Obama Says Safe Nuclear Power Plants are a Necessary Investment

What happened to “No Nukes” from the lefties?

I cant believe i am saying this, but good job Obama. Im sure this is making the nuts on the left pull their hair out!!

Obama was elected with an explict statement supporting “Safe and Secure Nuclear Energy” in his energy policy white paper. This was also highlighted during the campaign during the back and forth over energy policy (drilling off the Florida shore was also a big issue). Sure there will be those on the left upset about these, but Obama has been honest and consistent in his position on this issue since the time it first come up in early 2008.
Now, with Obama willing to upset the far left by accepting the need for nuclear power, will Republicans be willing to upset the far right and accept the need to integrate the costs of pollution and national security into the energy market through carbon credits (or an energy tax, same thing in the end)?

“razzle-dazzle” show by Obama “proposing” nuclear plants yet there is no place to dispose of teh nuclear waste because Obama closed the facilities in the United States..so Obama can say all he wants about “building’ them, but it will never happen. Razzle -Dazzle….

to jwh: I reckon that most Republicans won’t have a problem with having the costs of nuclear (and other) energy sources put into the market. They already are, of course. However, they likely (until Goldman-Sachs etc get a hold of them) won’t like the “carbon-trading” schemes because it is just more financial/derivative manipulations and makes it MUCH harder to determine the future costs– so energy companies won’t be able to plan as effectively. (Because you must plan not only how much carbon you WILL be producing but also what the price MIGHT be for that production.)
Adding the costs into the charge to the consumer is an option or a tax with a fixed time-frame (either way is ultimately paid for by the consumer since costs are passed down). Either is better then letting investment banks run around selling “credit paper” all over the world. Arguably, after a fairly long time, these “costs” for Nukes will be cheaper than the cost for coal etc. Though it will impact jobs- don’t forget. For security we could get some troops home from foreign wars and have them defend our borders and power stations!

===Energy leaders and experts recognize that as long as producing carbon pollution carries no cost
=========
And they shouldn’t.
==== “Whether it’s nuclear energy or solar or wind energy, if we fail to invest in the technologies of tomorrow, then we’re going to be importing those technologies instead of exporting them ====
Didn’t ABC report that we are doing just that with stimulus funds?
There really needn’t be a race to be first- just the best. Any technology that is developed in one place can be improved in another, or made more cheaply in another. We’ve seen it with almost every product through history.
Spending money to produce technology before there is a real demand for it, or before it is economical to use, is a waste of money.

From the article above we read from Obama’s speech:
“Whether it’s nuclear energy or solar or wind energy, if we fail to invest in the technologies of tomorrow, then we’re going to be importing those technologies instead of exporting them. We will fall behind. Jobs will be produced overseas instead of here in the United States of America. And that’s not a future that I accept.”
Hmmmmm…so, he will NOT accept jobs produced overseas instead of here in the United States of America (especially when it comes to energy).
HOWEVER…something strange is going on that he seems to have overlooked. According to an article from February 9, 2010, by ABC news reporter Jonathan Karl, titled “New Wind Farms In The US Do Not Bring Jobs”, we find these facts:
Nearly $2 billion in money from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act has been spent on wind power, funding the creation of enough new wind farms to power 2.4 million homes over the past year. But the study found that nearly 80 percent of that money has gone to foreign manufacturers of wind turbines.
So Where Are the Jobs?
“Most of the jobs are going overseas,” said Russ Choma at the Investigative Reporting Workshop. He analyzed which foreign firms had accepted the most stimulus money. “According to our estimates, about 6,000 jobs have been created overseas, and maybe a couple hundred have been created in the U.S.”
Go ahead, take a look for yourselves. The proof is in the pudding. I would think Mr. Obama needs to check the records before making such sweeping comments about jobs going overseas. Especially when speaking to a union crowd.

Now we need to go ahead and relook at the 511 billion still in the stimulis bill and redirect it toward,more nuclear power plants and the infrastructure,instead of the wasteful pork projects that only create temp jobs.

For once i agree with Obama.

I’d bet that Republicans vote against a measure for nuke plants if it ever came before Congress. Doesn’t matter that they consistently called on Obama to support nuclear. Hey did the same thing with the deficit commission.

MayBee | Feb 16, 2010 1:13:21 PM posted: “Spending money to produce technology before there is a real demand for it, or before it is economical to use, is a waste of money.”
Depends on how we define the time frame of “demand”. For example, how long before Peak Oil?
imo, transitioning our economy to alternative energy sources will take real focus. And, related Manufacturing jobs won’t sprout up overnight. Growth will be helped by a stable Renewable Energy Standard policy, like many European countries already have in place.
In my state, Oregon, foreign companies are already investing, transferring knowledge, and building US manufacturing plants for renewable energy products. A stable, developing, and competitive market place will not only build American jobs, but also future energy security.

Another nuclear plant in Georgia already boasts the highest cancer rate in the state. And sadly, not one, but many former employees of that same nuclear plant have told me time and again there are leaks that the public have never been informed of, that they are considered low-level leaks and are not dangerous to humans.
Which begs the question- if you have a low-level leak 2 or 3 times a week, doesnt that just add up to a large leak?
Before everyone jumps on the band wagon of a plant in Burke, they may want to look at cancer rates surrounding another nuclear plant in Georgia.

Before everyone jumps on the band wagon of a plant in Burke, they may want to look at cancer rates surrounding another nuclear plant in Georgia.
Concerned | Feb 16, 2010 2:21:02 PM
Certainly. Although it might be just a little more appropriate to look at what is being proposed – a new plant, with technology several generations newer – rather than a plant built 30 years ago and now at the end of its life.

Obama has thrown us a bit of bait: 2 long-planned nuclear reactors to add to the 2 already in Burke County, GA (good for the very persistent Southern Company for their tenacity). And now we see the ugly switch: in return, he wants Republicans to support “a system created of incentives to make clean energy profitable.”
If he is referring to the cap and tax bill that will enslave every American with huge costs, hidden in every food item and sales receipt, the answer is “No.”
I applaud Obama’s willingness to move towards some common sense on energy, and he needs to do much, much more. But his dishonest tactics this year make me look beyond the hype to his end game: “comprehensive climate and energy legislation”. After the “comprehensive health care” boondoggle, America is right to accept the small gesture for nuclear, but refuse the tyranny of cap & tax.

If he is referring to the cap and tax bill that will enslave every American with huge costs, hidden in every food item and sales receipt, the answer is “No.”
Carol | Feb 16, 2010 2:28:16 PM
Care to cite exactly how much you think this bill will cost the typical American?

Posted by: MayBee | Feb 16, 2010 2:35:11 PM
Most technological innovation comes on stream with a very limited demand in the market initially because the costs are high end. However, this availability of the product increases demand, and along with economies of scaled and improved production techniques bring the product to the larger market at better prices.

Care to cite exactly how much you think this bill will cost the typical American? Or have you been too badly embarrassed repeating now well-debunked lies about it being thousands?
Nobody knows. Barry doesn’t either. But guess who will make big $$$.

could you please explain to everyone about the jobs going overseas from wind farms in the US?
Shoe | Feb 16, 2010 2:40:33 PM
I think that it’d be a waste of tierra’s time unless you had the foggiest clue about what protectionism does to recessions. Some of Europe’s spending propped up our economy, some of ours propped up theirs (mainly because we’ve fallen so far behind in wind turbine development). That’s how it works. Those turbines are being installed by Americans, will be maintained by Americans, and will serve Americans. Meanwhile, those European factories will likely buy tooling from America and fly engineers over to train up installer on American jets and keep track of the progress on nightly reports typed up on American software running on a chip built by an American company.
It’s a global economy. Get use to it.

I think the president ended the viability of nuclear power when he shut down yucca mountain to return a political favor. PUUUUHleaze! I am not stupid!

Nobody knows. Barry doesn’t either. But guess who will make big $$$.
GS | Feb 16, 2010 2:41:31 PM
There have been several reputable estimates made, you don’t have to proudly embrace ignorance. Really, we’re not too stupid to make accurate predictions. And the US government stands to make the most money, and while it feels a bit unsavory to sell off our country’s environmental quality for a few bucks, the deficit could sure use those bucks and it’s better than just giving it away.

“tierra, since you seem to be the ABC spokesperson for Obama on these boards, could you please explain to everyone about the jobs going overseas from wind farms in the US”
Simple.
While Europe, China and India made significant investments into their energy infrastructures, the right wing preferred that we send that vast majority of energy subsidies to oil companies and fought any and all subsidies for alternative energy.
Take the infamous Cheney bill where Democrats had to make massive concession to fossil fuel producers to get just a little alternative energy investment.
Now those countries are ahead of us in both technology and manufacturing capability while the right wing moronically chants “we’re number 1″

Except when the availability of the product doesn’t increase demand. Sometimes the demand isn’t there.
___________________________________
Not every product is a success – you know that right?

Not every product is a success – you know that right?
=========
Yes.
That is precisely my point.

Nevermind on the new power plant.
These are just new reactors.

Yea, I’ll bet. Just like during the campaign when he said he would expand offshore drilling.(an attempt to look moderate and get votes) Then when he got elected, he banned it. The guy is just a liar.

“Except when the availability of the product doesn’t increase demand. Sometimes the demand isn’t there.”
I may be missing something but is there a lack of demand for electricity?

It’s a bit of an obvious point. Did you have something of consequence you wanted to point out?
======
Yes.
If the government spends oodles of money on something for which there is little demand, they risk wasting our money on a product that will not be successful. They also risk spending money on the product for which technology is not yet well enough developed, thus losing the chance to spend the money when the technology improves.

There have been several reputable estimates made, you don’t have to proudly embrace ignorance. Really, we’re not too stupid to make accurate predictions. And the US government stands to make the most money, and while it feels a bit unsavory to sell off our country’s environmental quality for a few bucks, the deficit could sure use those bucks and it’s better than just giving it away.
There’s quite a bit of embracing between Barry and certain uh, interests…We get plenty of inaccuracy from the WH (like unemployment) too. And unsavory? I can think of a few things. I can only wish money wasn’t given away, lost or funneled through a company with an acronym.

I may be missing something but is there a lack of demand for electricity?
========
Apparently there is a lack of demand for the certain types of energy production, yes.

IF this happens, it is the smartest move Obama has made to try and create jobs. I hope they build desalinization plants in CA for jobs and irrigation in drought areas.

“”"”"While Europe, China and India made significant investments into their energy infrastructures, the right wing preferred that we send that vast majority of energy subsidies to oil companies and fought any and all subsidies for alternative energy.”"”"”
Posted by: Ryan C
Has Obama removed those subsidies? Also, we have the same capability to manufacture wind farm parts as the next country. Problem, cost for labor. Maybe Obama should put more money towards our smaller companies here so they may grow and compete with companies like GE. Then we have manufacturing and competition here in the US and our stimulus dollars stay here.

The cap and tax bill will effect everyone. Refineries and manufacturing plants will be charged an extra tax. You think they will just take the money to pay those taxes out of their profits? Umm, no see business doesn’t work that way. They will increase their price.(therefore you will pay more) It’s really not hard to figure out.(unless you are a liberal)

Ryan—- I did notice how you went from wind farm to big oil and blasted Bush and Cheney. Funny how Tierra jumped right (or left) on it. We have the capability and should expand it using stimulus money (which was what its’ original intent was the creation of jobs). Unfortunately for both of you, we can’t get rid of the right wing, or the left wing for that matter. So complaining about right wing will get us nowhere. Both sides have ideas and unfortunately both sides have major faults. It would be nice if there was a come together, but these old hacks we have in Congress would never allow that.

yeah… i want some of that billion. I KNOW NUKES !
As a consultant, I only made a $1000 a day assisting a company so they can ‘bid’ on a piece of equipment !
There was a reason NUKE plants were not being built after 1986.
THEY COST TOO MUCH ! What price for ‘electricity’?
Northeast OHIO FIRST Energy convinced the PUCO to do a rate change shooting home owners of all electric houses, electric bills up over 30% !!! (That nuke plant was fueled in 1986) and to think we they dreamed up this way of boiling water to turn an electric generator they weren’t sure it could even be billed, since it predicted it would be so cheap !
WE need small stand only electric plants, wind mills, solar (not much good in cloudy OHIO) wave power.. ever see them LAKE waves? just ask the men of the Edmond Fitzgerald.
HELP HELP Cost of living is skyrocketing and standard of living is crashing ! MORE middle class americans will fall into poverty level under OBama than any other time in HISTORY !
HAVE that as your legasy Barack

Glad to hear the announcement, highly skeptical it will amount to anything. Read about the Shoreham nuclear power plant built on Long Island. It took 11 yrs to build, was ready to go online in 1984, but Mario Cuomo wouldn’t sign off on the final paperwork. Shoreham was decommissioned and sold for $1. The 6 BILLION dollar loss was shared by New Yorkers who, not surprisingly, have the second highest utility rates in the US, after Hawaii.

Rick you seem completely oblivious to the previous administrations gross overspending – and the fact they presided over the largest ecnomic collapse since the Great Depression.
And who’s spending now? Or raising the debt rate?
Posted by: Not Barry! | Feb 16, 2010 3:30:35 PM
_________________________________
Not Obama you seem completely oblivious to the previous administrations gross overspending – and the fact they presided over the largest ecnomic collapse since the Great Depression.
And you seem unaware of the consequences of this on the country and the current administration.
Are you aware every western industrialized country in the world has gone into deficit financing, stimulus plans and tax cuts to try to RESCUE the economy from complete collapse?

“There really needn’t be a race to be first- just the best. Any technology that is developed in one place can be improved in another, or made more cheaply in another”
While you may have genuine concern for risking investment too soon there can be risk in waiting to long. Take for example the dinky little Toyotas and Honda Civics everybody was laughing at in the ’70s. [Oh, look at the cute Japanese, they tried to make a car!]. Well nobody was laughing 10-20 years later when these companies were kicking the heck out of our companies building high quality economical cars. They got out ahead and stayed there for years. [despite Toyota's current problems]

EVery time the socialist dog uses the word “investment”, you can be certain that he is getting ready to take some more of your money. He is literally plundering the country now. It is a personal insult to me.

Since Yucca Mountain has been brought up, here is a website with a lot of information including a time-line.

I’m aware all right. You’re not probably because Barry didn’t mention the “ceiling raise” in his comments. Or you don’t want to be.
Posted by: Not Barry! | Feb 16, 2010 3:52:53 PM
____________________________________
Study what the response of all western democracies was to the economic collapse that occurred at the end of the Bush administration. Study the effects it had on their deficits and their spending. You MIGHT learn something.

ah surprise, the President of the United States speaks, and the foaming mouths engage….
he could propose a second Mother’s Day resolution and you all would eviscerate him….
its just laughable “brain-dead partisanship” as one Senator recently put it…

skip:While you may have genuine concern for risking investment too soon there can be risk in waiting to long.
=====
The US automakers’ problem wasn’t that they took too long to make a good small car. It’s that they didn’t make good enough small cars at a good enough price. There were also lots of problems in the US manufacturing process that the Japanese addressed (Saturn was set up originally to incorporate some of those methods).
Saturn was established in 1985.
For comparison, Lexus came to the US in 1989. (as a point of reference, they were not then sold in Japan). At the time, it was unknown whether the economy car company Toyota could actually make a luxury car.
So…Saturn was to compete with the Japanese small cars, where the Japanese small cars had a head start.
And Lexus was to compete with the US luxury sedan, where the US manufacturer had a head start.
Just 4 years apart.
One was successful and one wasn’t, and “waiting too long” wasn’t the important factor.

So, how many choices of different energy to heat your home do you have where you live????? posted by BillyBob
—————
I currently have 2: electricity from a coal-powered electrical plant and natural gas.
The natural gas has to be stored in tanks on my property since we are not linked to any distribution line.
The electrical plant is a major polluter which I would love to see disappear.
A nuclear power plant doesn’t spit out tons of polluting particles as does the coal-powered plant.

“Go ahead, take a look for yourselves. The proof is in the pudding. I would think Mr. Obama needs to check the records before making such sweeping comments about jobs going overseas.”
So the right wing solution to the United States lacking the manufacturing capability for wind turbines (even GE has more turbine mfg workers overseas than in the US) is to not invest any money in wind production.
Posted by: Ryan C | Feb 16, 2010 2:48:55 PM
It’s not just “any money”, Ryan C. It’s tax payer STIMULUS money. The money that was SUPPOSED to create AMERICAN jobs!! My God, you people can’t get your heads out of the liberal butt long enough to make sense!! I don’t care if we invest money in new energy technology…that’s fine with me, but not when the money is American TAX PAYER money that is now paying for 6,000 jobs overseas!
BTW, you STILL didn’t refer to the comment that Obama made about jobs going overseas. You’re good at what you get paid to do, which is bashing the conservatives, but not so good at explaining Obama’s missteps and oral errors.

Posted by: Shoe | Feb 16, 2010 4:11:11 PM
Gore invested his money in green car tech. Guess were the cash went? Finland!

tierra: Nonsense. Many, many people will chose clean energy if its available.
=========
OK, so there is demand. Are utilities purchasing the equipment to meet this demand? If so, is government intervention even necessary?

The issue is not safety of nuclear power plants. It’s the fact that the US has politicized the waste disposal process so that it has not been Science driven for decades. For example, there is not better long term nuclear waste disposal site in the US that Yucca Mountain. It’s not perfect, no place on Earth is. But it’s by far the best in the US. Yet the politics have driven the process of trying to us it to such an extreme, that nuclear waste is piling up in the most unsafe manner possible – in rusting drums at nuclear power plants. And even every nuclear power plant on the Planet were shut down tomorrow, we’d still be producing nuclear waste at the same rate for decades to come.

“The US automakers’ problem wasn’t that they took too long to make a good small car. It’s that they didn’t make good enough small cars at a good enough price”
-Because they didn’t start at it soon enough. I don’t want to go round and round so we can leave it a point-counterpoint….I think the delay was significant. Sure we can give Detroit all the time they need to figure out how to do it as well as the Japanese, but how much money will go out to Japan until they do. Same thing with say wind for example. We can rely on oil until later but by then India say may be ahead in wind. By the time we start to invest in wind they may already have a marketable edge which we might be able to overcome in time, but how much will be lost buying their products until we do. It may be more than our initial investment if we get in early.

Tyrone, I will agree that Yucca Mountian is the best place the US has to store the nuclear waste long term, but you are dead wrong on how they are stored in the short term. The older nuclear power plants are having to build “short term” storage units because their spent fuel pools are filling up and do not have enough room for full core offload when it comes time to refuel and shuffle around the fuel. They have built large storage units on site that house the large casks the older fuel are put in. These are then sealed tightly to prevent leakage, in or out. These structures have to meet strict guidelines. These aren’t just some drums sitting in the back lot, like you may see on The Simpsons. I should know, I am looking at one of them as I type this.

MayBee | Feb 16, 2010 3:08:58 PM posted: “They also risk spending money on the product for which technology is not yet well enough developed, thus losing the chance to spend the money when the technology improves.”
True, it makes sense to use robust technology. But there comes a time when NOT making a decision, waiting for cheaper later development, is detrimental in the long run.
Every single watt of American electricity that does not come from coal (and dwindling oil) is important for our nation, especially coal mining areas. Go to southwestern Pennsylvania, near the West Virginia border, and see what coal does. Slags. Poverty. Air pollution. Acid mine water.
There are costs other than just manufacturing and operation to consider, especially in light of the looming economic disaster called Peak Oil.

MayBee | Feb 16, 2010 4:19:55 PM posted: “OK, so there is demand. Are utilities purchasing the equipment to meet this demand? If so, is government intervention even necessary?”
The answer is yes to both questions. Just down the Columbia Gorge from where I live, GE will be building the world’s largest wind farm. My state’s government is offering a 50% tax credit to offset capital costs for this $1.4 billion project (btw, with turbines assembled in the US).
In addition to supplying 338 wind turbines, GE will provide 10 years of operational and maintenance. The wind farm is located in a remote Recession-hit desert County populated by just 1,850 people. So 400 construction job and 35 operation jobs are a big deal.
And, the Shepherd’s Flat project already has contracts to supply energy to the U.S. west coast grid, including Southern California Edison.

“I don’t care if we invest money in new energy technology…that’s fine with me, but not when the money is American TAX PAYER money that is now paying for 6,000 jobs overseas!”
American taxpayer money is paying for the creation of wind farms.
Because the US has been lax on investment in energy infrastructure, other countries are ahead of us in mfg and technology.
So when we want a large capital machinery, we have to go overseas.
Sadly that is not limited to the wind energy field.
You find that scenario repeating itself over and over again in a wide range of fields.

The US luxury sedan was not Lexus’s competition.
It was the Germans.
Also it was a global market issue versus just the US.
==============
Of course, it is global.
But the point is: Lexus was first sold in the US market, to compete with US (or European, as Ryan correctly notes) cars which had long been on the US market, and doing well.
It has been very successful. It was not the first to market. It was not shut out because it was late to the market.
It did well (and does well) because it is a good product.
That’s the point.

What did this guy do, unzip his liberal suit and hop into a conservative’s?! We need nuclear energy in a big way!! It gives the most bang for the buck!! (No pun intended) I also like the Afghanistan strategy!! Good job Obama!!

Wow, finally something I can fully agree with Obama on. If we had been smart, 25 years ago we would have invested 2 trillion on nuclear power over 25 years. We would now have safe, clean, cheap power and would have been able to tell the whole middle east to eff off.

I am starting to like this guy!

austin | Feb 16, 2010 5:59:58 PM posted “What Obama said today about the need for new nuclear power plant is the same as McCain and other rep. senators said quite a while ago.”
Why are you looking for a fight? We should be applauding when politicans agree to make decisions in our nation’s best interest.
Even if you don’t like Obama, even if you object to some of his policies, we are WEAKENED as a nation by frozen infighting where graft rules behind Congressional chairs.

He’s wrong.

ABOUT TIME – NOW, HOW ABOUT DRILLING FOR OIL OVER HERE, ALSO?

I am soooo tired of all the Monday morning quarterbacks. If all the experts think nuclear power is so dangerous, they should spend 6 months several hundred feet under the ocean on a nuclear powered submarine. If they are claustrophobic, they can spend a year on an aircraft carrier. It seems the most uneducated rant and raves the most. How about canning all the political grandstanding in Washington and actually try to accomplish something meaningful.

Hey, I’m a liberal and I voted for this President precisely because he is the kind of guy who will fund nuclear power plants without worrying about his big oil buddies. Just why do you think we don’t have more nuclear power plants? It isn’t because of the liberals.

First it was offshore drilling in the state of the union. Now build more nuclear power plants? What exactly do republicans dislike about Obama?

Some people might find difficulties when referring to the president of the U.S. as “president Obama”. Let’s break ground to keep abreast innervations of creating thousands of construction jobs in the next year – with 800 permanent, well-paying jobs in years to come. I am GOP in mine but not a contributor of stalemating any congressed bill that has the logic and prospect of benefiting this great country.

I think Obama is lying. Its political pandering to make it look like he’s making concessions to repubs. Its against the law to build nuke plants right now, not to mention yucca mountain was shut down,no where to put the waste.

We should be applauding when politicans agree to make decisions in our nation’s best interest.
osted by: CenterOne | Feb 16, 2010 6:26:39 PM
If we live in Stalin’s Russia or Hitler’s Germany, we had to applaud when the leader speak. Remember our government is spending us taxpayer’s money (sometime ruthlessly), why can’t we criticize their mistakes ?

jim 234 posted “Wow, something I can agree with that Obama is proposing. Clean power that reduces our dependency on oil imports. Screw you liberals who oppose everything.”
Yeah Democrats, the party of NO. Oh wait, that’s that other party. BTW, please list your address so that they can build one of those plants across the street from you since you’re in favor of them.

Good for him.

Camron Barth posted “They are clean.”
They are, until there is an accident.
And then there is the spent fuel. Some of the radioactive elements will remain dangerous for millions of years. So we’ll have to put them into something that 1) lasts millions of years and 2) has some sort diagrams explaining what’s contained inside. Or does anyone think the world will still be speaking English a million years in the future?

Camron Barth posted “They are clean.”
They are, until there is an accident.
And then there is the spent fuel. The surplus of the radioactive elements will remain dangerous for millions of years. So we’ll have to put them into something that 1) lasts millions of years and 2) has some sort diagrams explaining what’s contained inside. Or does anyone think the world will still be speaking English a million years in the future?
I am agreeing with Camron Barth.
Europe has today this problem and Chernovil is alive and that is something that will do unhappy our grand-grand children from all this radioactive rotten shot. The Oceans have today many signal from these catastrophic manners to handle a problem that nobody knows how to recycling or maybe will be the Mond or March or Jupiter our trash world…………… America????

If Yucca Mountain is shut down then where is all of the waste going to be stored?

Safe nuclear energy is as much of an oxymoron as clean coal is. We have spent so much effort to spread the word that the long term effect of our current energy production is harmful to the earth, and this is no where near as threatening as nuclear waste. Nuclear power is not safe just because it is not a product of the middle east.

Supporting new nuclear plants is as big a mistake as supporting clean coal.

So much for Solar Power and investing in alternative energy industries…I don’t think this is the “alternative energy industry” Obama’s voting public envisioned when he was running…but I’m sure that’s how he’ll spin it…what a crock this man has fed us!

There is no such thing as clean nuclear energy. Mr. Obama, I had such hopes when I voted for you. I am so disgusted to see that your “green program” has turned into nuclear waste. You have lost my confidence and more importantly, you, sir, have lost my vote.

WAKE UP! There is absolutely NO argument in favour of nuclear power and there never has been. Except for the “economical” reasons (same as the reasons why USA should go to war every decade or so…good for business…yeah, a few hundred thousand lives will be lost, but LOOK AT THE PROFITS!$!$!).
Nuclear power is the dirtiest, most expensive way to produce electricity ever imagined. A nuclear power plant costs BILLIONS of dollars and the upkeep costs MILLIONS and the decommissioning (something that is NEVER, EVER taken into account when budgeting for one of these monstrosities) takes more $BILLIONS.
Yes, it will create jobs. But so did the Nazi concentration camps. Just because something creates jobs DOES NOT automatically make it a good thing! Oh yeah, and nuclear power stations will certainly kill more people than the Nazi concentration camps.
Why the hell doesn’t Obama just make more wind farms and invest in solar energy – cheap, safe, renewable, easy. The technology has been around for decades – and when was the last time a wind turbine suffered from a meltdown and threatened to kill hundreds of thousands of people?
I’m from England, a land which is full of pathetic retards who just roll over and say “OK” when the government announces anything (such as “we’re going to build a bunch of nuclear power stations and there’s nothing you can do to stop us. Oh yeah, and we’re going to raise taxes to pay for them because they’re so ludicrously expensive and inefficient.” But they don’t produce much carbon. So we can all live in a radioactive swamp, but hail the lack of CO2 emissions. Great.

I can’t believe Obama is now in support of nuclear power and consider it clean and safe. Whatever happened to the alternative energy source plan, which is much more cleaner and safer. Not to mention it was suppose to also create new jobs? Oh wait! The stimulus for that went to China instead of the average Joe here in the states. I even bet that some of the building structure to build these new nuclear power plants are from China. I’m totally disappointed!

President Obama will not please everyone, but advancing nuclear power is the right step to make towards ridding fellow Americans of foreign oil dependency. Ultra Liberal Democrats are beginning to make us core party members want to vomit with their constant whining. We do not need to be dependent upon foreign oil countries, loan sharking regimes and terrorist accomplishes. If President Obama’s initiative with nuclear power plants is the start of the change we have been waiting for, I am for it. I just hope that there is more agressiveness to come.

The first nuclear power plant should not have been built until first determing how to render spent fuel rods harmless or useful. This rushing to build a potentially extremely dangerous way to produce electricity is just reckless not only for those living now but for generations to come. Why not wage war against the hazardous byproducts of nuclear power that already exist and concentrate on wind and solar power that are benign.

In my opinion the 8 1/2 billion $$ should be spent on repairing our countries infrastucture. Rebuilding brigdes, schools, roads, national parks and etc. This would create many new jobs as well. So far Nuke power is working well in France but it is still a risk especially where do you store the waste. I guess if we go gang buster with Nuke Plants we are going to have ship the waste to the moon once we build the first colony on the moon.

US Secretary of State, Hilary Clinton in Saudi Arabia on being asked “Why US is trying to pressurize Iran into not adopting nuclear energy”, she said “the world wants a world free of nuclear powers, the world wants middle east free of nuclear powers” What an irony considering the fact that US is the only country to have used an atomic bomb so far..N now Obama’s ‘safe’ nuclear proposal.

We have been operating nuclear reators in the United states for more than 50 years. Currently there are over 100 plats all over the country. You don’t think they haven’t planned out where potential sites for storage of the spent fuel are?

Um, Nuclear power is indeed safe. The Nuclear storage facility for spent fuel doesn’t even need to be as protective as it once needed for these new power plants. The Nuclear Fuel that will be used is no longer Fuel Rods!!!! The fuel is made of Nuclear Balls – can not be used to make weapon grade uranium!!! Read Learn Impower — and most of all stop appearing as a know-it-all!!!!

During the campaign Obama blasted Bush over the Patriot Act. After the election he asked Congress to extend it. He fought against off shore drilling. Now he asks for it. Obama sharply criticized McCain’s proposal of new nuclear plants. Now he wants to spend a few billion go build them
Evidently Obama has joind the rest of us and no longer believes his own rhetoric.

We do need more nuclear power plants. What we need to do is build them near coal and natural gas producing states. There is the Fischer-Tropsch process, which turns coal and natural gas into synthetic gasoline. This process has been around for many years. But was energy intensive to do. With inexpensive nuclear power, it would be cost effective. Railway cars would carry off the liquid fuel instead of coal. Put centralized scrubbers in the plants. Those scrubbed pollutants, primarily sulfur, would be available in high concentrations as to be a valuable industrial product all it’s own. That sulfur byproduct at the hypothetical nuclear-powered coal liquification plant, becomes sulfuric acid. This acid is the most important non-fuel industrial chemical known to man! We have hundreds of years of coal and natural gas. No more dependence on foreign oil!

This is the first thing Oblama has done that I agree with. I don’t wish to see the beautiful desert and the plains landscape filled up with wind and solar farms, which truly are a blight. Europe, which so many of you sheeple wish to become, have been utilizing Nuclear for more than a generation. The tecnology was invented in the USA. Its been a shame we never have massed produced these, instead of pumping oil from the ground and cluttering up the wide open spaces. It is about time !!

Even though the LWR or Pressurized water reactor is not the best way to fission, this is better than relying on intermittant sources for power (until robotic automation exponentiates solar deserts and electrical storage for very very cheap). With nuclear, we don’t have to store 3 or 4X the electricity to make up for the intermittant capacity.
However, with MOLTEN SALT REACTORS, the fission process would produce 250 times LESS WASTE that last about 1,000 LESS as long as the “once through spent fuel” of today’s nuke plants.
Search “thorium” too!

Nuclear is safe and NUCLEAR POWER IS THE GREENEST FORM OF HIGH-YIELD SUSTAINABLE ENERGY available to mankind at this time.
It amazes me the ignorance of many American citizens towards nuclear power and disposal of spent nuclear fuel. I’m an engineer in the nuclear power industry, have been around the world to many other nuclear power plants and this much is apparent to me.
Canada, most of Europe and especially France have made substantial efforts to educate their citizens about nuclear power, also regarding the safe storage of nuclear waste.
Basically, these days we have techniques of storing spent nuclear fuel by encasing it in dry caskes which are rebar-and-concrete fortified. I will very happily live next door to any nuclear power plant in North America, Western Europe, Asia and most of Eastern Europe. WHY? Because I am adequately informed and am well familiar with the safety aspects. I am proud to be in this industry because I am pro-ecology and realize that is not contradictory to being pro-nuclear.
The one country who’s citizens are the most ill-informed is the USA, by far. Why? I think it’s because the oil and fossil fuel industries have everything to loose if USA citizens become well-educated about nuclear power. WHY? Because the citizens will demand less power from coal and gas and more from nuclear. What about wind & solar? It can never become a high-yield form of sustainable energy.
If American became well-educated about nuclear power, then a vast majority of it’s citizens would absolutely be for nuclear power, rather than against.
Wake up people of the USA. The greatest hazards in USA are from Chemical plants.
About coal power, let’s not forget the high mercury and arsenic content in the millions of tons of slurry waste generated by coal power plants in the world that has the potential of contaminating our ground water – THAT’S REAL BAD! Also, carbon emissions from coal and gas plants – THAT’S REAL BAD! Yet, nobody’s complaining about that near as much as nuclear power. PURE IGNORANCE!
We need high-yield sustainable energy and now nuclear only attributes 20% of the electrical power output in the USA, followed by wind and solar at 5% and coal/gas the other 75%.
NUCLEAR POWER IS THE GREENEST FORM OF HIGH-YIELD SUSTAINABLE ENERGY that is available on our planet to present-day technology. It’s not perfect, but it’s our best alternative and we need to be aggressively increasing it now by building lots more nuclear plants in the USA.
High-yield energy from nuclear will, in time, pay for itself and become economical as it has become in France and will boost our economy. Without it, our economy will suffer even more.
WE can always spot the nuclear-illiterate people. They are always the ones who purport that nuclear power is going to kill us all and result in a great big nuclear mushroom cloud – yeah, right. That’s extreme ignorance and lack of education in the current-day subject of nuclear power and spent nuclear fuel waste disposal.
GO GREEN – GO NUCLEAR – BECOME INFORMED.

Scott Shamblin posted “WE can always spot the nuclear-illiterate people. They are always the ones who purport that nuclear power is going to kill us all and result in a great big nuclear mushroom cloud – yeah, right. ”
What about the people who are afraid that we could have another Chernobyl disaster here? I would not call that an unreasonable fear.

Altair-IV posted “Faurtz8 is a perfect example of the UNEDUCATED of which Scott speaks. Faurtz8 doesn’t know that it is scientifically IMPOSSIBLE for the Chernobyl accident to happen in a US plant – they are totally different designs.”
So it is impossible to a some major accident in an American nuclear power plant? You know that it can NEVER happen do you?
And try posting without the insults. I did NOT mean an accident 100% identical to the Chernobyl accident but a MAJOR ACCIDENT.

It looks like another political payback by Obama.
Nuclear cannot be considered safe until ther is NO radioactive waste to be stored.
And when the containers leak, the waste leaches into the aquifiers.
Then everyone is at risk.

I hate it when people complain about used nuclear fuel. Why? Because we know exactly what to do with it, but people are idiots! Even in the worst case scenario physically possible in the US (ie what happened at Three Mile Island), all that happens is the power plant loses a lot of money. You DO NOT SKIMP ON SAFETY for nuclear power, because accidents cost far too much. One accident can destroy the industry, so you do not take chances. That is what passive safety is about. As for cost, the profit margin on nuclear power is so huge, the plant pays for itself in less than a decade. Plutonium production? It’s a great thing! It’s like being able to run your car on water with just a bit of gasoline added to start you up. So all you paranoid freaks should shut up and let the engineers handle the problem. Believe me, if we screwed up as bad as you think we could, we’d be the first ones to die very painfully from radiation poisoning. Trust us, we’re willing to bet our lives on the safety of our workplaces.

I am a very liberal Democrat. I love the environment and would like to see our green house gases reduced. I am for a a carbon tax which I think would push power industry to innovate towards cleaner energy.
I am also for safe nuclear. France who has the most nuclear plants, enjoys cheap energy and has the cleanest air in europe.