Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Obama Backing Key to Nuclear Power

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU
 
LAGC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-25-11 05:46 AM
Original message
Obama Backing Key to Nuclear Power
Washington - At a press conference entitled The Future of Nuclear Power, financial expert Kevin Book said that President Barrack Obama is a resolute advocate for nuclear power, supporting the industry even after the Fukushima Daiichi power plant disaster. Book, an energy analyst with ClearView Energy Resources, said Obamas support does more to preserve the future of nuclear power than any other politician in Washington. Book believes that as a result of the Japanese tragedy, the nuclear power industry will have trouble raising money in private markets because of costs, concerns about liability and the slowness of the regulatory process.
..
..
Former Congressman Phil Sharp, a strong proponent of nuclear power appointed by President Obama to the Blue Ribbon Commission on Americas Nuclear Future, said that to his knowledge no one has radiation sickness in Japan as a result of the nuclear accident and that nuclear power is going to be a part of our energy future. He said he does not believe that Fukushima Daiichi will be a showstopper to new plant development. He believes, instead, that the setbacks to the nuclear power industry are lower energy demand because of the ongoing recession, the high costs of building new nuclear plants and the low cost of natural gas.

When asked about the financial impact of Fukushima Daiichi on the French-government-owned nuclear giant AREVA, Book said that AREVAs problems with MOX fuel was number three on his list of economic fallout from the reactor disaster. Book said he did not want to speculate on what would happen if the French nuclear giant begins to lose contracts, many of them backed by governments around the world. The U.S. government has several contracts with AREVA including a $5 billion MOX fuel plant under construction in South Carolina,
..
..
Germany reversed course after Fukushima and has closed seven nuclear power plants and is reviewing the extension of 17 others. He called their decisions flighty and emotional.


http://dcbureau.org/201104141323/Bulldog-Blog/obama-bac...

Nuclear power continues to move forward in America, thanks to Obama's wise leadership on this issue, refusing to buckle under emotional duress from the nuclear scare-mongerers...

It looks like quite a few new nuclear plants will be constructed over the next 10 years to help meet our growing energy-hungry needs. Along with major investments in renewables, we will continue to wean ourselves off of dirty fossil fuels until coal, oil, and natural gas become relics in the dust-bin of history.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Tesha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-25-11 07:39 AM
Response to Original message
1. How's the "wise leadership" thing working out for solving the nuclear waste disposal problem?
Or are we still kicking that can down the road to some imaginary future?

Tesha
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wtmusic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-25-11 11:19 AM
Response to Reply #1
9. Wiser than you know.
Edited on Mon Apr-25-11 11:21 AM by wtmusic
Obama used Yucca Mountain as a bargaining chip to get elected. Now that he's in power, he and Stephen Chu are being "forced" to revisit the issue.

http://colorlines.com/archives/2011/03/obama_administra...

Or did you think this was an accident?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tesha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-25-11 11:41 AM
Response to Reply #9
11. So the permanent solution to nuclear waste is what? (NT)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wtmusic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-25-11 03:50 PM
Response to Reply #11
13. The semi-permanent solution is Yucca Mountain
until technology to recycle nuclear material is viable. Many promising avenues.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tesha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-25-11 05:30 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. Ahh, the "kick that can down the ages" solution.
And commercial fusion power will likely arrive long
before any of those "many promising avenues" actually
pans out.

Tesha
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bananas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-25-11 07:53 AM
Response to Original message
2. This is one of Obama's worst positions.
Nuclear is neither necessary nor desirable,
it is one of the worst energy options available.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LAGC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-25-11 07:56 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. Except for every other mass-energy source out there...
Edited on Mon Apr-25-11 07:57 AM by LAGC
They all have their negatives, be it their cost or reliability or carbon emissions right now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bananas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-25-11 08:07 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. Nope, nuclear energy is one of the worst
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lorien Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-26-11 02:55 AM
Response to Reply #3
17. Wind spills and sun gushers? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BrightKnight Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-27-11 04:00 AM
Response to Reply #17
19. The green energy fairy is going to solve everything. - n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Marblehead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-25-11 08:36 AM
Response to Original message
5. Obama is so
disappointing, he is dooming the future of humanity. Nuclear is the dirtiest energy over the long term.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
txlibdem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-25-11 09:41 AM
Response to Original message
6. Changing your nation's energy policy before all the facts are in
is even worse than not having a national energy policy. Germany will end up importing more natural gas from Russia or importing more nuclear-generated electricity from France. Neither one sounds like a sound energy policy.

I applaud Pres. Obama's decision to use rational thought instead of knee-jerk response.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Marblehead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-25-11 10:13 AM
Response to Reply #6
7. Any links to the fact that germany will import more
Edited on Mon Apr-25-11 10:16 AM by Marblehead
energy???
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FBaggins Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-25-11 10:25 AM
Response to Reply #7
8. They'll either import more coal/gas, or they'll import electricity.
Edited on Mon Apr-25-11 10:30 AM by FBaggins
There really is no third option.

They'll obviously continue their rapid pace of renewables expansion, but nothing can make up for the gap they face quickly enough.

They had also dramatically increased their use of coal.

On edit - Here's a link http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-04-19/czechs-backing...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-25-11 11:27 AM
Response to Original message
10. "Book believes that as a result of the Japanese tragedy..."
"Book believes that as a result of the Japanese tragedy, the nuclear power industry will have trouble raising money in private markets because of costs, concerns about liability and the slowness of the regulatory process."

Now they have something to blame their already obvious financial failure on. Even with mechanisms in place that guaranteed 100% of investor funds, they couldn't raise the capital required in the equity markets. The fission sales entities were resorting to "buy here - pay here" tactics of used car sales: Areva tried forming a shell company to channel funds to their project at Calvert Cliffs (effort ruled illegal) and Tepco was providing key funding for the South Texas project (now dead).

Fukushima is just the newest 'goat' in a long line of very 'scaped' innocents that these crooks are using to try and preserve the illusion that they have a product that deserves MORE government money.

Slimy ethics.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Donnachaidh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-25-11 01:51 PM
Response to Original message
12. weaning ourselves off of coal dust which CAN be cleaned up for radiation
and radioactive WASTE that has half-lives in the thousands of years span.

Yeah -- that's fucking BRILLIANT. :sarcasm:

Let's get all the addresses of the nuclear cheerleaders and make up packets of the waste for them to store in their own basements.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
txlibdem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-25-11 10:28 PM
Response to Reply #12
15. OK, but only if you coal-lovers keep coal's radiation, CO2, Mercury, Lead, Arsenic, Boron, Cobalt,
You want a one way street. That's the problem with all coal-lovers. You want the rest of the world to pay the costs of coal pollution. Yet you demand that a nuclear proponent store some of the nuclear waste.

I'll tell you a little secret: my packet would be about the size of a coke can, yours would bury your house and yard to a depth of about 30 yards.

Be sure you understand what you are actually asking for lest you might actually get it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lorien Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-26-11 02:53 AM
Response to Original message
16. WTF????
:argh: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :nuke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kolesar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-26-11 05:10 PM
Response to Original message
18. How far did they get with "Bush backing"?
Eight years and ... not very far.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Nov 25th 2014, 09:05 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC