I Support President Obama in Building New Nuclear Power Plants.

[David Zephyr]

For nine years, I've been rather coy on this subject here, but I would ask only that DU'ers revisit their views and be open to discussion on this matter.

Here's why:

1.) Our nation urgently needs to move toward energy independence for economic and national security reasons just as President Carter tried to warn us thirty years ago. We are being held hostage by despots and we empower them with our dollars to make mischief on too many dimensions to even list.

2.) The hard truth is that we can not leap frog to energy independence with solar and wind and conservation alone. Nuclear power plants, not that many actually, can give our nation a bridge toward that goal.

3.) With Reagan's election in 1980 and with the rise of the Bush Cabal, what little chance we had to move toward breaking the chain of our dependence on oil was squandered. We've lost thirty years and we are vulnerable and are an extorted nation because of our dependence on foreign oil.

4.) The French, unlike the U.S., re-use the great majority of their nuclear "waste". We can do the same. We should do the same.

5.) This is not advocating nuclear energy as the replacement for fossil fuels, but as a necessary bridge while we work in parallel to rebuild our national grid and move as fast with solar as the Germans are and as we exploit wind power as well.

6.) We should not engage in the toxic myth of clean coal which wrecks the land. It is not a bridge, it is a terrible thing and President Obama is wrong to consider this.

7.) I know that I will upset a lot of people with this. I volunteered in the anti-nuclear movement in the 1970's, but most of that was with my concern with weapons. Still, I admit, I have evolved only because I know that it is unrealistic for us, as a people, to believe that we can break the ties of the global oil cartel in a quixotic hope that just solar, wind and conservation can make it happen. I truly wish it were so. And it will someday, but we can't get there soon enough.

8.) We are a nation starving for energy and we are in two wars because of it. President Obama has made the right decision, in my opinion. I understand that this is not popular with many on the Left where I am rooted, but realistically, we have very few options.

To those who disagree with me, I understand and respect your resolve. To those who are trying to find out where they stand on this, keep an open mind is all that I ask.

[texastoast]

1. It doesn't address the real problem

Too many people wanting too much stuff.

[jgaffney]

58. Which stuff are you willing to give up?

Pick one or two:

• Your personal vehicle, whatever size it is.
  
• Your warm house.
  
• The fresh water that is delivered to your house every day.
  
• The way that you flush a toilet and never give the waste a second thought.
  
• Your Internet access.
  
• Your iPhone/iPod/WiFi/BlueTooth-enabled gadgets.
  
• Your television, along with your 200-plus channel cable subscription.
  

America is such a great country because we have all of these things. We're so great that thousands of people wade across a river or walk across a desert to break in here. If they only knew how much collective guilt they would have to assume after they got here, they might change their minds.

[David Zephyr]

60. Welcome to the DU, jgaffney

:hi:

[texastoast]

77. A lot

I've lived fine without a car when I lived in a nice liberal city that actually had good public transportation (unlike the Oil Capital of the World). I take the bus here as well.

I've lived for weeks in a tent in the snow and I've lived in a house here with no air conditioning (Houston actually had people survive without air conditioning for decades).

Not willing to give up fresh water, although I have lived without running water in my home for two months one time, raising two kids.

See response #2.

My internet access would not be missed--I love to read recycled books.

My spousal unit had to force me to get a wireless phone--could throw it away in a heartbeat. I forget it half the time.

Don't generally watch TV unless it PBS or good movies (love love love PBS--sure wish they could get more federal funding).

In other words, I would just fucking love a hunter-gatherer culture, and I wish I could have been born in North America in 1450.

America is NOT a great country because we have all these things. America is a great place when it shares its bounty with others, doesn't displace indigenous cultures in pursuit of oil or Brazilian mahogany, and doesn't use slave labor to acquire cheap goods. The average American consumes 40 times more energy a day than your average person in a third-world country.

And the people who cross the Rio Grande are trying to feed their families. Many send a lot of their money back to Mexico and seldom stick around any longer than they have to.

Now. Then. You? Tell me true. Choose. That big-ass pickup or your asthmatic grand-daughter having decent air to breathe.

And welcome to DU.

[texastoast]

90. Baited breath

What? No response? Tapping my foot here.

[Incitatus]

2. I'm not convinced about #2.

It takes 10 years and billions of dollars to build a nuclear power plant.

How many years and how much money would it take to create solar power plants and systems on residential/commcercial rooftops that could produce just as much energy as a nuclear plant?

I don't know that answer, perhaps someone here knows.


#4 is new to me. Are you saying the French have no nuclear waste that has to be stored? There still has to be some and they will still face the same problems.

[mrcheerful]

34. Do we really want highways and trains carrying nuclear wastes past every town or city

in the country? Even if they build a recycling center to clean the waste up to reuse they will not build one next to every nuclear power plant they build. Then theres the question of mining the nuclear fuel and transporting that on our highways and railroads, unless they build plants next to the mines which would be a short term answer. I am sorry but to me there are more risks then many are willing to look at while painting this warm glowing ideal of safe nuclear power that has low environmental impact.

Then there is the problem of how our construction industry does business, cost over runs and cutting corners to save on time, material and company profits. Do we really want Halliburton building our nuke power plants or other businesses like them? Then theres the human factors as well as the computer run problems that happen when computers need updates or someone enters a bad program not to mention viruses and other problems. In a perfect world where everything works perfectly I still would have questions on just how safe nuclear power is. In the imperfect world we live in the risks are to many.

[liberal_at_heart]

83. I think the oil, coal, and nuclear power industries have bought the administration

We sure heard alot of talk about solar energy and wind energy and getting a new electrical grid but I haven't seen alot of action towards it. Unfortunately those industries don't have enough lobyyists to really buy the politicians off.

[NYC_SKP]

3. DU polls seem to indicate that slightly more people agree with you than disagree.

And I agree, too, and wrote a reply last night saying substantially the same thing as you say here.

As to Clean Coal, I think Obama is bamboozling Republicans, saying essentially that he'll support a clean coal plant when they can prove it can be done.

Since it can't be done, he'll never have to live up to that support.

Clever, I think.

[kristopher]

19. Odd isn't it, how far DU polls are from the progressive position

I've never met a conservative that didn't support coal, more drilling, and more nuclear. With that in mind here are some polls:

Associated Press/Stanford University Poll conducted by GfK Roper Public Affairs & Media. Nov. 17-29, 2009. N=1,005 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.1.

"In general, would you favor or oppose building more nuclear power plants at this time?"
Favor 49 Oppose 48 Unsure 3

***********************************************************************

CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll. Oct. 16-18, 2009. N=1,038 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.

“To address the country’s energy needs, would you support or oppose action by the federal government to ?” (Half Sample)

"Build more nuclear power plants"
Support 52, Oppose 46, Unsure 2

"Develop more solar and wind power"
Support 91, Oppose 8, Unsure 1

"Increase oil and gas drilling"
Support 64, Oppose 33, Unsure 3

"Increase coal mining"
Support 52, Oppose 45, Unsure 3

"Develop electric car technology"
Support 82, Oppose 17, Unsure 2

"Require more energy conservation by businesses and industries"
Support 78, Oppose 20, Unsure 2

"Require more energy conservation by consumers like yourself"
Support 73, Oppose 25, Unsure 3

"Require car manufacturers to improve the fuel-efficiency of vehicles sold in this country"
Support 85, Oppose 14, Unsure 1

Asked of those who support building more nuclear power plants:
"Would you favor or oppose building a nuclear power plant within 50 miles of your home?"
Favor 66, Oppose 33

The DU poll put overall support for nuclear at around 60+ percent as I recall. How is that possible given the distribution of opinions above.
The support for coal and nuclear are exactly the same.
For the DU poll to be an accurate reflection of the broader progressive/liberal/Dem sentiment it would mean that conservative/teabagger/Republican support had plunged.

The most probable alternative is that the poll was deliberately and strongly skewed by trolls.
An additional consideration for that poll was that it didn't present the actual choice that faces us. If we spend money on nuclear, It slows down the response to climate change by reducing funding for more effective energy alternatives. To portray the question as either coal or nuclear is stacking the deck for support of nuclear. See above that support for renewables is 91%.

[kristopher]

20. Odd isn't it, how far DU polls are from the progressive position

I've never met a conservative that didn't support coal, more drilling, and more nuclear. With that in mind here are some polls:

Associated Press/Stanford University Poll conducted by GfK Roper Public Affairs & Media. Nov. 17-29, 2009. N=1,005 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.1.

"In general, would you favor or oppose building more nuclear power plants at this time?"
Favor 49 Oppose 48 Unsure 3

***********************************************************************

CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll. Oct. 16-18, 2009. N=1,038 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.

“To address the country’s energy needs, would you support or oppose action by the federal government to ?” (Half Sample)

"Build more nuclear power plants"
Support 52, Oppose 46, Unsure 2

"Develop more solar and wind power"
Support 91, Oppose 8, Unsure 1

"Increase oil and gas drilling"
Support 64, Oppose 33, Unsure 3

"Increase coal mining"
Support 52, Oppose 45, Unsure 3

"Develop electric car technology"
Support 82, Oppose 17, Unsure 2

"Require more energy conservation by businesses and industries"
Support 78, Oppose 20, Unsure 2

"Require more energy conservation by consumers like yourself"
Support 73, Oppose 25, Unsure 3

"Require car manufacturers to improve the fuel-efficiency of vehicles sold in this country"
Support 85, Oppose 14, Unsure 1

Asked of those who support building more nuclear power plants:
"Would you favor or oppose building a nuclear power plant within 50 miles of your home?"
Favor 66, Oppose 33

The DU poll put overall support for nuclear at around 60+ percent as I recall. How is that possible given the distribution of opinions above.
The support for coal and nuclear are exactly the same.
For the DU poll to be an accurate reflection of the broader progressive/liberal/Dem sentiment it would mean that conservative/teabagger/Republican support had plunged.

The most probable alternative is that the poll was deliberately and strongly skewed by trolls.
An additional consideration for that poll was that it didn't present the actual choice that faces us. If we spend money on nuclear, It slows down the response to climate change by reducing funding for more effective energy alternatives. To portray the question as either coal or nuclear is stacking the deck for support of nuclear. See above that support for renewables is 91%.

[defendandprotect]

4. This is a plan to make the environment even sicker -- WASTE, a tremendous problem...

Everyone becomes "downwinders" -- harmful to everyone's health --

And a dangerous target if you believe in "terrarists" ---

and if you're willing to acknowledge human error --

Frightening!!

And another betrayal of by the Obama administration of "green" energy --

Not to mention further costs to support capitalism which obviously can't succeed

on its own!

[intheflow]

11. Amen to that!

Finally a reality-based post in this this thread. DUers for Nukes?! :wtf::wtf::wtf: :banghead:

[jgaffney]

59. The French figured it out

Why can't we? Are the French smarter than us?

Or, better yet, why don't we just buy the technology from France?

[diane in sf]

76. I agree, nuclear power is much more expensive and dirty than using efficiency,

wind and solar. Externalizing the costs (pollution, wars, waste disposal, mining, health, etc.) for dirty power sources like coal, oil, and nuclear does not make them cheaper--it's just dishonest accounting. In addition to efficiency, wind and solar, storage of intermittent power and a smarter grid are places where dollars should be allocated now.

[Kickin_Donkey]

5. I don't support Obama pushing nukes.

Nukes are not the way. Never will be. The waste lives on virtually forever.

[shraby]

6. I agree with you too. If they can let the contracts so they

are not cost plus, they probably would be a lot less costly. Cost plus seems to have no end to the plus side of it. Let the contractors who do the building of the plants, figure out what it will cost to build, put in a bid and do the work for what was bid.

[Maru Kitteh]

7. As do I. Nuclear is FAR preferable to coal, which kills 10's of thousands in the US every year.

[SnoopDog]

8. Photovoltaics on every rooftop, wind, solar thermal power, geothermal....

The more you implement archaic destructive power sources - the less you arrive at the real solution...

[anonymous171]

42. Geothermal is a lot like Hydroelectric in that it fucks with the hydrosphere

[Zenlitened]

44. I think a photovoltaics-on-every-roof type of program...

... would be a huge economic stimulus, a terrific jobs program drawing in a wide spectrum (if you'll excuse the pun) of job skills.

That alone, IMO, makes it worthwhile.

Then add in the numerous other benefits:

-decentralizing power production so that grid failures don't send us back to the stone age for weeks at a time;

-supplementing peak electricity demands without the need to build more power plants;

-reducing greenhouse gas emissions;

-improving consumer awareness of the electricity we use every day (assuming folks use simple software to monitor home usage) which tends to promote conservation and greater interest in energy efficiency


I mean, the whole concept is is just covered in WIN in so many ways, IMO.

If there is any, single project worthy of both a Manhattan Project and WPA type of effort, I think rooftop solar is it.

[WillyT]

9. If We're Gonna Do This...

Can we at least use the French example of agreeing on a design, and then building them all to the same specs??? So that if valve #241 on the reactor in one place goes suspect, we can replace it at all the others? At least that's how I understand the French to have run their nuclear industry.

Or are we gonna put them all out to bid, and have a myriad of different designs?

:shrug:

[Oregone]

33. Put them out to bid?

My impression is that the government is going to provide loans for private industry to build and profit off of them. Correct me if I am wrong, but these will not be state-owned enterprises.

[Codeine]

82. Part of the new regulatory environment

involves standardization of design.

[KILL THE WISE ONE]

10. i agree but would do more plants

if we reduce our nuclear arsenal buy using up materials in a reactor. then store the spent rods it lessens the potential for future disaster.
This is not an ideal solution but we inherited the nuclear stock piles, why not use them for some benefit while at the same time degrade them to some extent ?

[flyarm]

12. I am a billion times against it..I lived near Three Mile Island and another Nuke plant..

and i also live near Atlantic City where windmills are providing most of the Lighting for the casino's of Atlantic City..I am friends with the chief of police and i have gotten the first responder pills ..because the first responders know damn well we would not make it over our bridge to the mainland without those meds if there was fall out.

this is fucking bullshit,..and nothing i have ever signed up for from a democrat!

Remember..when they are swabbing your hands at the airport next time you fly....your aircraft could be flying over a fucking nuke..or if you live by one like millions did in NY on 9/11 when one of those planes flew right over a Nuke plant..planes are flying over those plants near you!!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/feb/16/barack-obama-nuclear-power

Obama's risky nuclear renaissanceBarack Obama's promise to fund new nuclear power plants is a major financial gamble – and US taxpayers will foot the bill

snip:

A major part of the problem in soliciting investments is the price tag, which just keeps growing. While the nuclear industry as recently as 2005 claimed the price tag for a reactor was $2bn, independent estimates say the cost could be as high as $12bn per reactor. The proposal to encourage nuclear construction via massive federally backed loans creates a major risk for the US taxpayer. A 2003 study from the Congressional Budget Office estimated that the risk of default on the government-backed loans is "very high – well above 50%".

In addition to cost, there have been significant concerns about the proposed designs for new reactors around the country. The Georgia plant selected for the first award is no stranger to these problems. The Westinghouse AP1000 reactor design, proposed for the Georgia site and six other sites around the country was sent back to the drawing board after federal regulators last October discovered major safety concerns in the design proposal, with regulators noting that it would not sufficiently protect the reactor from earthquakes, tornadoes, hurricanes and airplane crashes. The DOE loans are conditional at this point, awaiting approval from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Other proposed reactors in this promised nuclear revival would use a design from French nuclear power company Areva that nuclear regulators in France, Finland, and the United Kingdom have said has "a significant and fundamental nuclear safety problem" with its instrumentation and control system.

Westinghouse is expected to submit a new design proposal this month, but without that new proposal it's difficult to even put an accurate price tag on the project. The last estimate for the two Georgia reactors provided by Southern Company was $14bn. The head of Georgia Power Co, a subsidiary of Southern, has noted that the actual cost of the reactors will likely vary widely from original projections, but the company shouldn't be required to disclose changes to projected costs regularly. The conditional loan guarantee from the Department of Energy is for $8.3bn. It's worth noting that the two reactors already on the Georgia site, completed in the 1980s, had huge price overruns; though initially estimated at $1bn, the final price was almost $9bn.

[defendandprotect]

41. ...but we can't afford MEDICARE FOR ALL -- !!!

[kristopher]

13. I ask you to consider that your fundamental assumption is wrong.

2.) The hard truth is that we can not leap frog to energy independence with solar and wind and conservation alone. Nuclear power plants, not that many actually, can give our nation a bridge toward that goal.

I'm absolutely confident I can support this, but without getting into an argument about it at this point let me ask you this: Presume it is a false statement and that renewables are not only faster and less expensive to deploy, but that they also have distinct operational advantages over nuclear within the present grid.

What conclusion would you then arrive at?

[flyarm]

18. I will never accept it..As a flight crew of one of the 9/11 airlines, I know how damn close AA #11

came to the Indian Point plant in New York, 35 miles north of Manhattan

This is bullshit and again I will say..I never donate,d worked with or for the democratic party, was eleted as a Democrat, for this crap coming from a Democrat!


http://money.cnn.com/2009/11/12/news/economy/nuclear_security/index.htm

The threat of nuclear meltdown
The government says nuclear power is safe, but others say an airplane hit or frontal assault would be big trouble.

See all CNNMoney.com RSS FEEDS (close) By Steve Hargreaves, CNNMoney.com staff writer
Last Updated: November 12, 2009: 9:10 AM ET



I want to know where the hell the democratic party i have belonged to for 38 years has gone????????? It sure isn't what i am seeing today..not by a long shot!

[kristopher]

21. Psssst.... I'm responding to the OP.

[Raine]

36. EXACTLY ... I would like to know where that party

went too because it is sure the hell not the party that I have ever voted for or gave time and money to! :mad:

[Pavulon]

69. There's an app for that..

MAD keeping people from fucking up since 1945. OBL thought about it, then thought about the response and decided not to mess with the reactors. Considering the response would have been very harsh.

3000 MT spinning has that effect, like someone putting a shotgun in your face and racking the slide. The outcome of that event is sealed.

[Oregone]

32. This is precisely the premise that they screwed up on

And its a total game changer to the overall equation too

[David Zephyr]

53. kristopher, if that presumption was correct, I'd be there.

It just isn't. And we can't. I am an engineer and I didn't arrive at this decision lightly. We need to be racing forward with solar, wind and nuclear...and yes, conservation, which Dick Cheney ridiculed, but which is a significant part of the puzzle.

The tragedy is that we never needed to be in this situation. If you've never read President Carter's prescient speech to the nation that was mocked by the media and the Republicans, please do. We could have gotten there, but we didn't.

In studying this issue for years from a cold, impartial viewpoint, it is clear that only with extreme and dire measures of conservation -- that the public will never buy into -- could we even remotely, if even then -- balance our need for energy as we ramp up solar and wind. This is why T. Bones Pickens, who is heavily invested in natural gas and is pushing that for the obvious reasons, is able to make his point so clearly. We are in real energy crisis that has been long in the making, that has benefited people hostile to our nation including some truly shitty Americans like the Bush Family, James Baker and the host of the oil lobby here domestically.

For the record, I oppose any offshore drilling whatsoever and any new drilling in Alaska, and as I stated, I am really opposed to the nonsense of clean coal.

[flyarm]

14. Nuclear power is not needed to provide reliable, low-carbon electricity for the future.

http://www.environmentnewjersey.org/reports/global-warming/global-warming-reports/generating-failure-how-building-nuclear-power-plants-would-set-america-back-in-the-race-against-global-warming#idc30uAtx6FHG4a9eouXpisA



Nuclear power is not needed to provide reliable, low-carbon electricity for the future.


* Nuclear power proponents argue that nuclear plants are needed to produce low-carbon “base-load” power. However, the need for base-load power is exaggerated and small-scale clean energy solutions can actually enhance the reliability of the electric grid.



* Many clean power sources – including energy efficiency improvements, combined heat-and-power technologies and renewable energy sources such as biomass, geothermal energy and solar thermal power with heat storage – are available at any time, just like nuclear power. Others, including wind and solar photovoltaic power, are predictable with about 80-90 percent accuracy a day in advance. With proper planning and investments in a “smart grid” to facilitate wise use of resources, clean energy solutions could supply the vast bulk of America’s electricity needs.



* Over-reliance on base-load power plants such as nuclear reactors can harm the reliability of the grid. Because nuclear reactors provide power in massive, inflexible, all-or-nothing blocks, they often produce large amounts of power at times when few people need it. Moreover, when a reactor fails, it can have dramatic and widespread consequences for the availability of electricity. For example, when a power line failure triggered the shutdown of two nuclear reactors at Turkey Point in southern Florida in February 2008, more than 3 million customers in the Miami area lost power for up to five hours – causing traffic jams, stranding people in elevators, and widely disrupting business.

[Jennicut]

15. Well, as far as safety goes we just had a gas plant explosion in CT recently.

My sister in law told me yesterday that she felt the blast in the next town over. That was frightening.

There is the issue of waste. And it needs to be addressed. But if we are serious about climate change and we believe the science on it that we need to act now. Solar and wind power need to be amped up as well.

[Yurovsky]

16. Me & Willie are going to burn old McDonald's fry grease...

and the interstate will smell like french fries...

There's got to be a better way than nuclear. I don't want one of those thing blowing up or melting down (or whatever the fuck Chernobyl did) near my house.

[mitchtv]

17. Ugh

as long as the waste is stored in IL.

[FrenchieCat]

22. I've never like Nuclear Power, and came from an era where

it looked like we wouldn't see that issue revisited again.
Guess that's not how it is now turning out.

However, like with anything else,
I'm willing to listen, but I'm not all too thrilled. :(

[Maru Kitteh]

24. It's great that you are willing to listen FC. Some are not. Nuclear power isn't perfectly green ye

and the truth is - neither is any other technology - but it does have the potential to be extremely productive with a very small footprint and what is called waste now might be highly valuable and recyclable in the very near future. But we can't advance the technology unless we keep pushing forward.

I admire President Obama for taking this stand.

[David Zephyr]

52. And I'm not thrilled either, FrenchieCat.

Tragically, as I wrote, we squandered 1/3 of a century after Carter's clarion call to the nation and here we are. As hard as I've been on President Obama (and you know I have), I know he is committed to solar and wind power. If anyone doubts that, look at who he chose to be the Secretary of Energy, possibly his very best Cabinet pick.

[Codeine]

23. You're attracting a lot of fire,

but many of us support out President in this endeavor as well. :hi:

[Hydra]

25. Happy to Unrec

But since you were polite enough to say it's up to us, I'll tell you why.

Coal, oil, natural gas, oil shale, etc. are not solutions. They aren't even bridges. They are cash cows.

Cash cows NEVER go away.

Japan just had a nuclear leak due to an earthquake in the last year- a supposed to be impossibility. We are not getting facts from these people.

We have all the harvestable energy we need- it's all around us. I live in an area of 300 days of full sun per year. Fair amount of wind on the cloudy days, too.

tl, dr- If Bush said this, we'd be upset. Why is it ok when Obama does?

[kentuck]

26. Why do they build them above ground?

Would it not be safer to build them below ground level, in case something happened??

[Pavulon]

70. There are reactors underground...

they do not generate power.

[upi402]

27. what's in it for you?

why do you ask someone to keep an open mind, i mean? that implies that you have an interest.
Why not SOLAR and WIND and CONSERVATION, all of them? we can do more than one.

[earth mom]

51. Yeah I'll second that- What's in it for YOU???!

I suspect a selfish interest here, just like the thread yesterday from someone pushing coal who worked in the coal industry.

Disgusting!

Solar and Wind are THE ANSWER but corporate America, corrupt politicians and those who would benefit from other energy sources could care less because it's all about them. :thumbsdown:

[David Zephyr]

56. We agree, upi402.

You ask: "Why not SOLAR and WIND and CONSERVATION, all of them? we can do more than one."

I wrote (See my #5): "This is not advocating nuclear energy as the replacement for fossil fuels, but as a necessary bridge while we work in parallel to rebuild our national grid and move as fast with solar as the Germans are and as we exploit wind power as well."

As to my interest, it should be the same as yours: we are in a very dire energy crisis that has us beholden to an oil cartel and foreign despots and that has us in two hot wars now for nine years.

[Forkboy]

28. As always, David, you bring a respectful view to DU.

#7 strikes a chord as No Nukes was my political cherry, so to speak. Old ideas die hard. Sometimes that's good, sometimes not.

Thanks for giving us food for thought in a thoughtful manner. :toast:

[David Zephyr]

57. Well, as I said I'd been coy on this issue all these nine years...

and I didn't like dodging the threads and discussions anymore. I came to this decision only around five years ago and it wasn't an easy one for me. I wanted to believe that we could get there with solar, wind and conservation alone. We could have thirty years ago. We are so beholden to the oil cartel and every time oil spikes in price, they immediately want to "drill, baby drill" and they work up the public. The French have done wonders with nuclear power and reusing the spent fuel.

The problem is that I knew the second I said I supported this, some would read it as a surrender on the solar, wind and conservation front, which is so untrue and unfair. T. Bones Pickens is right in what he claims about how treacherous our nation sits now with regards to energy. He, unfortunately, is pushing natural gas as our "bridge" and while that is a domestic energy source, like coal, it is the last thing we need to be doing with the precarious climate situation we are in. But his frank analysis that we can not get there with just solar, wind and conservation alone is correct. We can't. So in this, I think I would be chickenshit to not say I support Obama in this.

And thanks, Forkboy for your kind words. That meant a lot to me. I am asking only that people look into the issue with fresh eyes considering our national plight and to also see what the French have done so well. It's the best "bridge" I can possibly see while we work with fever to putting solar voltaic panels on rooftops everywhere, building massive wind-farms, rebuild our electrical grid so that it is more efficient, weatherize our buildings and homes, and yes, conserve. I drive a hybrid.

[taught_me_patience]

29. Conservation must be a greater emphasis for the administration

Sad to see the administration pushing for nuclear energy before urging conservation.

[Zenlitened]

45. I agree that conservation is overlooked, and wrongly so.

Remember Dick Cheney famously snarling "Conservation is not an energy strategy!!!11"

That was truly appalling, because conservation has GOT TO be a part of our strategy.

I'd like to hear the Obama admin address this, as well.

:hi:

[Oregone]

30. Dollar for dollar, will this energy over a 20 to 50 year span be cheaper than wind/solar?

Including maintenance costs? How long until one is up and running, comparatively?

If not, its tough to justify wasting the time and money to do it, when there are plenty of empty fields to turn into green energy.

Why isn't leapfrogging an option? Its not like these technologies cannot instantly be implemented with efficiency and a positive ROI

[Zenlitened]

46. One point of disagreement:

I'd rather keep the green fields green, and put solar panels on rooftops.

:hi:

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

31. i'm cool with it,

[Raine]

35. I don't. I wouldn't support a repig prez doing it

and I won't support Obama doing it. I've worked against nukes since the Three Mile Island disaster with much money and time doing it. I don't attend to go along just because it's a Democrat pushing something I fought long and hard against. :mad: :grr:

[Jax]

37. Okay. Because it is you I will.

I will try to keep an open mind.

I mean that, I will look hard into this. I will.

HARD.

I still miss nsma, she put me onto your very good posts.

Blue vinyl and all from her...thanks for making me keep looking hard.


Alyce

[David Zephyr]

54. And I miss nsma. Truly.

Thanks.

[Greyhound]

38. So when Obama comes out against abortion rights, that'll be a good idea then, too?

Can one be stunned for a year? Escalating wars, endless welfare for Wall Street, defense contractors, insurance industry, etc...

We keep hearing how Democrats won the last two elections...

:wow:

[defendandprotect]

39. Agree -- as Clinton and Gore dismantled so much of the New Deal . ..

so will Obama --

and needless to say the Dems have been preparing the soil for a new view

on abortion over the last years, IMO -- something more sensitive to the "pro-life"

view.

It will happen and they have corrupted enough of the court/justice system to

make it stick -- even state by state.

[Art_from_Ark]

73. What did Gore sign to dismantle the New Deal?

As I recall, he was elected President, but was never allowed to serve.

[defendandprotect]

80. Clinton overturned 60 years of welfare guarantees . . .

Evidently, he asked Gore what he should do -- and Gore told him to do it!!

That's what I've heard/read . . .

[Art_from_Ark]

81. Hmmm

60 years of welfare guarantees? Like what? As far as I know, what is generally called "welfare" is more of a Great Society thing than a New Deal thing. At any rate, I honestly can't imagine Al Gore pushing Bill Clinton to dismantle welfare guarantees. I would really like to see something concrete about that.

[defendandprotect]

84. No -- Social Security, Unemployment, and Welfare were part of New Deal --

As far as Gore, ask around, someone might have more info --

I remember either hearing that or reading it and it seemed well known!

[Art_from_Ark]

86. I don't remember Al Gore ever pushing to end any of those programs

I do remember Reagan, and bu$h and his crew actively pushing to end them, though.

You are right, "welfare" (Aid to Families with Dependent Children") was a New Deal program, that was ended during Clinton's term. But Clinton signed it, not Al Gore. Knowing Clinton (he was my governor for 12 years), I can't see him bowing to pressure from his own party. It was the Republicans who were pushing to end those programs, and Clinton was apparently willing to accommodate them.

[defendandprotect]

88. Think the Gore info came from one of the liberal activist groups . . .

And, these things don't usually make headlines!

The WELFARE programs came with the New Deal --

I think it was towards the end of the Clinton administration when they did this --

However, people who had been on disability -- mothers with young children -- were

forced to work for minimum wage!

Reagan had begun some of that knocking seriously ill off of Disability --

many of them were unable to fight back -- many immobilized at home -- and just cut

off. Many thousands committed suicide -- though I found that out later --

newspapers didn't cover much of that end of it!!

Again -- yes, Clinton signed it -- and evidently he asked GORE if he should sign it --

and GORE recommended that he do it!

Yes -- much of the GOP dirty work gets done with the help of the Dems --

Re Gore . . . I wouldn't be naive about him -- he was also supported throughout his

career by oil industry. And imagine had the Gore/Liberman team won!

Quite a Trojan Horse there in Lieberman!!

[defendandprotect]

40. Quite a naive post, IMO -- and ignores all the risks, including the health risks --

and the fact that Americans are subsiding this new "captialist" enterprise --!!

[SidDithers]

43. I support generation of electricity through the use of Nuclear Power...nt

Sid

[tabasco]

47. Great post.

I agree.

[ThomWV]

48. Excellent post and sound reasons for nuclear use

I'd just like to point out one little thing. The President is not suggesting he (the Government) will be building any plants. The plants will still be built by private companies, the reactors will be made by (most likely) the private sector as well. Oh, and the several thousand construction jobs (I worked on a nuclear plant once, it was like a small city of workers) it creates will be great for the local economies for a number of years too.

[bananas]

49. David, you are wrong on all your points about nuclear energy.

1) Importing Uranium won't make us energy independent. Carter advocated renewables, not nuclear.

2) Nuclear will slow down the transition away from fossil fuels and towards renewables. Nuclear plants take a long time to build, efficiency and renewables are the fastest and most cost-effective thing to do.

3) Reagan also stopped research on renewables and promoted nuclear. If we followed Carter's policies, we would have been much further along by now.

4) MIT and the National Academy of Sciences both said we should NOT re-use the waste:

• The most important recommendation in the 2003 MIT report "The Future of Nuclear Power":
  
  "Thus our most important recommendation is:
  For the next decades, government and industry in the U.S. and elsewhere
  should give priority to the deployment of the once-through fuel cycle,
  rather than the development of more expensive closed fuel cycle
  technology involving reprocessing and new advanced thermal or fast
  reactor technologies."
  http://web.mit.edu/nuclearpower/index.html
  
  Obama's science advisor John Holdren participated in that report - what do you think he'll tell Obama?
  
  
• In 2007, the National Academy of Science came to a similar conclusion:
  
  "While all 17 members of the committee concluded that the GNEP R&D program, as currently planned, should not be pursued, 15 of the members said that the less-aggressive reprocessing research program that preceded the current one should be. However, if DOE returns to the earlier program, called the Advance Fuel Cycle Initiative (AFCI), it should not commit to a major demonstration or deployment of reprocessing unless there is a clear economic, national security, or environmental reason to do so."
  http://www.fas.org/blog/ssp/2007/10/national_academy_of_science_re.php
  
  
  

[spanone]

50. not me

[farmout rightarm]

55. Agreeing with you, the time to either accept nuclear power as a viable source

of the energy the world's people will -demand- or freeze in the dark is coming a lot sooner than most of us are willing to admit. I'm a tree-hugger in many ways but all the good motivations in the world won't keep us all
in the "manner we're accustomed" to.

[420inTN]

61. /signed

I agree. Although I would prefer to see the development and building of Thorium-based fission reactors than uranium-based reactors.

[apocalypsehow]

62. Kick & Rec. Excellent OP, and well stated. I routinely wipe the floor with the anti-nukers here

because they don't seem acquainted with these things called "facts," and the "facts" they do regurgitate on a regular basis are nearly always false.

:thumbsup:

[David Zephyr]

72. Well, I was an anti-nuker myself for a very long time.

The concerns of "anti-nukers" are valid. It's not 100% safe, but the French have certainly taken nuclear power to a very high level and how they recycle is commendable.

I do believe that had we embarked aggressively on the right course, as President Carter tried to all those years ago, we would be in a whole other place today.

What I don't think really sinks in is just how precarious we exist right now with our energy supply as a nation. Never mind terrorism, if Katrina had hit the refineries on the Houston Ship Channel instead of New Orleans, we'd still be in pain. And then there is Peak Oil.

We can build some new nuclear plants while we aggressively also continue in our march toward solar and wind power, to electric cars, to more public transportation such as high speed rail, to rebuilding a more efficient power grid and, of course, conserving, too.

What you call "facts" are there. I spent a long time looking at this issue from the other side. It is indeed the facts that brought me slowly to this position. For me to have been quiet, would have been dishonest of me. I support the President in this move.

[HughMoran]

63. I've been generally ambivalent on this topic

But your arguments make sense to me.

[David Zephyr]

67. It was a long evolution for me and I truly respect those that disagree.

The crying shame is that we are in such a bad position when we didn't have to be.

I came to this conclusion several years back. I've kept it to myself because I figured it was moot anyway. The President has brought the issue forward, which frankly, I think deserves respect. We are in a real box. Even leaving aside all the Peak Oil concerns, we are a nation that can be extorted. As you already know, the Bush family pimped this nation off to oil despots beginning way back with Prescott and then later George H. Bush, who really took us down into the hole we are in.

No family has ever prospered at the demise of their own nation like the Bush Family has. Their role as the American pimps for the Saudi and Kuwait dictators has set their family up for generations to come in wealth, and power.

The French have really taken nuclear power plants to a place that I feel comfortable with when weighed against the options we face. If the President shows public resolve to develop solar as the Germans have done and move quickly with wind technology, weatherizing buildings and homes, and of course, conservation along with rebuilding a more efficient power grid, the boost with some nuclear in the mix would catapult us toward that goal of energy independence again...and would probably begin to drive down oil prices as well once it is shown that the U.S. is on a new and dedicated track.

[branders seine]

64. what an absurdly wrongheaded "solution" to the problems you outline.

We need renewable, sustainable, green energy. Any of the leading technologies could be ready to provide significant portions, if not all energy needed by the time the new poison plants are online.


This more corporatist, anti-Earth crap.

[BreweryYardRat]

65. Agreed on all points. Have you heard about the thorium option for nuclear plants?

This is really neat stuff.

http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/features/print/348/new-age-nuclear?page=0%2C2
http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/19758/?a=f

The Norwegians are looking into it.

http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/news/1341/green-nuclear-power-coming-norway

[eridani]

66. So the public has to assume liability because why? n/t

[David Zephyr]

71. eridani, the public is already liable with two wars and beholden to dictators.

I don't know if you are familiar with the Peak Oil concerns, but even leaving all of that aside, the public is already in great jeopardy because of our complete dependence on foreign oil. We are dancing on eggshells with energy right now. It's why we are in two wars. It's why we went to war with George H. Bush in "Desert Storm". It is wrecking the economy, mortgaging our future and we are whistling through the graveyard in delusion that we can keep this up. China is already buying up long term gas and oil contracts all over the world.

The liability and jeopardy are already here. I am not cheer-leading the construction of nuclear power plants, I wish we hadn't come to this, but we are in an unsustainable position with the status quo and we can't wave a wand and get free from the yoke of bondage to oil now with the fledgling industries of solar and wind.

[eridani]

87. Yes, I am familiar with peak oil

I don't know why some of the much safer pebble reactor designs weren't considered. I don't like the public being on the hook for liabilities while some corporation gets all the profits.

[LWolf]

68. I don't.

Until the day that a nuclear power plant produces no radioactive waste, I staunchly oppose them.

Wind, wave, sun...yes. Wind and wave especially, while we move forward finding more efficient ways to tap solar energy.

I don't want all that nuclear waste to "store" for countless lifetimes that we generate while we are "developing" better sources. As a matter of fact, we could have been a hell of a lot farther today with wind, wave, and solar if the political climate had been right for the last 3 decades. :(

So educate me further; how do the French "re-use" nuclear waste? What do they use it for? How do they do it safely?

[hunter]

74. I agree with you. President Obama has made the right decision.

It was a terrible and probably irreversible mistake to abandon nuclear power in favor of coal.

When the complete disaster of this civilization is tallied sometime in the distant future fossil fuels will have killed billions of people and caused the extinction of millions of species.

[scarletwoman]

75. And who will mine the uranium, and how will they fare?

Using nuclear power starts with digging uranium out of the earth. Ask the Navajo what that means.

And the French aren't exactly clean with their nuclear waste. Ask the Somalis about the contractors who dump the waste from those "clean" European nuclear plants into the ocean off their coast.

Ask the Tibetans who have had their country used as nuclear waste dump by the Chinese.

There is a price to be paid for using nuclear energy. Just because most of us won't be paying it doesn't mean that someone else won't.

Nuclear energy means power, in ALL senses of the word, for the very mega-corps that are already destroying our commons and our democracy.

Nuclear energy means a continuation of highly centralized energy production beyond local and community control.

The direction we need to be going in energy production is DEcentralized and community-based energy production from local resources, under local control. You cannot get there by going in the opposite direction.

sw

Edited to add: I hope you know, David, that I have the utmost respect for you. And I respect your views as expressed in your OP. Still, as much as I understand and appreciate your veiwpoint, I cannot in good conscience agree on this particular issue.

[scarletwoman]

78. Kick for an OP that discusses something actually important. nt

[texastoast]

79. ...

It's kind of like the old days. Intelligent discourse without a lot of STFUs all over the posts.

[jtuck004]

85. On point numbers 4 and 8

but after that

http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/factsheets/doeymp0411.shtml

"High-level reprocessed waste is vitrified (solidified) and stored at La Hague for several decades, where it awaits final geologic disposal."


...because they haven't found a final site yet. They started a three separate 15 year studies in 1991, still haven't found an answer. They are looking for options in clay, and for a potential site in granite. And they are studying potential infant leukemia in the areas around the temporary storage in La Hague in France.

We have the same problem. No place to store it once it is not useful for power.

And, respectfully, we are in two wars because of greed and arrogance, not some need for power. We could do development of other technologies, change our lifestyles (we're doing it for food, tobacco, and green building, so it _can_ happen) and reduce the cancer causing effects of oil. We don't have to use as much as we do.

I'm not saying I am against it - but we should be up front about the problems and alternatives.

[mmonk]

89. I prefer pushing wind and the turbines and the factories

required to build them. But the nuclear technology in modern countries is better than ours, so I'm not totally against it. But I'd prefer something quicker and more green like wind and solar technology as well as passive solar construction.

[grantcart]

91. Its been 30 years since we built a new reactor. If we don't build one now

we are basically going to lose a generation of research.

Building two reactors now keeps us active. Most likely we are going to need more nuclear to become carbon neutral even with all of the sustainable forms of energy.