Obama to announce support for nuclear power

Obama to Announce Loan Help For Nuclear Power

I’m a little surprised by this as I thought Obama has always been very lukewarm in his support for nuclear power in the past. For example, during last summer on Meet the Press he stated the following.

Does this represent a change in the administration’s and the Democrats’ position on nuclear power?

Also, I have a couple of general questions that I would be interested in getting answers on.

  1. Has the primary impediment to new nuclear power generators over the past three decades been an inability to gain license approval from the government?

  2. How economic are these generators?

Another question: If Harry Reid loses his senate seat this November, does that make it more or less likely that Obama will push for storage at Yucca Mountain?

You know the old saying," Only Nixon could go to China."

Perhaps only Obama can get nuclear power for the USA.

It’s about time. The greenest thing we could do in this country right now is to push fission power, and I’m glad Obama is doing it. Unfortunately, obstruction comes from both ends of the political spectrum on this issue; I just hope that the ignorance fringes aren’t able to stop this.

About damn time. Nuclear power is the cleanest and most efficient energy source available right now. You take rocks, literally rocks, make a shit ton of energy and are left with some dangerous rocks. No emissions, no pollution, that’s it.

Everything I have read about the topic seems to confirm that political impediments have been the largest obstacle in the way of more plants. If nuclear energy isn’t the future, it’s definitely the next stop on the way there.

If he is in favor of nuclear power, why did he want to shut down Yucca Mountain?

This is like his "dumb-ass “spending freezes are bad”/“spending freezes are great as long as they don’t apply to anything signficant”/“never mind, let’s spend money like ten drunken sailors”.

Cripes, he’s an idiot. Even when he comes up with a good idea, he makes sure to present it in the most ridiculous manner possible.

Regards,
Shodan

Obama could invent a flying pony that shat candy stars, and you would complain that he was trying to rot children’s teeth.

More likely his critics aren’t smart enough to understand.

For instance a blind spending freeze is bad. Because it’s stupid, blunt and purely ideological.

A tailored spending freeze has some advantages, in that it fights the deficit, doesn’t harm the necessary government spending during the recession and is an olive branch to the Republicans who are acting like stupid, angry children.

You do know that Obama’s deficits are caused by:

  1. Bush era policies, like the unpaid for wars, the unpaid for Medicare Part D, the unpaid for tax cuts.

  2. The stimulus which the vast majority of economists say was instrumental in us not going into another depression.
    And if you don’t know these things, why are you posting in this thread before you’ve educated yourself?

Salutations,
Lobohan

Hadn’t seen this. My basic and limited understanding is that there is no sound reason for opposing Yucca Mountain as the waste storage facility. The issue simply seems to boil down to NIMBY.

What other potential locations are viable?

Fucking finally. The stance against nuclear power is the dumbest thing environmentalists have ever done, and one of the dumbest things that’s part of the democratic party platform right now. It is unjustifiable and essentially we’re increasing our air pollution and co2 output just because people think “nuclear… that’s like… radiation and stuff… right? no way”.

We’ve been thumbing our nose at the nearly magical solution to so many problems based on some vague fears that people don’t even understand - maybe this is the left’s equivelant to opposing random stuff unthinkingly because “UH… SOCIALISM”

So I certainly hope this indicates some sort of policy shift.

Amen. Nuclear power has always been one of those “I agree with the Democrats except on…” issues for me. I was hopeful that Obama’s (perhaps admittedly lukewarm) pro-stance on nuclear energy would pay out dividends and it’s looking as though it might.

Building a few reactors is like pissing in the wind to slow it down at this point.

We’ve needed real research into making reactors safer or cheaper for decades now. Billions spent THEN for research and/or experimental reactors would be making a real difference now.

Building a few run of the mill reactors is just a step above deck chair rearrangement on the Titanic IMO. Not bad in and of itself, but not making any useful impact.

If he REALLY wanted to help nuclear power, he would push for some sorta “you can"t sue em for 20 years continously before or during or after they build the damn thing” legislation.

And the whole Yucca thing doesnt even merit intelligent analysis IMO.

Its a move in the right direction (sorta) but IMO its too little too late (obviously most of this isnt to be blamed on him specifically).

Just because America has stayed stationary on nuclear power development (which isn’t true, at least not in theoretical research), doesn’t mean other countries have done so. What it may come down to is having the French or South Africans sell us the technology and trained personnel (or build the things for us), which wouldn’t be a really bad thing.

I’m tentatively encouraged by this…it was one of the things that disappointed me when Obama first came in that he was seemingly turning his back on nuclear power. Now it looks like I was either misreading him or, perhaps, he’s had time to rethink his position and realized that it’s the best thing that America can do at this point to try and curb CO2. Either way, it works for me.

-XT

Vegas. Same state, less of value to pollute, no inhabitants worth mentioning. :smiley:

Why? Why not just use the technology other countries such as France have developed?

Mentioned in this article is that 26 new reactors are awaiting approval.

This. When I read the headline I thought those exact words: It’s about time.

Thats workable. I even studied with some of those French nuclear people.

My point still stands. WE have seriously neglected nuclear power for way too long. Research WE might have done would put us (and possibly the world) in a better position NOW. And the lawsuit issue is still a biggie. Again, its a step in the right direction and Obama didnt get us to this point on his own by any stretch. (besides his Senator job for the past so many years).

Why do you assume people on the left oppose nuclear strictly for stupid reasons?

I’m in favor of nuclear (it would be great for base load power due to unreliable production and storage of wind and solar), but it does have problems.

[ul]
[li]Huge start up costs (I think nuclear has the highest start up cost of any grid energy)[/li][li]New targets for terrorist attacks (both in the nuclear plant and the transportation/storage of the waste)[/li][li]Dangerous byproducts that need to be stored[/li][li]The possibility of a nuclear accident[/li][/ul]

You seem to be confusing certain reactionary fringes of the left with valid criticisms of nuclear power.

Obama supported the 2005 energy policy act which also supported nuclear power, so I don’t think this is a shift on his part.

I’ve posted about it in various threads that nuclear is such a ridiculous slam dunk that the only reasons for opposing it are essentially stupid and ideological. Yes, there are downsides, but they are so much smaller and more managable than the downsides of the status quo. Essentially, coal gets off the hook because people are biased towards the status quo (considering the full force of new problems introduced, but giving existing problems a pass), and they also don’t consider the cost of dumping massive amounts of pollution into the atmsophere. Since coal doesn’t leave leftover barrels of pollution to deal with, people don’t notice the problem. In those threads I facetiously suggested we should just have the nuclear reactors dump the waste into the atmosphere and then people wouldn’t worry about it because there’d no longer be a nuclear waste problem.

Anyway, pre-global warming nuclear power was a slam dunk. If you think AGW is real, then the adoption of nuclear power is such a ridiculously obvious solution that massively ramping up nuclear power production should be our #1 political topic and goal.

I have never heard an attack on nuclear power that was remotely persuasive. It’s almost all based on hysteria about chernobyl, which would never happen here. Our “big disaster” of three mile island didn’t actually hurt anyone, and our new reactor designs are far safer even than that. And a sentiment of “radiation… like… ew… scary”. That, and NIMBYism based on those things, are essentially the roadblocks. Never in modern history can I think of an advancement that would benefit the human race that’s held back by public stupidity. If we start seeing huge scale anti-vax movements and a resurgence of eradicated diseases on a large scale, maybe that could compete.

Nuclear power should be one of the biggest advancements mankind has ever seen, and it has essentially gone out of favor out of ignorance. It’s absolutely silly that we aren’t using nuclear power for everything it’s worth. It’s nearly miraculous, in all that it offers with its few drawbacks, especially now with a public desire to reduce co2 emission.