Build More Nuclear Power Plants, Bush Says

CNSNews ^ | 6/22/05 | Susan Jones

[BJClinton]

only paranoid weenies

Watermelons. Green on the outside, red on the outside. It isn't about the environment, it's about advancing socialism. If we go nuclear the environment is improved along with the economy, that strengthens capitalism.

[kharaku]

So is that a yes or no?

[newgeezer]

Buh-bye. ;)

[KevinDavis]

Yet you claim to be conservative..

[lilylangtree]

Does that WHOOPS will re-open and start selling more bonds?

[mallardx]

Sorry for the rudeness. Solar energy may provide up to 0.02% of this country's energy needs this year (source EIA-906). Note this is not 2% but 0.02%. I had no idea it was even that much. I am not against research for it, but for now it is fairly nonsensical to mock realistic energy production with such idealistic yet fairy-land types of comments.

Coal and nuclear power are needed to provide baseload power, the rest should be left to the free market, plus a little R&D for alternatives. Energy is far too important to be left to non-thinking idealists, my friend. Sorry to tell it to you like it is...and sorry if I insulted you.

[wyattearp]

We just need the next great evolutionary jump in solar technology.

And what exactly do you suggest that we do in the meantime, while we are waiting for "the next great evolutionary jump in solar technology" that may never happen?

[wingnutx]

Yes, build more nukes.

Also, change the law to let them reprocess spent fuel and reuse it.

[fatnotlazy]

Actually there is no responsible environmentalist who could have a problem with Nuke plants, it's only morons without a scrap of scientific understanding who go willy over the notion of nuclear power.

***

And that's why I called them "enviro-weenies."

My brother worked at a now defunct nuclear power plant. The company once had an "open house" of sorts whereby family members could tour the facility. Fascinating...even though I probably didn't understand most of it. But we were all shown the safeguards, and I was convinced then, as I am now, that nuclear energy, if handled right, is safe and should be utilized in place of most fossil fuels. But thanks to Chernobyl and Three Mile Island, the enviro-nuts managed to have this plant and others shut down. Sure the company could have kept the plants open, but the idiot government regulations put into place at the behest of these nutjobs made these plants unprofitable and unrealistic to run. I hope that this President will bring us back to nuclear energy.

[kharaku]

Has anyone ever actually proven that mutations in solar cells lead to evolution?

[kharaku]

True it does age but even in Russia where their Nuclear gear is old, and maintanence is often ignored, they haven't had a serious Nuclear problem in a very very long time. In the US where they're far more likely to head such saftey concerns Nuclear is as safe as a NERF football.

[kharaku]

The other problem with Chernobyl however is that it was an intentional, and moronic, test of what would happen during a meltdown, it isn't a valid critisism of saftey concerns since they ignore safety concerns to cause it. People just have to let go of the paranoid 70s and 80s nuclear disaster films and realize that one of the biggest areas the US is operating like we're in the middle ages is energy, Every other first world nation makes signifigant use of Nuclear.

[fatnotlazy]

And for all the commotion over Three Mile Island, it was not the disaster the media portrayed it to be.

[biblewonk]

Yet you claim to be conservative.

Being conservative does not make one pro nuke.

[Sam Cree]

Bush may or may not be right on this, but I believe government interference has probably played a part in the lack of nuclear plants in America.

[so_real]

A sincere "thank you" for your courtesy. It speaks well of you and is greatly appreciated. I retract my statement as well.

I suspect there is common ground between us on the issue of solar. In it's present form it is not viable - I agree completely. As such I was disappointed when federal funding for its R&D was cut. It has been quite some time since the last major break-through in solar technology; though I hope some are on the horizon. Nuclear is an excellent energy producer, and it is certainly an 'easy' solution in the near term. It might not be a bad thing, if only to rid ourselves of foreign dependencies quickly. I am not as opposed to it, as I am opposed to quitting the search for something better (ie. cleaner, decentralized, safer, cheaper, etc).

[chimera]

Private insurance companies will not insure them against catastrophic events, and if they did, they would charge premiums so high as to make Nuclear power more expensive than coal, oil, etc... Which is why nuclear power companies are insured by govt. bodies backed up by our tax dollars against meltdown.

Absolutely dead wrong. The Price-Anderson Act establishes the legal framework within which private industry has established the privately-funded liability pool. There are no taxpayer funds used to establish or maintain this coverage. It is all privately insured. Wanna buy some? Here you go:

Buy Your Private Nuclear Insurance Here

[FightThePower!]

Solor power isn't cost effective. Nuclear is the lowest cost solution to our energy problems.

[wyattearp]

Has anyone ever actually proven that mutations in solar cells lead to evolution?

LOL!

What happens if the solar cells evolve on a "macro-evolutionary" scale and evolve into lunar cells? Will the entire solar power industry will be devastated? Or will lunar cells allow for 24-hour power generation? Of course, 24-hour power generation would only be possible if only some of the solar cells evolve.

[Petronski]

I'm joining the green party.

Seeya!

It's a good fit. Don't let the door hit you on your luddite ass on the way out.