India and nuclear power

Spexxvet · 03-02-2006, 08:47 AM

Recent history has shown that W's legislative goals are those that will help his wealthy friends.

Providing nuclear power to India will help them develop an environment that can support new jobs. Better, cheaper working conditions and healthier workers will improve India's ability to take jobs from Americans. When an American who makes $80,000/year loses his job, he eventually will become desperate enough to accept a job for $50,000. If his old job is ever revived, it will be filled by someone who is grateful to make $60,000. The company makes more profit, and the worker's standard of living regresses.

IMHO, providing nuclear power to India will help big business, and hurt the average American.

Undertoad · 03-02-2006, 09:14 AM

After Three Mile Island, the nuclear energy market in the US dropped to zero. No more plants were ordered.

Then innovation, and safer designs arrived. Now one of those designs is being built. Where: in China.

I hope that the US can play a role in nuclear energy in the future. We did the heavy lifting of inventing it and coming up with a way to make it safe. Perhaps we should consider putting a few more plants up in the US so that we can take advantage. Perhaps we could just put new plants in place to replace older plants with designs that are less safe.

After all it seems like there's a good chance we'll need to generate energy in other ways to replace oil.

glatt · 03-02-2006, 11:02 AM

Maybe this should go in the opinions thread, but in my opinion, nuclear power is the answer for our long term energy needs.

Although it would be great if all of modern physics has a less than complete grasp on how the world works, and Blacklight Power, Inc. really has figured out cold fusion.

Trilby · 03-02-2006, 11:42 AM

Mr. Burns would think all of this was "ehx-cellent."

<--mr. burns

Beestie · 03-02-2006, 11:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

...providing nuclear power to India will help big business, and hurt the average American.

I'm not sure how keeping the third world barefoot and pregnant helps the average American.

Maybe if India's economy blossoms as a result of cheaper energy then the average Indian will buy more American stuff which will help big business and allow for the creation of more jobs for average Americans. And, perhaps, a warm relationship with India will pay dividends when a full 16 percent of the world's population considers America a friend.

And if India's conversion to nuclear energy serves to decrease their demand on Arab oil then the cost of that oil will drop which will benefit the average American.

IMHO, keeping other countries from developing should not be a premise of our foreign policy. We tried that with Iran (who asked us to help them develop a nuclear program back in the 70s) and when the US refused to help they turned to Russia. We are still suffering the consequences of that poor decision by then President Carter.

I applaud the move and can think of no downside to helping India move forward with their ambitions.

Griff · 03-02-2006, 12:50 PM

If global warming isn't complete nonsense and the mid-east political situation does not improve dramatically nuclear prolly has to be part of the mix.

SouthOfNoNorth · 03-02-2006, 01:43 PM

i have to agree. i don't see any reason to withhold nuclear energy technology from a stable government that already has nuclear weapons. it can't hurt to improve our relations with india, especially considering the way most of the world views us now. also, if you want to look at it from a purely selfish standpoint, we could use the plants that sprout up in india as a result of this as "test" sites for new technology and safety standards, without the drawbacks of actually having to deal with any consequences on our soil. india has had nuclear technology for years without *knock on wood* managing to let it fall into the wrong hands and kill us all in the process, although there have been some scares with pakistan next door.

iran is a completely different story........

SouthOfNoNorth · 03-02-2006, 01:46 PM

btw, it's...............

NUKULAR! duh..

Spexxvet · 03-02-2006, 03:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beestie

I'm not sure how keeping the third world barefoot and pregnant helps the average American.

Maybe if India's economy blossoms as a result of cheaper energy then the average Indian will buy more American stuff which will help big business and allow for the creation of more jobs for average Americans. And, perhaps, a warm relationship with India will pay dividends when a full 16 percent of the world's population considers America a friend.

And if India's conversion to nuclear energy serves to decrease their demand on Arab oil then the cost of that oil will drop which will benefit the average American.

IMHO, keeping other countries from developing should not be a premise of our foreign policy. We tried that with Iran (who asked us to help them develop a nuclear program back in the 70s) and when the US refused to help they turned to Russia. We are still suffering the consequences of that poor decision by then President Carter.

I applaud the move and can think of no downside to helping India move forward with their ambitions.

This isn't a black/white issue. Of course there will be some indirect benefits to average Americans (though India buying more American stuff isn't one of them - after all, we really don't produce stuff here anymore, do we?). I don't have anything against helping India, per se. I just see American jobs being shipped overseas, and can't help thinking that this policy will speed the rate.

tw · 03-02-2006, 05:53 PM

The problem with George Jr's deal was posted here at least one month ago. We have (had) numerous treaties with the world that established world security. These included the anti-ballistic missile treaty, the nuclear test ban treaty, and fundamental human rights. All treaties that George Jr has or want to eliminate.

The reason why a world wide non-proliferation treaty works is because non-signers are denied materials and cooperation from all other nations.

So what does the mental midget president do? He could bring India into the non-proliferation treaty. That would mean India then gets access to nuclear materials, nuclear support products, and nuclear technology. Instead George Jr gives India that - without signing the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. In one shot, George Jr simply guts another international treaty. Even worse, a mental midget does not understand how destructive that deal is.

Here is where we discover if Democrats have any balls and brains. This treaty requires Senate approval. Why? The treaty with India violates US laws that were written to protect a world wide nuclear non-proliferation treaty. Smart Democrats – and there is a shortage of them - would see this as another international treaty gutted by a mental midget president to create world instability.

India has another problem. Their military nuclear program is intertwined with their commercial program. Unacceptable in all other nations. This cannot be permitted to any nation that conforms to principles of that nuclear non-proliferation treaty. Just another point that created world instability.

It sound like George Jr will now do anything to look good – screw the world’s future for his greater glory.

I am appalled. So many did not see why this George Jr agreement is world wide destructive. His contempt for what made America great is galling. But then notice how many Americans even here did not see another George Jr fubar. This is simply another example of aluminum tubes. Yes that sentence should raise your eyebrow. This author was almost the only one here who saw the aluminum tubes nonsense for what it was.

George Jr is advocating the gutting of a nuclear non-proliferation treaty. He may even be putting America in direct violation of that treaty that America signed. Everyone here should have seen this, if for no other reason, because George Jr thinks his India deal is good. He has an opinion. Did he even read the deal before he signed it? It's not an idle question.

tw · 03-02-2006, 06:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by glatt

Maybe this should go in the opinions thread, but in my opinion, nuclear power is the answer for our long term energy needs.

Now let's start applying numbers. The current desire is to increase 450 nuclear power plants to about 1000. Ok. That means we need nine more Yucca Mountain storage facilities. How long has the first one been under construction? 30 years?

Currently large pools are at every American reactor storing 'spent' nuclear material that remains as enriched as a bomb dropped on Hiroshima. Yes, that is bomb grade material which they hope you don't learn. Just not enriched to standards we currently use for bombs. The spent nuclear material only uses about 1% or 2% of its energy content. We have a problem. We are grossly wasteful when we use our limited nuclear material in current reactor systems.

Technologies have been proposed to make nuclear reactors safe. That includes a different technology that uses lowly enriched uranium. Most reactors - the highest number being in Russia - still use highly enriched uranium.

Second is a process whereby spent nuclear fuel can be recycled so that its energy content can be utilitized - making Yucca Mountain unnecessary.

But that second solution requires much more work in sub-atomic physics. We cannot even build a super collider in Texas for $8 billion. But we can launch and maintain a useless ISS for $80+ billion. We can 'Pearl Harbor' a nation that is not a threat for $400 billion. We are spending more on a 'no purpose' F-22 fighter plane. Did you first look at the bigger picture - or just proclaim 'I want... I want' nuclear power.

The above nuclear future is cute - and naive. Too many posts did not first learn numbers and technology. Nuclear power can and will be a good future energy source. But it is still so expensive that special tax provisions and other government 'welfare' must be applied to make it possible. Significant reasearch is necessary. What do industry leaders from business and law school do with reasearch? They consider it an expense.

If you think nuclear power is a good thing, then ask yourself some embarrassing questions. Did you immediately criticize the mental midget president for his 'man to Mars' program? Did you immediately realize why the termination of a super collider was so myopic? Did you understand why quantum physics is so necessary to your future? Do you really know how much dangerous (spent) nuclear fuel remains stored in pools at every nuclear reactor because we don't have anyplace to put it nor any technology to reprocess it?

And finally, how long would the world supply of nuclear fuel last if most energy was from nuclear plants. Maybe 20 years. Yes there is limited amount of nuclear fuel. It is just another reason why we need to do more with every less gallon of fossil fuel. We need to innovate rather than resort to science fiction solutions. This also because we only have technology to use 1 or 2% of the energy in that nuclear fuel. You better have known these things before having an opinion.

03-02-2006, 06:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beestie

Maybe if India's economy blossoms as a result of cheaper energy then the average Indian will buy more American stuff which will help big business and allow for the creation of more jobs for average Americans. And, perhaps, a warm relationship with India will pay dividends when a full 16 percent of the world's population considers America a friend.

Well, 16% is better than nothing, I guess. BTW, what American stuff are our new Indian friends going to buy? Textiles? Electronics? Steel? Programming code? Inquiring minds want to know.

xoxoxoBruce · 03-02-2006, 08:03 PM

France has done well with nukes for 30 years.

Beestie · 03-02-2006, 09:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by marichiko

Well, 16% is better than nothing, I guess. BTW, what American stuff are our new Indian friends going to buy? Textiles? Electronics? Steel? Programming code? Inquiring minds want to know.

India imports more from the United States than from any other country. That has been the case for a very long time.

Quote:

India imports [from the United States] sophisticated machinery (computers and components, gas turbines, telecom, etc), Electrical machinery (recording/sound media), Medical and surgical equipment/instruments, Aircraft, spacecraft (small aircraft), Precious stones, metals (diamonds, not mounted or set), jewellery, Organic chemicals, Plastic, Cotton and cotton waste and Wood pulp, etc.

03-02-2006, 10:04 PM

That's nice. According to the US Census Bureau Our trade balance with India stood at negative 10,849.5 million in 2005. I presume the additional nuclear prowness they'll have will mean they'll be be buying a lot more cotton waste from us in the future to help narrow that trade deficit?

03-02-2006, 08:47 AM	#1
Spexxvet Makes some feel uncomfortable Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 10,346	India and nuclear power Recent history has shown that W's legislative goals are those that will help his wealthy friends. Providing nuclear power to India will help them develop an environment that can support new jobs. Better, cheaper working conditions and healthier workers will improve India's ability to take jobs from Americans. When an American who makes $80,000/year loses his job, he eventually will become desperate enough to accept a job for $50,000. If his old job is ever revived, it will be filled by someone who is grateful to make $60,000. The company makes more profit, and the worker's standard of living regresses. IMHO, providing nuclear power to India will help big business, and hurt the average American. __________________ "I'm certainly free, nay compelled, to spread the gospel of Spex. " - xoxoxoBruce

03-02-2006, 11:42 AM	#4
Trilby Slattern of the Swail Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 15,654	Mr. Burns would think all of this was "ehx-cellent." <--mr. burns __________________ In Barrie's play and novel, the roles of fairies are brief: they are allies to the Lost Boys, the source of fairy dust and ...They are portrayed as dangerous, whimsical and extremely clever but quite hedonistic. "Shall I give you a kiss?" Peter asked and, jerking an acorn button off his coat, solemnly presented it to her. —James Barrie Wimminfolk they be tricksy. - ZenGum

03-02-2006, 12:50 PM	#6
Griff still says videotape Join Date: Feb 2001 Posts: 26,813	If global warming isn't complete nonsense and the mid-east political situation does not improve dramatically nuclear prolly has to be part of the mix. __________________ If you would only recognize that life is hard, things would be so much easier for you. - Louis D. Brandeis

03-02-2006, 01:43 PM	#7
SouthOfNoNorth Colloquialist Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Pittsburgh, Pa Posts: 77	i have to agree. i don't see any reason to withhold nuclear energy technology from a stable government that already has nuclear weapons. it can't hurt to improve our relations with india, especially considering the way most of the world views us now. also, if you want to look at it from a purely selfish standpoint, we could use the plants that sprout up in india as a result of this as "test" sites for new technology and safety standards, without the drawbacks of actually having to deal with any consequences on our soil. india has had nuclear technology for years without knock on wood managing to let it fall into the wrong hands and kill us all in the process, although there have been some scares with pakistan next door. iran is a completely different story........ __________________ Don't you worry about the day-glo orange life preserver, it won't save you. Swim for the shores just as fast as you're able.....

03-02-2006, 01:46 PM	#8
SouthOfNoNorth Colloquialist Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Pittsburgh, Pa Posts: 77	btw, it's............... NUKULAR! duh.. __________________ Don't you worry about the day-glo orange life preserver, it won't save you. Swim for the shores just as fast as you're able.....

03-02-2006, 09:14 AM	#2
Undertoad Radical Centrist Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Cottage of Prussia Posts: 31,423	After Three Mile Island, the nuclear energy market in the US dropped to zero. No more plants were ordered. Then innovation, and safer designs arrived. Now one of those designs is being built. Where: in China. I hope that the US can play a role in nuclear energy in the future. We did the heavy lifting of inventing it and coming up with a way to make it safe. Perhaps we should consider putting a few more plants up in the US so that we can take advantage. Perhaps we could just put new plants in place to replace older plants with designs that are less safe. After all it seems like there's a good chance we'll need to generate energy in other ways to replace oil.

03-02-2006, 11:02 AM	#3
glatt ™ Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Arlington, VA Posts: 27,717	Maybe this should go in the opinions thread, but in my opinion, nuclear power is the answer for our long term energy needs. Although it would be great if all of modern physics has a less than complete grasp on how the world works, and Blacklight Power, Inc. really has figured out cold fusion.

03-02-2006, 05:53 PM	#10
tw Read? I only know how to write. Join Date: Jan 2001 Posts: 11,933	The problem with George Jr's deal was posted here at least one month ago. We have (had) numerous treaties with the world that established world security. These included the anti-ballistic missile treaty, the nuclear test ban treaty, and fundamental human rights. All treaties that George Jr has or want to eliminate. The reason why a world wide non-proliferation treaty works is because non-signers are denied materials and cooperation from all other nations. So what does the mental midget president do? He could bring India into the non-proliferation treaty. That would mean India then gets access to nuclear materials, nuclear support products, and nuclear technology. Instead George Jr gives India that - without signing the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. In one shot, George Jr simply guts another international treaty. Even worse, a mental midget does not understand how destructive that deal is. Here is where we discover if Democrats have any balls and brains. This treaty requires Senate approval. Why? The treaty with India violates US laws that were written to protect a world wide nuclear non-proliferation treaty. Smart Democrats – and there is a shortage of them - would see this as another international treaty gutted by a mental midget president to create world instability. India has another problem. Their military nuclear program is intertwined with their commercial program. Unacceptable in all other nations. This cannot be permitted to any nation that conforms to principles of that nuclear non-proliferation treaty. Just another point that created world instability. It sound like George Jr will now do anything to look good – screw the world’s future for his greater glory. I am appalled. So many did not see why this George Jr agreement is world wide destructive. His contempt for what made America great is galling. But then notice how many Americans even here did not see another George Jr fubar. This is simply another example of aluminum tubes. Yes that sentence should raise your eyebrow. This author was almost the only one here who saw the aluminum tubes nonsense for what it was. George Jr is advocating the gutting of a nuclear non-proliferation treaty. He may even be putting America in direct violation of that treaty that America signed. Everyone here should have seen this, if for no other reason, because George Jr thinks his India deal is good. He has an opinion. Did he even read the deal before he signed it? It's not an idle question.

03-02-2006, 08:03 PM	#13
xoxoxoBruce The future is unwritten Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 71,105	France has done well with nukes for 30 years. __________________ The descent of man ~ Nixon, Friedman, Reagan, Trump.

03-02-2006, 10:04 PM	#15
marichiko Guest Posts: n/a	That's nice. According to the US Census Bureau Our trade balance with India stood at negative 10,849.5 million in 2005. I presume the additional nuclear prowness they'll have will mean they'll be be buying a lot more cotton waste from us in the future to help narrow that trade deficit?

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)