Obama energy czar: Nuclear power integral to America's 'low-carbon future'
[mind the wrap]- posted
14 years ago
Obama energy czar: Nuclear power integral to America's 'low-carbon future'
[mind the wrap]
The liberals will freak! They don't WANT cheap, clean energy...what Do they want? Hmmmm...
"Buerste" wrote in news:IhKHm.27$ snipped-for-privacy@newsfe10.iad:
Power is what they want;control.
That's very hard to believe,since Obama is on record saying that he would not allow new nuclear plants without safe storage facilities,and has already cut funding for Yucca Mountain,effectively killing any "safe storage" site in the US.(which is badly and urgently needed)
Obama is also on record for saying he wants energy prices to climb drastically,and that US people need to lower their standard of living.
IMO,that statement is merely a diversion.(another LIE)
I just hope he can pull it off. It's about damn time.
-- Les Cargill
On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 13:56:39 -0800, the infamous Rich Grise scrawled the following:
Hurrah! Obama finally put someone in office willing to do the right thing. This is a first. Maybe there's hope for them yet, if they don't wake up.
One of those would actually be very handy. No more bad foot odor, nuke the bacteria on your socks!
Tim
Good. I've got my thermonuclear clothes dryer up and running.
Great things, aren't they!
Length of rope to suit site, sunny day = thermonuclear clothes dryer?
On a sunny day (Mon, 02 Nov 2009 20:56:48 -0800) it happened "Paul Hovnanian P.E." wrote in :
It seems the nuke industry is now in control of the media, and to boot that, now atacks Al Gore (and makes the pople anti-clean energy) :-) This article was published today, Gore on the defence: 'Gore's Dual Role in Spotlight: Advocate and Investor'
If that nuclear industry would be able to deliver :-)
The Areva/Siemens 1600 MW power plant OL3 over here was supposed to be connected to the net this year, but now it appears likely that the connection will occur in 2012.
Paul
I'll bet it's nothing more than lip service.
Add to that, the air pollution that causes some people breathing problems and the mercury in fish caused by coal burning. Someday we will be able to charge our electric cars and reduce our oil imports from the middle east. HOPE Obama can make this CHANGE in the next three years. Then outta there! Mike
On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 08:25:24 -0500, the infamous "Buerste" scrawled the following:
One can always hope. But once any of the idiot Dems gets past the rant, they have the facts to deal with. Maybe some are finally looking at them for the first time in their lives...
Don't get me wrong. There are lots of idiot Reps out there, too.
-- "To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical." -- Thomas Jefferson
Bush had a vested interest in oil prices being as high as possible. Obama does not have such an interest.
I am hoping that the United States can come up with a sane nuclear energy policy that would allow using nuclear power in a cost effective and rational manner.
The other advanced nuclear power countries recycle their nuclear fuel, getting many times more output and many times less waste. I am sure that the US can do that easily as well, if we get our political act together.
i
Sure, let's completely bankrupt the country. Nothing like a power source that has never paid its own way after 60-70 years of government R&D, requires special exemptions from liability (at taxpayer expense), and has unresolved waste and terrorist-threat issues.
What is it about nuclear power that makes so many so-called libertarians subvert their own values?
If nuclear power is so great, why can't these mega-companies & private enterprise do it without the government subsidies?
cassiope wrote in news:0c446b5b-9ce3-4ff1-932e- snipped-for-privacy@f1g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
Lawsuits.
More people have been killed in TEDDY KENNEDY'S CAR than have been killed by nuclear power accidents in the US.
Cheers! Rich
Except that the nuclear accident in Russia contaminated the whole world...
I'd be more comfortable with civilian nukes - if the Navy were controlling them...
The Chernobyl reactor was of a radically different design than those built for civillian power production elsewhere. The only comparable site in the US was the Hanford site that -- like Chernobyl -- was first and foremost a "breeder" to produce weapons-grade Plutonium with electricity as an incidental byproduct.
The bulk of the costs incurred in the construction of a basic Westinghouse power plant are Legal Fees (fighting off EcoFreak and other frivolous lawsuits) and interest fees on construction loans due to the massive delays (caused by the EcoFreak and other frivolous lawsuits).
The EcoFreaks (having no leg to stand on) try to kill off any nuclear project by using frivolous lawsuits to delay construction long enough that the budgeted money is either no longer available or is no longer sufficient to complete the project.
If you want inexpensive nuclear power then the first step is give Judges the ability to asses multi-year/century penalties upon any Lawyer who files a frivolous lawsuit. If nothing else, this will provide the benefit of unclogging Court Dockets.
PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.