Agreed - this had to come from a Democrat. Bush talked about this but it never got anywhere. Of all the things Obama can deliver, I hope this ends up being one of the things he actually does - breaking the logjam from the far left that has stopped this from being a reality for the past 30 years.Baldy wrote:This is one good thing about Obama being president. If a Republican suggested this, the left would have blown a gasket.
What else do you want him to do? He's helped a private company finance the building of two plants. Seems like the ball is in the company's court now, isn't it?ALPHAGRIZ1 wrote:I agree with all of the posts above.
Personally I think this is just lip service and he will do nothing to take it any farther but if he does this will be the first thing hes done that will actually create some jobs in this country.
We'll see how the myriad of government regulations come into play with the construction. It is a good decision but if his government ties this up for years he'll get no credit from me.ALPHAGRIZ1 wrote:I agree with all of the posts above.
Personally I think this is just lip service and he will do nothing to take it any farther but if he does this will be the first thing hes done that will actually create some jobs in this country.
It's just lip service at this point. Barry's budget is going to kill Yucca Mtn. We can't keep building nukes if we don't have someplace to store the waste.ALPHAGRIZ1 wrote:I agree with all of the posts above.
Personally I think this is just lip service and he will do nothing to take it any farther but if he does this will be the first thing hes done that will actually create some jobs in this country.
Yucca Mountain was unworkable. There are much better alternatives.HI54UNI wrote:It's just lip service at this point. Barry's budget is going to kill Yucca Mtn. We can't keep building nukes if we don't have someplace to store the waste.ALPHAGRIZ1 wrote:I agree with all of the posts above.
Personally I think this is just lip service and he will do nothing to take it any farther but if he does this will be the first thing hes done that will actually create some jobs in this country.
Yep, this country is hard to do business in. The taxes, regulations, unions, environmentalists, etc make it very cost effective to open/move a business..............in another country.TheDancinMonarch wrote:We'll see how the myriad of government regulations come into play with the construction. It is a good decision but if his government ties this up for years he'll get no credit from me.ALPHAGRIZ1 wrote:I agree with all of the posts above.
Personally I think this is just lip service and he will do nothing to take it any farther but if he does this will be the first thing hes done that will actually create some jobs in this country.
You can't really blame it on the taxes. Effective rates in the US are lower than almost every single devloped country with some expections for certain industries (e.g. Ireland and the pharma business).ALPHAGRIZ1 wrote:Yep, this country is hard to do business in. The taxes, regulations, unions, environmentalists, etc make it very cost effective to open/move a business..............in another country.TheDancinMonarch wrote:
We'll see how the myriad of government regulations come into play with the construction. It is a good decision but if his government ties this up for years he'll get no credit from me.
I will be shocked if anything is accomplished in any way towards nuclear power. Its just lip service.
Sure he will act like he did all he could but the bottom line is if he doesnt lower taxes on people with money they are not going to invest it into any long term ventures. They will just sit on their money until somebody comes along to do the right thing.
Until then its Hussein Obama crashing the economy until he figures out what anyone that owns a business knows.
We needed to move away from nuclear energy as we were doing it then. It wasn't safe and the waste could be enriched to weapons grade stuff. Things are different now and nuclear makes sense as a transitional source.GannonFan wrote:Yup, it's about time. Worst mistake we made was moving away from nuclear energy so many years ago. It can and is done correct and safely so there's no reason not to do it. France's support of nuclear energy has really helped to make a lot of inroads in how to deal with the waste that is generated from nuclear power as well. Until there's a better option, and we're decades away from one, we should make as much electricity from nuclear power as possible.
I agree with both these sentiments. It's a great idea, but probably lip service, and if not, it'll be 5-10 years before we ever see a company break ground.TheDancinMonarch wrote:We'll see how the myriad of government regulations come into play with the construction. It is a good decision but if his government ties this up for years he'll get no credit from me.ALPHAGRIZ1 wrote:I agree with all of the posts above.
Personally I think this is just lip service and he will do nothing to take it any farther but if he does this will be the first thing hes done that will actually create some jobs in this country.
You are living proof that even a broke clock is right twice a day.houndawg wrote:We needed to move away from nuclear energy as we were doing it then. It wasn't safe and the waste could be enriched to weapons grade stuff. Things are different now and nuclear makes sense as a transitional source.GannonFan wrote:Yup, it's about time. Worst mistake we made was moving away from nuclear energy so many years ago. It can and is done correct and safely so there's no reason not to do it. France's support of nuclear energy has really helped to make a lot of inroads in how to deal with the waste that is generated from nuclear power as well. Until there's a better option, and we're decades away from one, we should make as much electricity from nuclear power as possible.
We could have a better option within one decade if we really wanted to because more energy than we could possibly use strikes the planet every day. I believe that looking back we will see that Obama's biggest mistake was in making health care his first priority. If he had made energy independence, in the form of an Apollo-style crash program, his primary objective, the Republicans would have been forced to cooperate and the savings generated through reduced defense spending alone would have been enough such that every American citizen could enjoy the kind of health care you need to be elected to Congress to receive now.
We went to the moon with less computer power on-board than the average wrist watch has today, we can have solar, wind, and geothermal energy in enough quantity to make us independent of the Saudis, and we can have it soon. Right now we have an energy policy that was written by Enron.
It was never as unsafe as it was made out to be, and walking away from it did little to advance the safety knowledge. What if the world abandoned the use of chemicals after the Bhopal incident in India? Look at the tremendous increase in safety related to the manufacture of chemicals since then. Besides, the French have managed to build nuclear energy safely ever since we let the enviro lobby hijack the rigthful debate over nuclear energy, so we apparently weren't far from getting it right even back then.houndawg wrote:We needed to move away from nuclear energy as we were doing it then. It wasn't safe and the waste could be enriched to weapons grade stuff. Things are different now and nuclear makes sense as a transitional source.GannonFan wrote:Yup, it's about time. Worst mistake we made was moving away from nuclear energy so many years ago. It can and is done correct and safely so there's no reason not to do it. France's support of nuclear energy has really helped to make a lot of inroads in how to deal with the waste that is generated from nuclear power as well. Until there's a better option, and we're decades away from one, we should make as much electricity from nuclear power as possible.
I agree that Obama made a huge mistake with the health care gambit, but he also dropped the ball with the pork-filled stimulus package he allowed to pass. Basically, letting Congress dictate his agenda has been his biggest faux pas. But an energy independence plan would've been interesting, and probably a lot more stimulating that the pork that we did get. And I agree, the Republicans probably would've been on board with that. Going right away to pork spending and a full-scale revision of health care, in the middle of a horrible recession, and stick with that agenda for a year, was just a terrible mistake.houndawg wrote: We could have a better option within one decade if we really wanted to because more energy than we could possibly use strikes the planet every day. I believe that looking back we will see that Obama's biggest mistake was in making health care his first priority. If he had made energy independence, in the form of an Apollo-style crash program, his primary objective, the Republicans would have been forced to cooperate and the savings generated through reduced defense spending alone would have been enough such that every American citizen could enjoy the kind of health care you need to be elected to Congress to receive now.
Well, I'm not convinced that solar power and wind power are the answers, especially in the short term. Nuclear we could've had for the past 30 years if we had been more sensible in that regard. It's not just the far right that has influenced the energy policy, the far left has done their part as well to get us where we are today. But as for getting to the moon, in reality, that was a very simple thing to do compared with trying to make this country energy independent (which is a bad term anyway - we'll never be completely energy independent anyway, we're always going to want more and the best we can do is reduce our need for energy from outside the US, and frankly, that's not a bad thing - keeping up relations with other countries is certainly worthwhile and beneficial.).houndawg wrote: We went to the moon with less computer power on-board than the average wrist watch has today, we can have solar, wind, and geothermal energy in enough quantity to make us independent of the Saudis, and we can have it soon. Right now we have an energy policy that was written by Enron.
GannonFan wrote:It was never as unsafe as it was made out to be, and walking away from it did little to advance the safety knowledge. What if the world abandoned the use of chemicals after the Bhopal incident in India? Look at the tremendous increase in safety related to the manufacture of chemicals since then. Besides, the French have managed to build nuclear energy safely ever since we let the enviro lobby hijack the rigthful debate over nuclear energy, so we apparently weren't far from getting it right even back then.houndawg wrote:
We needed to move away from nuclear energy as we were doing it then. It wasn't safe and the waste could be enriched to weapons grade stuff. Things are different now and nuclear makes sense as a transitional source.
I agree that Obama made a huge mistake with the health care gambit, but he also dropped the ball with the pork-filled stimulus package he allowed to pass. Basically, letting Congress dictate his agenda has been his biggest faux pas. But an energy independence plan would've been interesting, and probably a lot more stimulating that the pork that we did get. And I agree, the Republicans probably would've been on board with that. Going right away to pork spending and a full-scale revision of health care, in the middle of a horrible recession, and stick with that agenda for a year, was just a terrible mistake.houndawg wrote: We could have a better option within one decade if we really wanted to because more energy than we could possibly use strikes the planet every day. I believe that looking back we will see that Obama's biggest mistake was in making health care his first priority. If he had made energy independence, in the form of an Apollo-style crash program, his primary objective, the Republicans would have been forced to cooperate and the savings generated through reduced defense spending alone would have been enough such that every American citizen could enjoy the kind of health care you need to be elected to Congress to receive now.
Well, I'm not convinced that solar power and wind power are the answers, especially in the short term. Nuclear we could've had for the past 30 years if we had been more sensible in that regard. It's not just the far right that has influenced the energy policy, the far left has done their part as well to get us where we are today. But as for getting to the moon, in reality, that was a very simple thing to do compared with trying to make this country energy independent (which is a bad term anyway - we'll never be completely energy independent anyway, we're always going to want more and the best we can do is reduce our need for energy from outside the US, and frankly, that's not a bad thing - keeping up relations with other countries is certainly worthwhile and beneficial.).houndawg wrote: We went to the moon with less computer power on-board than the average wrist watch has today, we can have solar, wind, and geothermal energy in enough quantity to make us independent of the Saudis, and we can have it soon. Right now we have an energy policy that was written by Enron.
You won't have to worry about the NIMBY's in this case. Both reactors are going to be built in Georgia at an existing nuclear facility.AZGrizFan wrote:I agree with both these sentiments. It's a great idea, but probably lip service, and if not, it'll be 5-10 years before we ever see a company break ground.TheDancinMonarch wrote:
We'll see how the myriad of government regulations come into play with the construction. It is a good decision but if his government ties this up for years he'll get no credit from me.
Watch the NIMBY's come out of the WOODWORK on this one...
Such as? Please elaborate.dbackjon wrote:Yucca Mountain was unworkable. There are much better alternatives.HI54UNI wrote:
It's just lip service at this point. Barry's budget is going to kill Yucca Mtn. We can't keep building nukes if we don't have someplace to store the waste.
Nuclear power should be generated on the moon and beamed to Earth as microwaves. Low gravity and no atmosphere means it would be simple to build a magnetic rail gun that could launch the waste into the sun.HI54UNI wrote:Such as? Please elaborate.dbackjon wrote:
Yucca Mountain was unworkable. There are much better alternatives.
The government promised the nuclear industry they were going to take care of the waste and they haven't followed through. Yet the nuclear industry has to jump through every hoop that the feds mandate.
Baltimore?dbackjon wrote:Yucca Mountain was unworkable. There are much better alternatives.HI54UNI wrote:
It's just lip service at this point. Barry's budget is going to kill Yucca Mtn. We can't keep building nukes if we don't have someplace to store the waste.
