Posted on 06/22/2005 9:56:33 AM PDT by Tumbleweed_Connection
"There is a growing consensus that more nuclear power will lead to a cleaner and safer nation," President Bush said on Wednesday during a trip to a nuclear power plant in Maryland.
"It is time for this country to start building nuclear power plants again," he said to applause at the Calvert Cliffs plant.
"We're taking practical steps to encourage construction of new plants, Bush said, as he pressed Congress to send him an energy bill by August.
President Bush joked that he didn't understand all the buttons and dials in the control room of the Calvert Cliffs plant -- but he said he does know that when the people of Maryland flip a switch and see their lights come on, they need to thank the people working at the nuclear plant.
He said nuclear power is the one energy source that is "completely domestic, plentiful in quantity, environmentally friendly, and able to generate massive amounts of electricity."
The 103 nuclear power plants currently operating in America produce about 20 percent of the nation's electricity, Bush noted, without producing a single pound of air pollution or greenhouse gases.
In terms of safety, times have changed since the 1970s, Bush said. Advances in technology have made nuclear plants far safer than they were before. Yet no new plants have been built in the U.S. since the 1970s.
In his speech, President Bush noted that Americans are using energy faster they they're producing it. "We really haven't confronted this problem," he said, noting that he's been asking Congress to send him an energy bill for the past four years. All he's gotten is debate and politics but no results, he said. "So now's the time...for Cognress to stop the debate, stop the inaction, and pass an energy bill."
The House has passed an energy bill and the Senate needs to do so, the president said -- before the Senate's August recess.
President Bush said gasoline prices will not drop when he signs a bill. But making the nation less dependent on foreign oil will make life better for future generations, he said.
Coal gasification and carbon sequestration are such long words that it took me a long time to figure out what we were talking about. We are talking about taking coal--which we have a 400-year supply of in this country--turning it into gas, and then making electricity out of the gas.
For States such as Ohio, where the Presiding Officer is from, or Tennessee, where I am from, and where we struggle with air pollution problems, it gets rid of the sulfur air pollution problems and gets rid of nitrogen and mercury and just leaves carbon. If we can advance our research and development for carbon sequestration--that is, capturing that carbon and putting it in the ground--then we will have for ourselves and for the world a transformed way of producing electricity that will provide a low-cost, reliable supply of American-produced clean energy in the amounts we need. ." - Senator Alexander (R-TN), speaking on the Senate floor about the energy bill.
The Republicans are proving to show interest in the environment. If Democrats were really gung-ho about the environment like they are with the Kyoto treaty then they would sign off on this energy bill. However, it's just becoming more evident that they really don't care abut the environment but rather they care about their image to other countries. They are willing to force the power companies to pay fines to foreign countries for emitting carbon just so that Jaques Chirac will like them.
Nuclear power plants will provide energy free of carbon emission. The Kyoto treaty will provide free welfare checks to third world countries. Which one makes sense to you? Dick Durbin mentioned manufacturing electric engines that run on batteries for idle diesel trucks. Where does the electricity come from Dick Durbin? It comes mostly from coal producing power plants that emit carbon into the atmosphere. What about Kyoto Dick?
Being pro-nuke makes one pro-environment. So why join the green party? The Simsons is a political cartoon, not a factual one.
The Simsons is a political cartoon, not a factual one.
***
Actually, the Simpsons is satire of just about everything...not just political.
We get humor from it's satire whereas leftists get 'facts' from it's political messages.
You make some very valid points.
And I might add that many of those countries which whined and moaned when the U.S. would not fall into lockstep over Kyoto...which complained that the U.S. was not interested in protecting the environment...are the very ones which have nuclear plants. So if these nuclear plants are ok for them, then it should be ok for us.
Most people don't see it that way. I know the nuke industry is trying to clean up it's image and make a comeback. I just hope it fails for all the same reasons that the industry stopped growing in the first place.
So why join the green party
I don't really know enough about the party to say I'd really join. There are a lot of political issues that make me a conservative. Most are moral but I'd have to weigh what real moral advantages the party has if they are going to do something as crazy as making more nukes.
If you think about it the silence on how to handle Nuclear waste is actual extremely telling. other nations process it down (for those unfamiliar with the process you can keep using the fuel until you get hydrogen, or water. Though it becomes impractical eventually. US Plants only use it once. Now the funny thing about that is that the by product is extremely close to what you'd use to build a Nuclear missle, this is why we don't like bozos like North Korea having Nuclear power plants. Anyway I wouldn't worry about spent fuel in landfills but depending on your politics I mght worry about it being lobbed at the Chinese.
So does wind power without the horrible terrible nasty waste.
What in the world is immoral about Nuclear Power?
What horrible nasty waste? Spent fuel? Spent fuel can be processed until it's harmless, it is only political policy preventing it from being reprocessed now, and instead stored in a mountain somewhere.
SEC. 635. SAFE DISPOSAL OF GREATER-THAN-CLASS C RADIOACTIVE WASTE.
Subtitle D of title I of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (42 U.S.C. 10171) is amended by adding at the end the following new section:
`SAFE DISPOSAL OF GREATER-THAN-CLASS C RADIOACTIVE WASTE
`SEC. 152. (a) Designation of Responsibility- The Secretary shall designate an Office within the Department to have the responsibility for activities needed to develop a new, or use an existing, facility for safely disposing of all low-level radioactive waste with concentrations of radionuclides that exceed the limits established by the Commission for Class C radioactive waste (referred to in this section as `GTCC waste').
`(b) Comprehensive Plan- The Secretary shall develop a comprehensive plan for permanent disposal of GTCC waste which includes plans for a disposal facility. This plan shall be transmitted to Congress in a series of reports, including the following:
`(1) REPORT ON SHORT-TERM PLAN- Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this section, the Secretary shall submit to Congress a plan describing the Secretary's operational strategy for continued recovery and storage of GTCC waste until a permanent disposal facility is available.
`(2) UPDATE OF 1987 REPORT-
`(A) IN GENERAL- Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this section, the Secretary shall submit to Congress an update of the Secretary's February 1987 report submitted to Congress that made comprehensive recommendations for the disposal of GTCC waste.
`(B) CONTENTS- The update under this paragraph shall contain--
`(i) a detailed description and identification of the GTCC waste that is to be disposed;
`(ii) a description of current domestic and international programs, both Federal and commercial, for management and disposition of GTCC waste;
`(iii) an identification of the Federal and private options and costs for the safe disposal of GTCC waste;
`(iv) an identification of the options for ensuring that, wherever possible, generators and users of GTCC waste bear all reasonable costs of waste disposal;
`(v) an identification of any new statutory authority required for disposal of GTCC waste; and
`(vi) in coordination with the Environmental Protection Agency and the Commission, an identification of any new regulatory guidance needed for the disposal of GTCC waste.
`(3) REPORT ON COST AND SCHEDULE FOR COMPLETION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT AND RECORD OF DECISION- Not later than 180 days after the date of submission of the update required under paragraph (2), the Secretary shall submit to Congress a report containing an estimate of the cost and schedule to complete a draft and final environmental impact statement and to issue a record of decision for a permanent disposal facility, utilizing either a new or existing facility, for GTCC waste.'.
They do. They complain about problems of radioactive waste storage. The problem comes down to signage.
Actually, the current Administration inherited the Yucca Mountain effort from any number of previous ones, being that the Nuclear Waste Policy Act was passed in 1982 (Reagan), and the (incorrect) decision not to reprocess so-called "spent" fuel goes back to Jimmy Carter. So GW Bush is the fourth or fifth President to have the "waste" disposal issues set before him. And since it's a government project, it will probably stretch out another couple of Administrations before the first cannister of material gets emplaced. So the "handling" aspects really aren't something unique to the policymakers currently in office.
That's too much logic for the left side of the Senate.
As the bumper sticker used to say; "More Nukes and Less Kooks"
Sure, so would everyone but solar technology just had a major jump in the technology and it still can't really do the job. Supportors of present day solar energy will need to live like boondocking RV'ers who use solar all day to charge batteries for 45 minutes of evening light before the batteries drain. This is not the way most Americans live, and RV'ers usually get a generator too.
On the other hand, nuclear is atmospherically clean, reactors are safe from melt down, security is on alert, and the reactor makes lots of power and makes new fuel as it runs. Can't ask for more in this day and age. But as far as a disaster, you simply have to stop it from happening. Hence the War on Terror. Get on board.
Why are nukes crazy? More people have died in America because of seatblets than from nuclear power plant disasters. Nuclear worries have been overplayed.
Can we use enviro-weenies as an alternate source of fuel?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.