Conquer Club

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.

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

I would agree. Nuclear power plants are a great idea. It's just one of those NIMBY things....

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.

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

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...

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....

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.

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.

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?

The fact that there is even a controversy over nuclear power baffles me...

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

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?

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

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.

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.

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.

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...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.