Here is some food for thought.
Let’s say we took 200 billion dollars and built 40 nuclear power plants. Say 20 by GE and 20 by Westinghouse. All steel and parts would be required to be manufactured in the United States of America. We would locate them on Government land like the INEL, NTS, ORNL, Hanford and other location that are part of the DOE complex. The power generate by these plants would be sold to the grid to recover the cost of building these plants. This would jump start an industry that we are the best in the world and we could then export the technology to reduce are trade deficit.
Please commit
If need to make smart decision with the money we spend on the recovery plan.
Lets get a budget before September30,2008. What are the chances that the congress can have a budget passed before the beginning of the fiscal year? This is a problem that needs to be addressed by our leaders. Not having a budget causes waste of the American people’s tax dollars in slowed productivity in a time when every dollar counts. Contact your congress person and tell them to pass a budget.
Why is the government and congress not trying to solve the problems of the country now? It is a Democratic congress and Senate and I see no movement in the direction that the candidates are talking about. We should be moving in the direction of Green energy or nuclear power now. Maybe tax relief for the working Joe or Grandpa and Grandma living on a fixed income. Why are we waiting for the election in November and Oath of Office in January before we start this movement? If the Candidates believe in a direction lets see them lead the way now. The country is spinning in a downward spiral and talk is all I here. When I get in office I will do this. How about this is what I did today!!
The U.S. economy is energy driven and we are doing nothing to relieve the hardships on the company’s and people of the U.S. We talk about the housing and sub prime lending problems, bailing out the people and banks that made bad loans and lowering interest rates so the population that did save money is punished. But we are letting our environment and energy policy fall into disarray. The war is draining the treasure chest and the future of our children. If we as a population do not wakeup to this and quit the business as usual mentality there will be nothing for the politicians to fight over.
ASCE's Report
Grade's 2005
Aviation D+
Gridlock on America's runways eased from crisis levels earlier in the decade due to reduced demand and recent modest funding increases. However, air travel and traffic have reportedly surpassed pre-Sept. 11 levels and are projected to grow 4.3% annually through 2015. Airports will face the challenge of accommodating increasing numbers of regional jets and new super-jumbo jets.
Bridges C
Between 2000 and 2003, the percentage of the nation's 590,750 bridges rated structurally deficient or functionally obsolete decreased slightly from 28.5% to 27.1%. However, it will cost $9.4 billion a year for 20 years to eliminate all bridge deficiencies. Long-term underinvestment is compounded by the lack of a Federal transportation program.
Dams D
Since 1998, the number of unsafe dams has risen by 33% to more than 3,500. While federally owned dams are in good condition, and there have been modest gains in repair, the number of dams identified as unsafe is increasing at a faster rate than those being repaired. $10.1 billion is needed over the next 12 years to address all critical non-federal dams--dams which pose a direct risk to human life should they fail.
Drinking Water D-
America faces a shortfall of $11 billion annually to replace aging facilities and comply with safe drinking water regulations. Federal funding for drinking water in 2005 remained level at $850 million, less than 10% of the total national requirement. The Bush administration has proposed the same level of funding for FY06.
Energy (National Power Grid)D
The U.S. power transmission system is in urgent need of modernization. Growth in electricity demand and investment in new power plants has not been matched by investment in new transmission facilities. Maintenance expenditures have decreased 1% per year since 1992. Existing transmission facilities were not designed for the current level of demand, resulting in an increased number of `bottlenecks' which increase costs to consumers and elevate the risk of blackouts.
Hazardous Waste D
Federal funding for `Superfund' cleanup of the nation's worst toxic waste sites has steadily declined since 1998, reaching its lowest level since 1986 in FY05. There are 1,237 contaminated sites on the National Priorities List, with possible listing of an additional 10,154. In 2003, there were 205 U.S. cities with `brownfields' sites awaiting cleanup and redevelopment. It is estimated that redevelopment of those sites would generate 576,373 new jobs and $1.9 billion annually for the economy.
Navigable Waterways D-
A single barge traveling the nation's waterways can move the same amount of cargo as 58 semi-trucks at one-tenth the cost--reducing highway congestion and saving money. Of the 257 locks on the more than 12,000 miles of inland waterways operated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, nearly 50% are functionally obsolete. By 2020, that number will increase to 80%. The cost to replace the present system of locks is more than $125 billion.
Public Parks & Recreation C-
Many of our nation's public parks, beaches and recreational harbors are falling into a state of disrepair. Much of the initial construction of roads, bridges, utility systems, shore protection structures and beaches was done more than 50 years ago. These facilities are anchors for tourism and economic development and often provide the public's only access to the country's cultural, historic and natural resources. The National Park Service estimates a maintenance backlog of $6.1 billion for their facilities. Additionally, there is great need for maintenance, replacement and construction of new infrastructure in our nation's state and municipal park systems.
Rail C-
For the first time since World War II, limited rail capacity has created significant chokepoints and delays. This problem will increase as freight rail tonnage is expected to increase at least 50% by 2020. In addition, the use of rail trackage for intercity passenger and commuter rail service is increasingly being recognized as a worthwhile transportation investment. Congestion relief, improved safety, environmental and economic development benefits result from both freight and passenger market shifts to rail creating a rationale for public sector investment. The freight railroad industry needs to spend $175-$195 billion over the next 20 years to maintain existing infrastructure and expand for freight growth. Expansion of the railroad network to develop intercity corridor passenger rail service is estimated to cost approximately $60 billion over 20 years. All told, investment needs are $12-13 billion per year.
Roads D
Poor road conditions cost U.S. motorists $54 billion a year in repairs and operating costs--$275 per motorist. Americans spend 3.5 billion hours a year stuck in traffic, at a cost of $63.2 billion a year to the economy. Total spending of $59.4 billion annually is well below the $94 billion needed annually to improve transportation infrastructure conditions nationally. While long-term Federal transportation programs remain unauthorized since expiring on Sept. 30, 2003, the nation continues to shortchange funding for needed transportation improvements.
Schools D-
The Federal government has not assessed the condition of America's schools since 1999, when it estimated that $127 billion was needed to bring facilities to good condition. Other sources have since reported a need as high as $268 billion. Despite public support of bond initiatives to provide funding for school facilities, without a clear understanding of the need, it is uncertain whether schools can meet increasing enrollment demands and the smaller class sizes mandated by the No Child Left Behind Act.
Security I
While the security of our nation's critical infrastructure has improved since Sept. 11, the information needed to accurately assess its status is not readily available to engineering professionals. This information is needed to better design, build and operate the nation's critical infrastructure in more secure ways. Security performance standards, measures and indices need to be developed, and funding must be focused on all critical infrastructure sectors, beyond aviation.
Solid Waste C
The nation's operating municipal landfills are declining in total numbers, but capacity has remained steady due to the construction of numerous regional landfills. In 2002, the United States produced 369 million tons of solid waste of all types. Only about a quarter of that total was recycled or recovered.
Transit D+
Transit use increased faster than any other mode of transportation--up 21%--between 1993 and 2002. Federal investment during this period stemmed the decline in the condition of existing transit infrastructure. The reduction in federal investment in real dollars since 2001 threatens this turnaround. In 2002, total capital outlays for transit were $12.3 billion. The Federal Transit Administration estimates $14.8 billion is needed annually to maintain conditions, and $20.6 billion is needed to improve to "good" conditions. Meanwhile, many major transit properties are borrowing funds to maintain operations, even as they are significantly raising fares and cutting back service.
Wastewater D-
Aging wastewater management systems discharge billions of gallons of untreated sewage into U.S. surface waters each year. The EPA estimates that the nation must invest $390 billion over the next 20 years to replace existing systems and build new ones to meet increasing demands. Yet, in 2005, Congress cut funding for wastewater management for the first time in eight years. The Bush administration has proposed a further 33% reduction, to $730 million, for FY06. America's Infrastructure G.P.A. = D Total Investment Needs = $1.6 Trillion(estimated 5-year need--does not include security investment needs)A = ExceptionalB = GoodC = MediocreD = PoorF = FailingI = IncompleteEach category was evaluated on the basis of condition and performance, capacity vs. need, and funding vs. need.
600 new nuclear power plants would replace the current carbon burning generating plants.
Some Amazing Facts about Nuclear Power
The American public has been led to believe that nuclear power is extremely dangerous and that nuclear waste disposal is an unsolved problem. Those beliefs are based on preposterous distortions perpetrated by irrational environmentalists and an irresponsible mass media. In reality, a reactor meltdown would have to occur every two weeks to make nuclear power as deadly as the routine emissions from coal-fired power, from which we get about half of our electric power in the United States. (Note: some newer nuclear power plant designs cannot possibly meltdown.) And if the United States went completely nuclear for all its electric power for 10,000 years, the amount of land needed for waste disposal would be about what is needed for the coal ash that is currently generated every two weeks.
Anti-nuclear activists like to scare us with horror stories about the "thousands of tons of nuclear waste" that have been produced since nuclear power began some four decades ago. That sounds like a lot -- until you put it into perspective, which anti-nuclear activists and the mass media never do. Consider that one pound of plutonium can produce as much energy as the Yankee Stadium full of coal. And coal-fired power generates something like 100 million tons of waste annually in the United States, or about three tons of ash per second. Every few hours, more coal ash is generated than high-level nuclear waste has been generated in four decades!
Oh, but nuclear waste is far more dangerous than coal waste, isn't it? Actually, it isn't. For a given amount of energy produced, coal ash is actually more radioactive than nuclear waste. How can that be? Simple. The quantity of coal ash is literally millions of times greater than the corresponding quantity of nuclear waste, so even though the radioactive intensity of the coal ash is much less, the overall amount of radiation and radioactive matter is greater.
But nobody worries much about the radioactivity of coal ash because the chemicals in it are far more dangerous. They include several thousand tons per year of mercury and other heavy metals, along with huge amounts of lead, arsenic, and asbestos, for example. Yet even the huge quantities of chemical waste in coal ash are of little concern compared to the gaseous emissions from burning coal, which kill an estimated 10,000 to 50,000 Americans every year, depending on which study you believe. As a point of reference, even the lower estimate approaches the rate at which Americans died in the Viet Nam war, and the higher estimate greatly exceeds it, yet the media rarely report on those deaths.
So let's get this straight. For a given amount of energy produced, coal waste has more radioactive matter than nuclear waste, yet the radioactivity of coal waste is nowhere near as dangerous as the solid chemical waste, which in turn is nowhere near as dangerous as the gaseous emissions. Are you starting to get the picture yet?
But even those staggering figures fail to capture the major environmental advantages of nuclear power over coal-fired power. Why? Because the solid and gaseous emissions from coal burning are generated in such a huge quantity that they cannot possibly be contained. They can only be spewed into the atmosphere and dumped into shallow landfills. There is no conceivable way to isolate waste that is generated at the rate of three tons per second. Nuclear waste, on the other hand, is so miniscule in comparison that it can be almost completely isolated from the environment at a very modest cost. And even though that cost has been greatly inflated by the anti-nuclear hysteria, it is still very manageable.
If all the high-level nuclear waste that has ever been generated were simply dumped into the middle of the ocean, it would be many thousands of times less harmful than the coal waste generated over the same period. But the nuclear waste is so miniscule in quantity that it can be isolated almost completely from the environment. In fact, that is exactly what is being done all over the world. Basic technology exists to convert nuclear waste into a solid, water-impermeable glass form, encase it into stainless-steel-lined concrete containers, and put it thousands of feet underground where water hasn't flowed for hundreds of thousands of years. And nuclear power produces no gaseous emissions, of course.
Yet, amazingly, a large percentage of the American public has been hoodwinked into believing that nuclear waste disposal is an "unsolved" problem. In order to perpetuate the absurd mythology of nuclear waste, anti-nuclear extremists have concocted the absurd idea of a "nuclear priesthood" to warn people of the dangers of buried nuclear waste thousands of years in the future. Never mind that coal waste contains more overall radioactivity and is not contained at all. The idea of a "nuclear priesthood" is based on another absurd anti-nuclear distortion: the idea that nuclear waste is "dangerous for hundreds of thousands of years.
"Oh yes, nuclear waste would indeed be "dangerous for hundreds of thousands of years" if we were stupid enough to leave it lying around untreated, but did someone forget to mention that coal ash is dangerous forever? That's right: solid chemical waste never decays. It will be as dangerous in ten million years as it was the day it was generated. And there is so much of it that we have no choice but to leave it lying around untreated. So do we need”coal-ash priesthood"? Only if we've lost our sanity and common sense. Note, incidentally, that uranium comes from the ground in the first place, where it is neither encased in stainless-steel-lined concrete containers nor isolated from groundwater.
The whole notion that nuclear waste is "dangerous for hundreds of thousands of years" is fundamentally misleading. Nuclear waste contains a combination of many radioactive materials with a wide range of half-lives, ranging from a fraction of a second to millions of years. The short-lived materials radiate very intensely but for a short period of time (they are safely dissipated at the power plant long before they are ever put into long-term storage). The long-lived materials such as uranium and plutonium, on the other hand, radiate for a very long time but at an extremely low level -- so low that their danger is essentially chemical. The materials with intermediate half-lives on the order of a few decades are the most problematic, but even they are easily manageable.
Coal-fired power is many thousands of times more dangerous and harmful to the environment than nuclear power. Does that mean coal-fired power should be stopped? Absolutely not. Even coal-fired power is far better than no power at all. Without economical electric power, we will rapidly degenerate into a third-world nation, and average lifespan will drop precipitously. Even though emissions from coal-fired power cost many lives, the net effect of coal-fired power is to extend average lifespan. The point is not that coal-fired power is bad, but rather that nuclear power is thousands of times cleaner and safer. And the fact that so many so-called "environmentalists" vociferously oppose nuclear power -- even while they agitate for draconian measures to stop "global warming" -- should tell you something about them: they are either ignorant or they have ulterior ideological motives -- or both.
The latest news on the downer cattle being kill to supply food for the population is a danger that has been glassed over. The reason downer cattle are not allowed to be introduced into the food chain is to avoid the plague that is possible from the brain eating disease i.e. Creutzfeldt - Jakob disease. The disease can take a number of years to manifest its self and there is no cure. Meat processing plants need to train there worker to understand these facts and I cannot believe this has been allow to happen. If you want more insight into CJD there is an excellent book by Richard Rhodes named DEADLY FEAST Tracking the Secrets of a Terrifying New Plague
The history of the world, my sweet, is who gets eaten and who gets to eat.
Sweeney Todd
A book each candidate should be required to read. I have read this book twice sense release in the fall of 2007. It is the latest book by Richard Rhodes a historian of the atomic age. The name of the book is ARSENALS OF FOLLY, The making of the nuclear arms race. It is a book about how we deal with the issues of nuclear weapons. It defines the U.S. policy for the last 50 years. History is the best teacher as they say.
Hydrogen
VHTR Description
