Environment & Energy
Related: About this forumObama advisory panel: achieving low-carbon goals without nuclear would be "extremely difficult"
Obama and PCAST (President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology). The council was created by executive order in 2010 to advise the president on matters involving science, technology, and innovation policy.
We also support adequate research funding for new and potentially cheaper nuclear technologies.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/PCAST/pcast_energy_and_climate_3-22-13_final.pdf
Demeter
(85,373 posts)God protect us from morons.
Nuclear isn't and never will be "cheap". Genetic destruction is forever, or until we know how to repair the genome and prevent radiation damage.
wtmusic
(39,166 posts)a little voice should be whispering in your ear - that maybe you're the one who's out of touch, that this belief you're clinging to might be erroneous.
All it takes is a little humility and an open mind.
Demeter
(85,373 posts)"connected" maybe, "bought" most probably. Smart? I know genius when I see it. That ain't genius. That's politics. Pandering, pimping, and bribery, oh, sorry, I meant lobbying by the Corporations.
wtmusic
(39,166 posts)Nice.
wtmusic
(39,166 posts)I want to hear exactly why these people are morons. Take your time.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/ostp/pcast/about/members
bananas
(27,509 posts)Tricky Dick Nixon, Ronnie Raygun, Poppie Bush, and Dubya Bush had their own PCAST,
selected more for political biases than objective scientific basis.
Meet the New PCAST, Same as the Old PCAST?
BY Nancy Scola | Friday, April 23 2010
<snip>
...there's been a PCAST around for many years now, going as far back, according to the White House, to the Frankling Roosevelt years.
A spokesperson from the White House Office of Science and Technology explains that what the E.O. from the President did was to scrap the Bush-era PCAST, established by Executive Order 13226 in 2001, and replace it with an Obama Administration version.
The Obama White House explains PCAST as "an advisory group of the nations leading scientists and engineers who directly advise the President and the Executive Office of the President." The PCAST member who has perhaps most be in the news for his service on the Council is Google CEO Eric Schmidt, though Microsoft's Craig Mundie is also on board, as are many more accomplished scientists and technologists.
The spokesperson points out some of the changes between Bush's PCAST and Obama's. This new order stipulates two co-chairs instead of one, and drops the number of members from 25 to 21. There's also what seems to be some minor reshuffling of subcommittees and assignments. But there's two additional changes between Bush's council of science and technology advisors and Obama's.
<snip>
FBaggins
(26,693 posts)Demeter
(85,373 posts)FBaggins
(26,693 posts)?
bananas
(27,509 posts)what an exemplary choice
bananas
(27,509 posts)A quick read of the document finds statements like this:
Other statements indicate a call for research on Gen IV reactors, but not much in the way of promoting Gen III or Gen II reactors. (Under Bush, there was a push for Gen III reactors, when it was realized that those sucked, there was hope of keeping the existing Gen II reactors running indefinitely, now it's widely recognized that those old jalopies are breaking down and belong in museums with the Model and T-Rex and other dinosaurs (both literal and figurative)).
bananas
(27,509 posts)I'm not totally opposed to research on Gen IV reactors, but I'm extremely skeptical it will result in anything useful.
For example, a recent paper shows that learning curves are extremely effective in estimating the future of technologies:
"MIT researcher finds Moores Law and Wrights Law best predict how technology improves."
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2013/how-to-predict-the-progress-of-technology-0306.html
Yet we know that nuclear energy has a negative learning curve - the more we learn about it, and the more it scales up, the more expensive it gets. The Gen IV reactors are likely to be even more expensive than the Gen III reactors, even while learning curves and scaling factors drive the cost of renewables and efficiency lower and lower.
joshcryer
(62,265 posts)progressoid
(49,824 posts)Demeter
(85,373 posts)Sloth Nation--except for the impoverished.
wtmusic
(39,166 posts)D-Day was extremely difficult, so was putting a man on the moon.
In the context of a summary like this, which has to be somewhat non-technical, the translation is that most Americans won''t tolerate paying 2-4x as much for energy, and I agree.