Obama is down for nuclear power, can I get a hell yea?

[K1052]

Reprocessing and re-use of the current spent fuel is the way to go, but we still need a place for storage. Our plant just had to resort to building an on-site dry cask storage lot because our fuel pool is full. Most plans around the nation are in the same boat.

Hanford and Savannah River could be used for interim storage.

A major convenience at Hanford would be that the DOE is already building a vitrification plant there.

 

[classy]

Yes, I'm full of it. He's the one that says he only supports 'safe and clean' nuclear power. He doesn't support anywhere to store the waste, thus it isn't 'safe and clean'. Learn to read politicians for what their policies and ideologies are, not get caught up in how smooth of talkers they are. I work in the nuclear industry and I've been following it for years. This is what they all say. Without a place to store the 'waste' (actually re-usable fuel), they call it unsafe and not clean.

Instead of putting government cheese out there to make the public think he's in support of nuclear power, he should be putting a team together to finalize Yucca Mountain and open some reprocessing facilities.

So let me get this straight. Because the wording is not quite to your standards, means he doesn't support nuclear plants? His guaranteeing loans is not sign he supports nuclear plants? Right. I see your points. They make sense.

 

[classy]

The money will just get wasted so long as they don't open a national repository for spent fuel. But hey, spend spend spend.

I see now. He puts forth good stuff which will help us and all you do is make sh!t up to down play it.

 

[wiretap]

No.. we've seen it OVER AND OVER with politicians on the left. He isn't the first, and he won't be the last. Honestly, look into it, because you have no clue what's going on.

 

[QuantumPion]

So let me get this straight. Because the wording is not quite to your standards, means he doesn't support nuclear plants? His guaranteeing loans is not sign he supports nuclear plants? Right. I see your points. They make sense.

Here is a car analogy for the dim-witted.

The state says cars are bad due to global warming, so they cancel everyone's drivers license. Then 6 months later, they say because the car industry is doing so poorly, they will subsidize auto loans for the first 2 people to buy a new car. Fat lot of good that does you when the state just took away your license to begin with. But the state gets to pander to the media cameras as being "pro-automobiles and car dealers" even though it accomplishes nothing.

 

[wiretap]

Clinton set aside a few billion dollars for expansion of nuclear power.. then he veto'd everything that came across his desk that had anything to do with it.

 

[nick1985]

Clinton set aside a few billion dollars for expansion of nuclear power.. then he veto'd everything that came across his desk that had anything to do with it.

lol

 

[lupi]

American design Light Pressurized Water Reactors, have a very good safety record, provided they are properly constructed. Of most importance is the welding. In the US only 3 Mile Island had an incident and that was Operator Error due to misreading a sensor. Now with more modern computers, such problems should be eliminated. Now, the Russia explosion at Chernoyble is another story, as that is a Graphite Modulated reactor and harder to control than a Light Water unit. Just look at how many are in use in our Navy, on aircraft carriers (they have 3) and on submarines (usually 2) and they are designed to run for 20 years before a refuel is needed. No incidents there either. The only real issue is moving the spent fuel rod to a secure storage area, like Yucca Mountain.

Neglecting harvey's half-baked (or is it full baked since he does live in kalifornia) the sky is failing theory, your data on current USN nuke power plants is a bit off.

 

[classy]

Here is a car analogy for the dim-witted.

The state says cars are bad due to global warming, so they cancel everyone's drivers license. Then 6 months later, they say because the car industry is doing so poorly, they will subsidize auto loans for the first 2 people to buy a new car. Fat lot of good that does you when the state just took away your license to begin with. But the state gets to pander to the media cameras as being "pro-automobiles and car dealers" even though it accomplishes nothing.

Your analogy doesn't make much sense. Here's why. You are insinuating that it was only Obama who was against Nuclear power, which is not true. He did not take away anyone's license to begin with. So now his proposal to support 7 more plants is not pandering. Another problem is that the Republicans had all the power in the first 6 and half years of Bush's presidency and they did absolutely nothing to push forward the building of these plants.

If they had we would be in construction stage by now, not funding and planning stage. So for all their "support" they did very little action. Now Obama moves to the center, puts forth support, more than the so called supporters and you claim failure. Truth is you're mad because dude is still pushing forward. He puts support behind another republican idea and rather than work with him for the best interest of the country, you do as you have for the last decade now, which is nothing.

 

[classy]

Clinton set aside a few billion dollars for expansion of nuclear power.. then he veto'd everything that came across his desk that had anything to do with it.

More half truth. And the republicans then and through most of Bush's presidency could have changed that, but didn't.

http://www.nei.org/newsandevents/s1287failuretooverride/

WASHINGTON—The following is a statement from the Nuclear Energy Institute's president and chief executive officer, Joe F. Colvin, in response to the U.S. Senate's 64-35 vote to attempt to override President Clinton's veto of the Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act of 2000, S. 1287. A two-thirds majority vote of members present and voting was required for a successful override. Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, after initially voting in favor of S.1287, changed his vote to make it possible for the Senate to reconsider the bill later this year.

 

[wiretap]

My statement holds.