Obama going nuclear: $8 billion startup

I applaud President Obama and Nuclear Power.

France generates over 80% of its electricity in nuclear plants. No excuse for the US not doing the same.

Though nuclear power is slightly more expensive than coal and natural gas, it is far cheaper than solar and wind.

One way to remain competitive in a global economy, where companies are free to relocate to low-cost countries, is to provide energy as cheaply as possible.

Nuclear power will help.

Despite what the science denying, neanderthal right wing goobers may say....
.
http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/264085/february-10-2010/we-re-off-to-see-the-blizzard

Reducing greenhouse gases in the US requires the use of nuclear as part of the mix. Every expert I have talked to has the same view. The challenge of wind and solar is that they are not 24/7/365. In addition, we have not solved the storage issue or the cost and effectiveness of long distance transmission.

Chernobyl was clearly a massive outlier in every regard when it comes to nuclear safety. The design totally stank. Trying to claim that Chernobyl should make us fear modern GE or Westinghouse reactor designs is like saying that '59 Bel Air crash tests present legitimate safety fears about an '09 Mercedes E-Class.

There's no single reason they stopped building nuclear plants, but political overreaction to 3-Mile Island making the permitting process extremely burdensome didn't help, nor did the extreme cheapness of coal.

Ultimately, until you can figure out a way to do wind baseload, which nobody really has, there is a cap on wind penetration at about 20%. Solar's no good for night-time, when people turn on their lights and TVs, so you need some kind of predictable supply, which comes down to a choice between coal, gas or nuclear. If you're saying a firm "no" to nukes, you are guaranteeing the continued presence of fossil fuels (this is also why Wingnuts are always reciting the "global warming is a myth" talking points they get fed by the right wing noise machine) in the energy portfolio, in large amounts. So, those against nuclear are promoting coal, even if they're not sufficiently aware of energy issues to realize it.

Michael - I will guess you posted before reading Phil Jones' recent interview...try looking it up. Even he now admits the conclusions were bs...

The Nuclear Industry has been bailed out twice in the last 30 years. The technology is too expensive to maintain and operate.

This is yet another taxpayer handout to a private industry which is on record as stating they would never finance a Nuclear Plant without the taxpayer taking all the financial risks and costs.

There are those who complain that nuclear waste is an unsolved problem. Actually, it is not.

On a per capita basis, each person's share of nuclear waste for a lifetime would fit into a soda bottle. It is much heavier than lead, so figures about the tonnage are unnecessarily alarming.

What we are calling nuclear waste is mostly unused fuel. The reactors we are now using extract only about 1% of the available energy from the uranium fuel. Fuel reprocessing and better reactor designs would enable us to burn that "waste" thereby solving the problem.

Also, thorium can be used for fuel. Thorium is about 4 times as plentiful as uranium and the waste is much easier to deal with.

The Canadian CANDU reactor uses natural unenriched uranium for fuel and also produces less waste.

The Westinghouse reactors being approved are not the best and most economical design, but they should be OK and are an improvement over previous designs.

One problem where do we put the spent fuel rods. Obozo closed Yucca Mountain.

Wha Wha What??? Energy of any kind is evil and will destroy the earth EEEEEEEEEERRRGHHH!!!!!

Uranium, like diamond, is neither cheap, plentiful nor readily made except in the core of the Earth.

Perhaps instead of shooting the Moon or colonizing the Red Planet, Congress should fund an expedition to the center of the Earth or, with help from the French nuclear lobby and the Jules Verne foundation, just drill right on through to Red China, set up plants and factories there and so eliminate the middleman-the US taxpayer.

It's probably time to start up nuclear plants--again--here in the states. It's fine by me that this one will be built near Atlanta--as long as the energy gets into the national grid. Only leave Nevada alone when it comes to disposal of the harmful stuff. Bury it around DC, then build a Capitol Building or a Pentagon over it. Since the USA doesn't care that engaged land mines continue to be left in the world and our leaders refuse to sign an agreement to get rid of them--why the complaints from any lawmaker about a few radioactive rods--unless those leaders or lawmakers have Sugar Daddys in the coal or oil bidness?

Don't get too excited about this...
Since panty waist has been elected he hasn't been truthful. I'll believe it when I see a few thousand construction workers moving the earth and pouring concrete...remember, he just closed Yucca mountain, per Harry Reid.
It's easy to fool the dopey libs, but we know different.

Paulo

I've read the post about the spent fuel. We can do like the French and the Japanese by building a special reactor that was designed and engineered in America first, the re-breather reactor I believe it's called. It uses spent fuel rods from other reactors as a fuel source at the same time it reduces the amount of spent fuel waste in the area of 70% less.

Vivian
Once more I see your ignorance on another subject. I will not even get into the subject about where to put the spent fuel. But, it seems you do not have a clue about land mines and particularly US landmines. First off there are quite a few countries that have not signed the treaty and unlike America had not really done anything to lessen the danger. Where America has done more than about any other country in the task to remove landmines. US landmines has a set time and once the time runs out they self destruct and they have been that way for a long time. We are one of the few militaries that does not leave a minefield behind it is removed. I would like to see you live without oil or coal for a month and by the end of that month you would be crying for it.

Chernobyl was another example of a bad Russian design. We designed a reactor using the same cooling system and rod configuration for testing. The reactor was deemed unfit and was shortly after the commission and tore apart. The Russians in their nuclear submarine fleet tried to use liquid metal as a cooling medium. This also turned out to be a disaster and the world saw the results when one of its ballistic submarines was forced to surface they even made a movie about it. The movie left out quite a few facts.

Another thing I find funny about this announcement is that four years ago if the administration at that time tried this the loony liberals along with their comrades in the mainstream media would be calling it foolish and dangerous to the well-being of all school-aged children.

Michael Diablo @ February 16, 2010 7:07 PM, GOOD NEWS!

I guess you didn't hear it. It looks the Global Warming was a big scam! Did you read up on the fraud? Did you read up on the "scientists" who have resigned?

Did you hear them admit the other day that they haven't seen any Global Warming for 15 years???

Basically, they all lied. So we don't have to worry anymore about greenhouse gases.

Finally something I can agree with and support the President on. Nuclear power recharging our electric cars, albeit it will take some time to get there, is the only true way we will get off of imported oil.

So far, it appears the only 'talent' this dude has is wasting National resources and spening OPM. Leadership? He never heard of it. We are past the point of recommending impeachment. Giving control to the labor unions in America is about the most stupid thing any person could possibly do. The unions have been more than culpable in the crashing and burning of the American auto industry over the last 40 years. Those that disagree have no idea what they are talking about, including Obama. The unions act like they are industrious, underpaid, hard workers. Don't make us laugh in our soup.

Twice in the same week I can honestly say that Obama has accomplished something-

Capturing the #2 Taliban is a major score.

Focusing on nuclear energy is a proven, safe and "green" energy source..

THis does conflict with the closing (defunding) of the Yucca mountain complex- so I hope this is not just posturing...

One problem where do we put the spent fuel rods. Obozo closed Yucca Mountain.

Posted by: Darryl | February 16, 2010 8:47 PM

What you do with the spent fuel rods is reprocess them, to make more fuel. A fresh fuel rod is about 3% U-235, the fissionable isotope of uranium. Spent rods are fissioned down to about 1% U-235. The problem that is often advanced is that the spent rods also contain plutonium (made by irradiating U-238, the stable isotope of uranium), which can be used to make bombs. (So can uranium; the Horoshima bomb was a uranium bomb.) Plutonium can also be used to make reactor fuel, and in any case, the concentration of plutonium in spent fuel is far below that necessary to build a wepon.

Obama was right to close Yucca Mountain. The idea of burying high-level nuclear waste forever is foolish, even if "forever" is only until future generations start mining it. If we reprocess it, it's a virtually infinite source of energy. The French do it; so should we.

Incidentally, Vlkstrom, uranium, like all other elements heavier than hydrogen, is made not in the center of the earth, but in stars.

This is a very interesting story that President Obama has pledged
8 billion dollars loan guarantees to build the first nuclear power plant in almost 30 years. While the rest of the world has expanded it's use of nuclear power the United States has been in a moratorium due to domestic politics. I guess just like only a Republican President (Nixon) could open up relations with Communist China in the early 1970's because of politics, only a Democratic President (Obama) can take the lead on nuclear power. Some people in the Democratic Party are not going to like this but Obama made the right move for the country.

It seems that this move would be satisfactory to both the left and right, but everyone that has responded has found something to complain about.
This should help by eliminating the untold tons of greenhouse gases from coal power plants. It also would create jobs. Yes, there needs to more work done on handling nuclear waste, but resourceful Americans can surely come up with a solution.

Also, anything that produces jobs, reduces green house gases (whether you believe or not) and reduces our dependencs on imported energy sources should be a win-win.

Unfortunately I think either the posters her or both parties are stuck in a cycle of vilifying the other party and can't get out of it.

Todd M, actually there are a few conservatives here who said Obama did the right thing in regard to the nuclear power plants. Heartburn is one that comes to mind. You can add me, as well.
And this is TRUE stimulus, not just some BS. And the jobs generally will be high paying too.
It would be great if Obama would add to it by opening up more off-shore drilling, drilling for oil in North Dakota and ANWR. Those would create more jobs, more high-paying jobs, allow us to sell that oil on the open market, thereby increasing our exports and even reducing our imports. That, too, would be TRUE economic stimulus.
And, you can still concentrate on green energy and green jobs. No reason why all cannot take place.

It seems that this move would be satisfactory to both the left and right, but everyone that has responded has found something to complain about.
. . .
Unfortunately I think either the posters here or both parties are stuck in a cycle of vilifying the other party and can't get out of it.

Posted by: Todd M | February 17, 2010 10:24 AM

Also ironic, Todd M, is that the posters vilifying the other party frequently misrepresent the other party's position, often to the point of ascribing to the other party a position diametrically opposed to the actual one.

Obama’s Winter Fall From Grace: BARGAINING

Third in a series on the collapse of the Obama presidency, its causes, and its effects on Barack Obama, effects comparable to the 5 stages of grief. Part One dealt with denial, Part Two with anger.

Today:BARGAINING

In the 5 stages of Obama’s grief over his failed presidency, after denial and anger comes bargaining.

We bargain all the time.

The lover bargains with his beloved when she no longer wants to be his beloved. The workman bargains with his employer when he tries to wheedle more pay. The supplicant bargains with God, often on his death bed.

And the politician bargains when he compromises with his fellow politicians and bargains with the electorate when he campaigns for election.

In Obama’s case, he is bargaining out of desperation: A new Gallup poll shows the incumbent president in a statistical dead heat with . . . every Republican, i.e. against any generic Republican. Worse, Mr. Generic Rep leads Obama 45%-31% among American independents: http://bit.ly/bLoz41.

Those sad realities for Obama in and of themselves represent a sad commentary on the status of his presidency.

Compound them with doubts within his own party and things look even worse: “He says ‘I’m for clean coal,’ and then he says . . .

(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=1505)

where do we put the spent fuel rods. Obozo closed Yucca Mountain.

Posted by: Darryl | February 16, 2010 8:47 PM

;
Store. Nuclear. Waste. In. Republicans. Backyards! Now!

It was idiotic for Obama to close Yucca Mountain. First off you build rebreather reactors and send the spent fuel rod to them first. Then once those reactors are done with the fuel rods (now down to 30% of what was originally sent) you send them to Yucca Mountain for storage. You tell me which is better; Yucca Mountain which has been tested in more ways than any other structure ever has been or keep the rods in a storage pool near the Great Lakes which accounts for over a third of America's freshwater. Obama and Reid closed Yucca Mountain because of the Nevada primary and they wanted to get the votes. In other words for a few votes they put America's largest source of fresh water at risk.

Sorry I was wrong. The Great Lakes contain roughly 22% of the world’s fresh surface water.

He was against it before he was for it. EEEEEEEEEEEEEEERRRRRGHHHHHHHH!!!!!!

Actually, it would be better to stop using uranium for fuel; use thorium instead.

The LFTR (liquid fluoride thorium reactor) produces very little waste. Thorium is about four times as abundant as uranium.

For more information on LFTR reactors, visit

http://www.energyfromthorium.com/

FRE

Read up on thorium and it sounds like some thing we need to do here in the USA.

This administration is so far behind, they think their 1st. Nuclear energy
should have been high on our list of
things to do in this country 25 or 30
years ago. While on the subject of
energy why are we not drilling for oil
off the coasts and in the interior?.
Most Americans are paying well over $ 2.35 per gallon of gas, while the Arabs are paying .25 cents per gallon. And getting very rich off the worlds citizens. We have all these natural resources and were letting them go to waste rather than doing something for the citizens of our own country. When is it going to be where the people come first and not the politicians that don't want drilling off their coasts or windmills off their coasts.

Paul,

Sure, we could drill for more oil. It would solve our oil importing problem for only a few more years, then what? At best, it would be a very temporary solution when what we really need is a permanent solution.

There are multiple problems with drilling for more oil. It would lead people to think that our oil problems have been solved and thereby delay finding permanent solutions until the problems become far worse. Also, we've already drilled in all the known areas where oil is readily and easily available at low prices. The places where drilling has not yet been done are much more difficult to drill and the environmental risk is far greater.

We absolutely must get away from depending on fossil fuels for transportation.