Comments on: Obama Backs Nuclear Power Expansion

By: ArnoldHarris

ArnoldHarris — Sat, 19 Dec 2009 22:48:22 +0000

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

By: jrogge

jrogge — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 21:14:11 +0000

What we need is a fusion car! Vroooom!

By: deadrody

deadrody — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 16:53:50 +0000

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.

By: Dean Esmay

Dean Esmay — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 14:00:30 +0000

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.

By: The Rich Wasp

The Rich Wasp — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 13:47:03 +0000

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.

By: David Foster

David Foster — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 04:19:29 +0000

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.

By: Dean Esmay

Dean Esmay — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 00:52:44 +0000

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.

By: Ruth H

Ruth H — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 00:11:19 +0000

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.

By: Martin L. Shoemaker

Martin L. Shoemaker — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 23:12:25 +0000

President Obama may well be backing nuclear power; but that article is really to vague to tell:

The Obama administration and leading Democrats, in an effort to win greater support for climate change legislation, are eyeing federal tax incentives and loan guarantees to fund a new crop of nuclear power plants across the United States that could eventually help drive down carbon emissions.

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.

By: Dean Esmay

Dean Esmay — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 22:59:37 +0000

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.