No more nuclear power for the US?

Policenaut

Infidel Defiler
P
Joined
Jul 2, 2007
Messages
2,191
http://www.slate.com/id/2212792/

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/26/budget.departments/index.html?iref=newssearch

• It cuts funding for the controversial Yucca Mountain nuclear waste storage program. Funding for the program "will be scaled back ... while the Administration devises a new strategy toward nuclear waste disposal."

So do you think this is a positive or a negative? I think we should have been building nuke plants for the last 30 years. We've been sitting on our hands because of an "accident" that didn't cause any harm to anyone.
 
Nuclear is the cleanest energy source we have today, and it's being completely ignored. I said during the campaign that Obama was against nuclear energy, his strategy will be to commission study after study on it until he leaves office.
 
Great! I think I saw a trickle of water on the Hassayampa river the other day.

Hey pretend environmentalists, you forgot to damn one stream in Arizona for your hydroelectric power! Come on, you haven't turned the whole state into a dustbowl yet you slackers!

I love the "concern for the environment", when their solution has resulted in complete habitat destruction and scorched earth in the few remaining tracts devoid of their stucco house investment modules
 
So since January 20, we have a moratorium on new oil drilling on federal lands, and now this.

But it's okay! Because we're going to have windmills! And solar power! And we're going to conserve!

I said during the campaign that I would vote for Obama if he would simply say that energy production is a national security issue, that we are crazy to be sending billions of dollars to people who hate us and want us dead and are working on building atomic weapons and getting intercontinental rocket technology, and that, if elected, he would demand Congress pass legislation that would impose punishing taxes on any state that didn't have nuclear power plants in every county that was more than 50 miles from the San Andreas fault by the time he left office.

It's obvious that he does not consider energy production to be a national security issue. That cheering you hear is coming from the direction of Teheran.
 
Last edited:
pipelineaudio said:
Great! I think I saw a trickle of water on the Hassayampa river the other day.

Hey pretend environmentalists, you forgot to damn one stream in Arizona for your hydroelectric power! Come on, you haven't turned the whole state into a dustbowl yet you slackers!

I love the "concern for the environment", when their solution has resulted in complete habitat destruction and scorched earth in the few remaining tracts devoid of their stucco house investment modules
Click to expand...

Large scale hydroelectric projects are hardly popular amoung environmentalists.
 
Nuclear power really needs to be used more.

While it's byproduct is, sadly, very harmful, it's benefits far outweigh it's negatives.

With proper research, something like a pebble-bed reactor could minimize the potential of a meltdown to practically 0.

It's also "cleaner" in that it's byproducts are the nuclear waste....and hot water.

It's also got a footprint a fraction the size of a wind-farm, while at the same time generating as much energy.

It's really a sad story about how quickly we moved to kill nuclear power in this nation. I mean, FRANCE, of all places, is better with nuclear power than we are. That's just sad.
 
This is disappointing.


Nuclear + Electric vehicles = rapid decrease in Oil dependancy and reduced CO2 output.

Certainly I have hopes for Solar to be the "final solution", but we need a practical approach and if we want it fast, we need something proven.
 
It is true that environmentalists have opposed hydroelectricity and environmentalists are also opposing a huge wind mill project here in California. Saw a blurb about it on the news so I don't know any specifics. I think its quite clear that we're supposed to get our electricity from happy thoughts and puppy dog whiskers.
 
TriskettheKid said:
It's really a sad story about how quickly we moved to kill nuclear power in this nation. I mean, FRANCE, of all places, is better with nuclear power than we are. That's just sad.
Click to expand...
And because France now has so much experience and expertise in building nuclear plants they rake in billions building them in other countries.
 
This is truly wrong. Shame on Obama. More of the same fear mongering regarding nuclear power and more of the same refusal to acknowledge anything but feel good energy.
 
Beeyon said:
This is truly wrong. Shame on Obama. More of the same fear mongering regarding nuclear power and more of the same refusal to acknowledge anything but feel good energy.
Click to expand...

Wrong? Yes. Unexpected? No. It was clear during the campaign that Obama had no interest in nuclear power.
 
Roadtoad said:
I am not surprised.

Obama has made it clear, as has the Democratic Party, there will be no nukes. Period. Why is this a surprise to anyone?
Click to expand...

Oh, I think I am entitled to be surprised by a politician which keeps his election promises.
 
Um, you guys do realize that there is no Yucca Mountain waste storage?

This hardly marks the end of nuclear power.

But yes, the Democrats and Obama aren't big on it.
 
I'm not big on it, either, TB. From what I've seen over the years is that when there's a problem, the Nuclear Industry tends to circle the wagons, and follow Fozzie Bear's example. (If you remember the first Muppet Movie, you'll remember when that woody they're taking across the country conks out. As the car begins to lurch to a halt, Fozzie declares, "NO PROBLEM! NO PROBLEM!" Right.)

But the only way we'll get good at it is to actually build and test it. The biggest hurdle the industry has had to overcome has been the mouths of those who claim to support it. Unfortunately.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom