larger share of the energy marketplace...

[Nederland]

23. Precisely my point (nt)

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Nederland]

25. Self delete

[kristopher]

26. In your opinion that was his best point

You wrote:

His best point was regarding cost
Posted by Nederland
Nuclear plants are far to expensive and risk being priced out of the market. We will see if China can manage to build them competitively.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/27/business/worldbusiness/27iht-chinuke.1.13239546.html?_r=1

To me the larger issue is long term safety - a matter that includes nuclear weapons proliferation.

If it were simply cost we'd be talking about a technology similar to what people envision fusion offering.


Edited to add:

Now why would you delete a post after I replied? No matter, I just added your comment as a preface.

[kristopher]

27. You are avoiding the issue I raised

I presume it is because you are too timid to accept responsibility for your false statements.