Obama to Support New Nuclear Power Plants

\\OFF-TOPIC// conversations about everything that has nothing to do with Conquer Club.

Moderator: Community Team

Forum rules
Please read the Community Guidelines before posting.
User avatar
azezzo
Posts: 971
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2007 12:54 pm
Gender: Male
Location: New York state, by way of Chicago

Obama to Support New Nuclear Power Plants

Post by azezzo »

What has changed is the outlook for climate and energy legislation, a White House priority. The House passed a bill in June that would limit emissions of heat-trapping gases for the first time. But the legislation led to a Republican revolt in the Senate, where the recent election of Republican Scott Brown from Massachusetts has made the measure even more of a long shot.

Obama reaffirmed his commitment to a bill in his State of the Union speech as a way to create more clean-energy jobs, but added that "means building a new generation of safe, clean nuclear power plants in this country."

To back that up, he is expected to seek $54 billion in additional loan guarantees for nuclear power in his 2011 budget request to Congress on Monday, according to an administration official who spoke on condition of anonymity because the request has not been made public.

White House officials say Obama's actions reflect his long support of nuclear power. But lawmakers from both parties say the speech reflected a new urgency and willingness to reach out to Republicans who have criticized Obama for not talking more about the role nuclear energy can play in slowing global warming.

The 104 nuclear reactors in operation in 31 states provide only 20 percent of the nation's electricity. But they are responsible for 70 percent of the power from pollution-free sources, including wind, solar and hydroelectric dams.

Several analyses of the climate bills passed by the House and under consideration in the Senate suggest that the U.S. will have to build many more plants in order to meet the 80 percent reduction in greenhouse gases by 2050 called for in the legislation. One of those studies, by the Environmental Protection Agency, assumed 180 new reactors would come on line by 2050.

"I see an evolving attitude on energy by the president," said Sen. Lamar Alexander, who has called for 100 plants to be built in the next 20 years. Alexander, R-Tenn., said Obama's mention of nuclear energy in the address Wednesday night was the most important statement that the president has made on nuclear power.

Associated Press writer Andrew Miga contributed to this report.

about fucking time, IMO.
User avatar
pimpdave
Posts: 1083
Joined: Fri Nov 30, 2007 10:15 am
Gender: Male
Location: Anti Tea Party Death Squad Task Force Headquarters
Contact:

Re: Obama to Support New Nuclear Power Plants

Post by pimpdave »

Once again, Obama having guts that Bush didn't have.
jay_a2j wrote:hey if any1 would like me to make them a signature or like an avator just let me no, my sig below i did, and i also did "panther 88" so i can do something like that for u if ud like...
bedub1
Posts: 1005
Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2006 4:41 am
Gender: Male

Re: Obama to Support New Nuclear Power Plants

Post by bedub1 »

I would agree. Nuclear power plants are a great idea. It's just one of those NIMBY things....
strike wolf
Posts: 8345
Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 11:03 pm
Gender: Male
Location: Sandy Springs, GA (just north of Atlanta)

Re: Obama to Support New Nuclear Power Plants

Post by strike wolf »

Nuclear power plants are controversial because of the issues that anything with Nuclear in front of it has had in the past, from nuclear bombs to Chernobyl. However if you look at the stats when Nuclear power plants are operated properly they are very safe and efficient ways of producing energy.
Maxleod wrote:Not strike, he's the only one with a functioning brain.
User avatar
Phatscotty
Posts: 3714
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 5:50 pm
Gender: Male

Re: Obama to Support New Nuclear Power Plants

Post by Phatscotty »

I really hope this comes to pass. Every president in my lifetime, getting up there and saying

we need to become energy independent


and then becoming more dependent on foreign energy, has been my #1 issue since I was able to vote.

Carter, Oval address on Energy, 1977

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-tPePpMxJaA
User avatar
sully800
Posts: 4978
Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2006 5:45 pm
Gender: Male
Location: Bethlehem, Pennsylvania

Re: Obama to Support New Nuclear Power Plants

Post by sully800 »

strike wolf wrote:Nuclear power plants are controversial because of the issues that anything with Nuclear in front of it has had in the past, from nuclear bombs to Chernobyl. However if you look at the stats when Nuclear power plants are operated properly they are very safe and efficient ways of producing energy.


And when they aren't operated properly...
User avatar
radiojake
Posts: 678
Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2006 11:29 pm
Location: Adelaidian living in Melbourne

Re: Obama to Support New Nuclear Power Plants

Post by radiojake »

sully800 wrote:
strike wolf wrote:Nuclear power plants are controversial because of the issues that anything with Nuclear in front of it has had in the past, from nuclear bombs to Chernobyl. However if you look at the stats when Nuclear power plants are operated properly they are very safe and efficient ways of producing energy.


And when they aren't operated properly...



It only takes one f*ck up....
-- share what ya got --
User avatar
Frigidus
Posts: 1638
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2007 1:15 pm
Location: Illinois, USA

Re: Obama to Support New Nuclear Power Plants

Post by Frigidus »

I'd literally take a nuclear power plant in my backyard if it was big enough. I'm not one to flee from .001% risks.
User avatar
Snorri1234
Posts: 3438
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2007 11:52 am
Location: Right in the middle of a fucking reptile zoo.
Contact:

Re: Obama to Support New Nuclear Power Plants

Post by Snorri1234 »

Frigidus wrote:I'd literally take a nuclear power plant in my backyard if it was big enough. I'm not one to flee from .001% risks.


Me neither. Shit, THERE IS A HIGHER CHANCE OF YOU GETTING RUN OVER RIGHT NOW.
"Some motherfuckers are always trying to ice skate uphill."

Duane: You know what they say about love and war.
Tim: Yes, one involves a lot of physical and psychological pain, and the other one's war.
khazalid
Posts: 3413
Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 5:39 am
Location: scotland

Re: Obama to Support New Nuclear Power Plants

Post by khazalid »

Phatscotty wrote:I really hope this comes to pass. Every president in my lifetime, getting up there and saying

we need to become energy independent


and then becoming more dependent on foreign energy, has been my #1 issue since I was able to vote.

Carter, Oval address on Energy, 1977

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-tPePpMxJaA


so... will you be voting obama next time then? :lol:
had i been wise, i would have seen that her simplicity cost her a fortune
User avatar
john9blue
Posts: 1268
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2007 6:18 pm
Gender: Male
Location: FlutterChi-town

Re: Obama to Support New Nuclear Power Plants

Post by john9blue »

The fact that there is even a controversy over nuclear power baffles me... :roll:
natty_dread wrote:Do ponies have sex?
Army of GOD wrote:the term heterosexual is offensive. I prefer to be called "normal"
(proud member of the Occasionally Wrongly Banned)
User avatar
edocsil
Posts: 102
Joined: Sat Apr 28, 2007 8:09 am
Gender: Male
Location: The Great State Of Minnesota

Re: Obama to Support New Nuclear Power Plants

Post by edocsil »

The controversy is one based in the irrational fear of the unknown. People who understand nuclear do not fear it.
Edoc'sil

Commander9 wrote:Trust Edoc, as I know he's VERY good.

zimmah wrote:Mind like a brick.
User avatar
Neoteny
Posts: 3396
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2007 10:24 pm
Gender: Male
Location: Atlanta, Georgia

Re: Obama to Support New Nuclear Power Plants

Post by Neoteny »

AFAIK the issue with nuclear power has little to do with the actual plants, and more to do with disposal. Sure we might be ok with a plant in our backyard, but who wants the spent rods?
Napoleon Ier wrote:You people need to grow up to be honest.
User avatar
azezzo
Posts: 971
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2007 12:54 pm
Gender: Male
Location: New York state, by way of Chicago

Re: Obama to Support New Nuclear Power Plants

Post by azezzo »

but yet people are ok with coal fired electric plants because the great unwashed masses dont realize that they put off far more radiation than nuclear plants do, therefor they are willing to live across the street, literally from a coal plant, yet because of safety concerns homes are farther from a nuclear plant, not that even a mile matters. funny that coal plants are not regulated for radiation being released
User avatar
BigBallinStalin
Posts: 5151
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham
Contact:

Re: Obama to Support New Nuclear Power Plants

Post by BigBallinStalin »

Neoteny wrote:AFAIK the issue with nuclear power has little to do with the actual plants, and more to do with disposal. Sure we might be ok with a plant in our backyard, but who wants the spent rods?


The underground cellars in remote mountains will gladly take them.
Army of GOD
Posts: 7192
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 4:30 pm
Gender: Male

Re: Obama to Support New Nuclear Power Plants

Post by Army of GOD »

As long as the job tests are extensive enough so that we know that there aren't complete f****** morons running them, it's a good choice.
mrswdk is a ho
User avatar
frogger4
Posts: 178
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2007 3:17 pm
Gender: Male
Location: Denver

Re: Obama to Support New Nuclear Power Plants

Post by frogger4 »

First, I strongly agree with building new nuclear power plants; I think it is one of the best long term clean energy solutions we have. However, I can understand why people are concerned. One of the largest issues, especially where I live (Colorado, drive I-70 regularly), is the transportation of the nuclear waste to the
underground cellars in remote mountains
In that respect, I don't really want to be driving next to a truck hauling nuclear waste, although I don't know of any good solution to that. Anyway, we need more nuclear power.
User avatar
Woodruff
Posts: 5093
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 9:15 am

Re: Obama to Support New Nuclear Power Plants

Post by Woodruff »

BigBallinStalin wrote:
Neoteny wrote:AFAIK the issue with nuclear power has little to do with the actual plants, and more to do with disposal. Sure we might be ok with a plant in our backyard, but who wants the spent rods?


The underground cellars in remote mountains will gladly take them.


Getting there via highway, last I understood...
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
strike wolf
Posts: 8345
Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 11:03 pm
Gender: Male
Location: Sandy Springs, GA (just north of Atlanta)

Re: Obama to Support New Nuclear Power Plants

Post by strike wolf »

sully800 wrote:
strike wolf wrote:Nuclear power plants are controversial because of the issues that anything with Nuclear in front of it has had in the past, from nuclear bombs to Chernobyl. However if you look at the stats when Nuclear power plants are operated properly they are very safe and efficient ways of producing energy.


And when they aren't operated properly...


that's why you need to make sure you hire the right people for the job. everybody in there needs to have expansive training for it before they begin and the person in charge better know what he's damn wel ldoing. Anything in the wrong hands is dangerous, that's why you put it in the right hands.
Maxleod wrote:Not strike, he's the only one with a functioning brain.
strike wolf
Posts: 8345
Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 11:03 pm
Gender: Male
Location: Sandy Springs, GA (just north of Atlanta)

Re: Obama to Support New Nuclear Power Plants

Post by strike wolf »

sully800 wrote:
strike wolf wrote:Nuclear power plants are controversial because of the issues that anything with Nuclear in front of it has had in the past, from nuclear bombs to Chernobyl. However if you look at the stats when Nuclear power plants are operated properly they are very safe and efficient ways of producing energy.


And when they aren't operated properly...


Anything put into the wrong hands is dangerous. Admittedly nuclear power is much more dangerous than most but I am in no way suggesting we give it to just anybody to run. I'm talking aobut trained professionals who know what they're doing.
Maxleod wrote:Not strike, he's the only one with a functioning brain.
User avatar
Neoteny
Posts: 3396
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2007 10:24 pm
Gender: Male
Location: Atlanta, Georgia

Re: Obama to Support New Nuclear Power Plants

Post by Neoteny »

BigBallinStalin wrote:
Neoteny wrote:AFAIK the issue with nuclear power has little to do with the actual plants, and more to do with disposal. Sure we might be ok with a plant in our backyard, but who wants the spent rods?


The underground cellars in remote mountains will gladly take them.


And the issue is not only people-oriented; there are ecological concerns as well. Mountains have ecosystems too, and if those cellars fail, water goes a long way...

Woodruff wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:
Neoteny wrote:AFAIK the issue with nuclear power has little to do with the actual plants, and more to do with disposal. Sure we might be ok with a plant in our backyard, but who wants the spent rods?


The underground cellars in remote mountains will gladly take them.


Getting there via highway, last I understood...


Usually by a massive military convoy.
Napoleon Ier wrote:You people need to grow up to be honest.
User avatar
sully800
Posts: 4978
Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2006 5:45 pm
Gender: Male
Location: Bethlehem, Pennsylvania

Re: Obama to Support New Nuclear Power Plants

Post by sully800 »

So do the nuclear power plants on the East coast also transport the nuclear waste to Colorado via highway? I'm not asking to be snide, it's something I had never really considered before. It seems like an awful long way to be transporting such material, but there's not many other options for disposing of the stuff.
72o
Posts: 1014
Joined: Tue Jun 09, 2009 9:04 am
Gender: Male

Re: Obama to Support New Nuclear Power Plants

Post by 72o »

sully800 wrote:So do the nuclear power plants on the East coast also transport the nuclear waste to Colorado via highway? I'm not asking to be snide, it's something I had never really considered before. It seems like an awful long way to be transporting such material, but there's not many other options for disposing of the stuff.


Savannah River Site. In my neck o' the woods. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savannah_River_Site
Image
72o
Posts: 1014
Joined: Tue Jun 09, 2009 9:04 am
Gender: Male

Re: Obama to Support New Nuclear Power Plants

Post by 72o »

Neoteny wrote:
Getting there via highway, last I understood...


Usually by a massive military convoy.


This isn't true. I work in logistics for one of the biggest manufacturers of power generation equipment, including nuclear power. We ship enriched uranium and other nuclear material frequently. It isn't carried by the military. It is transported by private carriers. They do have to have specialized training and certification in order to do it, but it's not nearly as covert and hardcore as people think.
Image
User avatar
jbrettlip
Posts: 1183
Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2007 12:30 pm
Location: Ft. Worth, TX

Re: Obama to Support New Nuclear Power Plants

Post by jbrettlip »

pimpdave wrote:Once again, Obama having guts that Bush didn't have.


Wow...didn't want to let this one slide...try typing Bush nuclear energy policy in google. Lefties and environmentalists were strongly against it. There has been no huge advance in tech since 2005, yet when the messiah Obama says Clean nuclear all the Obamaheads get their dicks hard. You have proven to be an idiot yet again.
Image
nothing wrong with a little bit of man on dog love.
Post Reply

Return to “Acceptable Content”