Bad 2 days after SOTU

#78
#78
lawgator1 said:
Lumber, do you think that chart looked that way at the beginning of the mining of coal? Or oil? Or gas?

It takes some time, energy, and effort for the tech to improve to those points.

I'm not saying that solar is THE answer. I'm saying it would be idiocy to dismiss it at this point in time.
Click to expand...

We don't have time. In 20 years, this country is going to be so in debt it's not even funny. Nuclear is already an option and a very good option but Obama and the leftist want to play with the wind and sun like the flower children they are.

The answer is to stick a nuclear power plant 100 miles outside every major city for day to day energy needs.
 
#79
#79
tigervol9802 said:
I just hope in my lifetime we'll figure out a way to go nuclear power.
Click to expand...

We have. I was talking to my buddy at the Hatch plant and he said nuclear energy is so safe now it's not even a concern. He said its laughable that the left wants to make it look so scary. You say nuclear and people freak.
 
#80
#80
Ihatethebuckeyes said:
We don't have time. In 20 years, this country is going to be so in debt it's not even funny. Nuclear is already an option and a very good option but Obama and the leftist want to play with the wind and sun like the flower children they are.

The answer is to stick a nuclear power plant 100 miles outside every major city for day to day energy needs.
Click to expand...


See, this is why you have no credibility. Obama is not anti-nuclear. In fact, he has pissed off some of his base for refusing to assail it.
 
#81
#81
actions speak louder than words LG. the man loves saying he's pro crap and then doing nothing about it.
 
#82
#82
lawgator1 said:
See, this is why you have no credibility. Obama is not anti-nuclear. In fact, he has pissed off some of his base for refusing to assail it.
Click to expand...

we've all heard him pay lip service to wanting to expand nuclear energy. He also said he'd never sign legislation that contained earmarks. You'll excuse me if I lack the same faith in him that you apparently have.
 
#83
#83
lawgator1 said:
See, this is why you have no credibility. Obama is not anti-nuclear. In fact, he has pissed off some of his base for refusing to assail it.
Click to expand...

He most certainly is not a fan of nuclear.

His fall back has been that he'll embrace it when we get all the "safety" issues resolved. When will that occur? Never. Nuke's ain't green enough for Obama.

He through them and clean coal a bone in the SOTU but has been basically against each prior to this speech.
 
#86
#86
droski said:
no nothing at all:

Obama Cuts Funds To Nuclear Waste Repository : NPR
Click to expand...


One wonders if you bother to read what you link here. From the article ...

And the Obama administration's decision is hardly a seismic event for the industry.
"It means in many ways that the current state of play continues," says Alex Flint, of the Nuclear Energy Institute, the industry's trade group.
That means electricity customers will continue paying into a nuclear waste fund, which has already collected $22 billion. It also means that the U.S. government is not taking nuclear waste off the hands of the nuclear industry, as it has promised to do. Instead, Flint says plants have found ways to store their own waste in pools of water, and in dry concrete casks on the ground.
"In many ways, we've reduced the urgency of a need to find some other solution for this material," Flint says. "We can definitely deal with this material for decades or hundreds of years. It would be ideal to come up with some eventual disposition proposal in this regard, but we have a lot of time to figure that out."


The action was purely political over Yucca Mountain. No one is saying that defunding that project has even the slightest effect on nuclear energy expansion anytime in the next few decades, if not longer.
 
#89
#89
LG, other than paying it lipservice, what has Obama done to expand nuclear energy production in the US?

Why wasn't nuclear part of his ridiculous "Sputnik Moment, redux"?

The average nuclear plant will provide a helluva lot more jobs and job opportunities than your average wind or solar farm.
 
#90
#90
lawgator1 said:
One wonders if you bother to read what you link here. From the article ...

And the Obama administration's decision is hardly a seismic event for the industry.
"It means in many ways that the current state of play continues," says Alex Flint, of the Nuclear Energy Institute, the industry's trade group.
That means electricity customers will continue paying into a nuclear waste fund, which has already collected $22 billion. It also means that the U.S. government is not taking nuclear waste off the hands of the nuclear industry, as it has promised to do. Instead, Flint says plants have found ways to store their own waste in pools of water, and in dry concrete casks on the ground.
"In many ways, we've reduced the urgency of a need to find some other solution for this material," Flint says. "We can definitely deal with this material for decades or hundreds of years. It would be ideal to come up with some eventual disposition proposal in this regard, but we have a lot of time to figure that out."


The action was purely political over Yucca Mountain. No one is saying that defunding that project has even the slightest effect on nuclear energy expansion anytime in the next few decades, if not longer.
Click to expand...

riiighhhtt. because waste disposal isn't an issue when it comes to new nuclear plants.
 
#91
#91
droski said:
riiighhhtt. because waste disposal isn't an issue when it comes to new nuclear plants.
Click to expand...


According to the industry not for a long time. And they don't have it now.

Give it up. This is a losing argument for you.
 
#92
#92
It plays a role in it. Storage of waste is definitely an issue. If Republicans wanted to save Yucca Mountain they should've made sure Reid wasn't re-elected by putting up a candidate worth a ****.

I believe what's holding back nuclear right now is the low cost of natural gas, lower demand, and for the plant at Calvert Cliffs, the finer details of the loan guarantees. The guarantees are there, but I believe it's the terms of the interest that is holding them back.
 
#93
#93
lawgator1 said:
According to the industry not for a long time. And they don't have it now.

Give it up. This is a losing argument for you.
Click to expand...

you're the one claiming that Obama wants a nuclear reactor on every street corner
 
#94
#94
droski said:
riiighhhtt. because waste disposal isn't an issue when it comes to new nuclear plants.
Click to expand...

in fact if you look at Obama's statements on nukes he ALWAYS mentions disposal as the thing that has to be addressed before we can do more nukes.

what has he done to address this problem? nothing. Why? solving it means he'd have to go all in on nukes.
 
#95
#95
I'd say Nevada is now about 50/50 on Yucca, but Reid, through Obama, sealed it's fate. It has always been one of Reid's talking points, and Obama paid service to him by shutting it down. The fact of the matter is, nothing should ever be built without the support of its state's constituents. I know Yucca is perfectly suited for it. But I would have been fine if it was built here in Tennessee.
 
#96
#96
Tennessee's temperate climate wouldn't be suited for it. A dry desert is the best so you don't have issues with ground water.
 
#97
#97
I believe that comes into play when the storage begins to break down. What is that, 1,000 years from now? I would like to think we are recycling the fuel by then.

But of course none of that matters when you have the stipulations they have.
 
#98
#98
Obviously, storage is a long-term issue for the entire industry.

What I don't see is an iota of proof or even reasonable speculation that it makes a whit of difference right now to someone contemplating building a plant.

I mean, even the industry spokesman says its decades if not hundreds of years from being an issue and that they have plenty of time to come up with a solution.
 
#99
#99
The real issues are the economics; particularly, natural gas being cheap, lower demand, and cloudy construction costs. Of course, I would love for the US to implement a socialized energy policy to develop jobs, but that might be a bit biased of me.
 
#100
#100
lawgator1 said:
Second, I maintain that a lot of the problem with the job situation in this country is structural. I am not sure that an improved economy, increased demand, etc, is going to do what it has done in the past. So much outsourcing, so much technology and digitialization of a lot of service-type jobs.

We may be seeing the front edge of a major shift in the way our economy fundamentally works.
Click to expand...

Great argument for why the gov't should be lowering taxes and defunding programs that discourage work. Great argument against endeavors that simply consume wealth rather than investing in growth. Terrific argument for why things like education and health care should become much more private rather than more gov't controlled.

Sadly the solutions employed over the last 4 or 5 years have been exactly the wrong medicine for what ails our economy... stimulus, gov't expansion, bale outs.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top