I’m utterly happy to see that President Obama is backing massive expansion of the nation’s nuclear power plants. Thank God. The safest, most environmentally friendly, and easily renewable power source ever invented (to date) has suffered under decades of irresponsible press converage and widespread ignorance.
Anyone who cares about the environment, and our reliance on things like coal and petroleum, should be applauding the administration. I definitely am.
{ 12 comments }
I wish he hadn’t said anything. Now that he has, he’ll expire that comment in a few months.
Dean,
While I support the promotion of nuclear power in pursuit of greater energy independence and diversification, doing so as part of a strategy to pass the legislation that the article references is a bad idea. The article clearly states that this support is being offered in an effort to help pass the terrible tax scheme currently stalled in the Senate.
The article references the House bill, so there’s no guarantee that you’ll see the same thing come from the Senate bill, and I don’t see much of anything coming from the administration on nuclear other than the cancellation of Yucca Mountain (after $13 billion and 27 years of study and construction). I’ll believe it when I see it; but I really hope I don’t see it as part of the Cap and Trade scam they’re trying to pass.
Anything that brings the truth about nuclear power closer to the surface has me pleased, at this point almost regardless of whatever else it’s attached to.
President Obama may well be backing nuclear power; but that article is really to vague to tell:
No actual quotes from the President. “The Obama administration” contradicts itself and the President himself on a frequent basis. Just yesterday, two high-ranking administration officials nearly simultaneously declared that the recession is over and the recession is nowhere close to over. And “leading Democrats” often say things that the President then contradicts as well.
I don’t remember specifics now; but I recall that during the campaign, Senator Obama managed to come out both for and against nuclear power. If he wants my support on this, his support needs to be unequivocal.
We also have all the environmental groups to contend with. I know you realize how long they can delay and even stop nuclear power plant plans. We should have been installing them for the last 25 years.
Ruth: I agree, however, one of the reasons I’m hopeful is that young people (ah, hope rests eternally in the young) are far more open-minded. They haven’t grown up in an era where all you had to say was “Chernobyl” (or worse, “Three Mile Island”) to shut down the discussion. They’re far more open-minded, and the benefits of the technology have become more and more apparent, not just because the technology has advanced massively but also because the benefits to it vs. the alternatives are becoming more and more apparent.
These days, a majority of Americans favor expansion of nuclear power, which is a good thing. Just as good, a growing number of self-described environmentalists do. Which is even better, because frankly, there’s nothing at this moment that is better for the environment. Fusion may overtake it, but only if Polywell or something very much like it comes to fruition; until then it’s only a hope.
Tax incentives & loan guarantees won’t fix the main problem, which is the endlessly convoluted path of regulation and litigation that every nuclear plant project has to go through. I don’t think Obama could turn this off if he wanted to–the “progressive movement” to which he has devoted his life is now very powerful and will, like the collection of crazed brooms in “the sorcerer’s apprentice,” continue on its own course.
It would be nice if certain major U.S. corporation (talkin’ to YOU, Jeff Immelt) would spend as much effort telling the positive truth about nuclear power as they are spending sucking up to environmental religionists.
I think building more nuclear power plants is an excellent idea. As Instapundit has pointed out more than once, whether global warming is happening or not, one thruth is that nuclear power is a more environmentally friendly option than coal. I was skeptical of global warming before the email scandal, I’m even more skeptical.
Build nukes now, let cap and trade wait until the fallout from Climategate settles out.
Although I’m more skeptical than ever about GLobal Warming–I’ve gone from not particularly skeptical to mildly skeptical to extremely skeptical–I have always said that I will compromise with the Global Warmists if they will get behind nuclear energy.
Because I view that as the most important issue. Regardless of the “warming” issue, there is no better way–NO better way–to clean the air and provide nearly limitless on-demand electricity to the world. And it would help to reduce our dependence on Middle Eastern oil and make electric cars much more viable.
Actions speak louder than words. My plant’s license extension application has been languishing with the NRC and was officially put on hold when Obama took over. Our current license expires in about 16 months. I’ll believe Obama believes this when the NRC gets off their ass and approves our extension.
What we need is a fusion car! Vroooom!
More nuclear power is a great idea. Environmentally friendly than the carbon-burners; it’s always cheaper to generate electricity than to dig liquid energy out of the ground; and so on.
But some people would point out to you that the same phenomenon faced by the world oil supply — namely the worldwide peak of locatable and producable oil production in the face of continually rising demand — is beginning to affect nuclear power engineering. Namely, the world’s known remaining supply of uranium is a lot less obtainable than the world’s counterpart supply of petroleum. It is one of the world’s rarer elements, and one day it will run out, for all practical purposes.
So let’s not put all our energy source eggs in a single flimsy basket.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
Comments on this entry are closed.