Did the POTUS really say this?

[gsvol]

I don't know the specifics. I worked at NEI for a summer in college, so I was generally indoctrinated with the pro-nuclear mantra (not that I really needed to be anymore than I was). However, there are a couple of reasons that stand out in my mind.

1) No clear solution for nuclear waste. Nuclear power operators still continue to pay into a disposal fund that has no conclusion in sight. This means that operators must a) pay money into a fund that they will likely never see the benefit of a-la me and social security and b) they still have to assume the risk of storing the spent nuclear fuel locally in storage ponds despite paying the government for disposal. This is also tied to a political unwillingness to go to a closed nuclear fuel cycle and a lack of research into more politically-feasible options for recycling spent nuclear fuel.

2) Real risk, perceived risk, and regulation. Because of the large potential impacts from a nuclear accident, which are very real, there exists both a real risk and an even higher perceived risk for operating nuclear power plants. This, along with an anti-nuclear agenda among legislators like Ed Markey, has led to incredible costs for building a nuclear power plant due to regulatory requirements. I know some people in the industry that claim that greed among a few commercial outfits has also led to incredible costs, but that isn't as clear to me (e.g., why do it, if it is going to kill your industry...we're not talking about a union here!).

1. So politics is the main problem with using nuclear energy??

2. Again, politics is the biggest problem?

 

[J-P]

So France has better control over their politicians than we do? Perhaps "la guillotine" still serves as a reminder to them after all these years?

 

[TennTradition]

1. So politics is the main problem with using nuclear energy??

2. Again, politics is the biggest problem?

Politics may not be the best word, but there is definitely a perceived social cost issue at play. The technology for nuclear energy is there. It is a generally safe technology. The cost is very high because of a high regulatory framework, some necessary because of a very real risk, but others just because of unwarranted fears and NIMBY crowds.

As for reprocessing the challenges do become more technical, but some of those technical challenges (e.g., building in proliferation resistance) exist because of socio-political pressures.

 

[TennTradition]

So France has better control over their politicians than we do? Perhaps "la guillotine" still serves as a reminder to them after all these years?

France is very interesting in this regard. They seem to accept the risk of nuclear energy fairly well, and have been open to reprocessing for some time, despite associated environmental concerns. However, I'm pretty sure in the last 5 years or so that the reprocessing tide has turned there....

 

[J-P]

Good stuff, double T. Thanks!

 

[rjd970]

we went to the moon because we knew how to do it. we do not know how to get off of oil and be efficient about it.

I don't think we knew how we were going to get to the moon before the space program anymore than we know how we are going to get off oil now. Landing on the moon was in large part due to the cold war. Put enough money and manpower behind it, and anything is possible.

 

[gsvol]

Apparently it's not only communist rhetoric that remains in a constant state of flux.

Well if obama has his way and our energy bills 'skyrocket' then solar and wind might become profitible but still, look at the huge amounts of land that would be needed and even at that wind and solar are not going to fit the bill unless we drastically alter our whole cullture to use far far less energy.

Politics may not be the best word, but there is definitely a perceived social cost issue at play. The technology for nuclear energy is there. It is a generally safe technology. The cost is very high because of a high regulatory framework, some necessary because of a very real risk, but others just because of unwarranted fears and NIMBY crowds.

As for reprocessing the challenges do become more technical, but some of those technical challenges (e.g., building in proliferation resistance) exist because of socio-political pressures.

Doesn't the high regulatory framework come from the political arena??

I also submit the socio-political pressures originate from special interest groups who are far more political and far less environmental that those groups would have you believe.

 

[gsvol]

:blink: we are so screwed.

Obama: ?I Can?t Suck it Up With a Straw? - Political Punch

Ah, give him a break, he's just aalking over our heads.

Language Expert Says Americans Are Too uneducated to Understand Obama - Gate

Americans are just not intelligent enough to understand what Obama was trying to say in his speech Tuesday evening. He says that Obama speech was written to a 9.8 grade level of understanding. I guess us hicks in the hinterland just don't git wat Obama were trying to tell us unejacated folk out here. Despite using slightly less than four sentences per paragraph, Payack says that because Obama used 19.8 words per sentence, that our ability to comprehend what he was saying went right over our heads.
--------------------------------------

We have always known that the elitists on the left look down upon us peasants in flyover country. However, to try and say that Obama's problem with his speech was we are too stupid to grasp what he was saying is a bit of a stretch to say the least. I guess what we should all get from this explanation for Obama's failure in reaching us is that we are just a bunch of ignorant fools. Why Obama is so far ahead of us in intelligence, we just don't deserve such a great man to lead us.

Truth be told, Obama is a prime example of a person being educated beyond his intelligence, and who ever wrote what he read from the teleprompter is even dumber then he is. Never in my life have I seen such incompetence reach such a high level of authority as he has,. Obama is nothing more then a community activist who won a popularity contest. Come next January he is going to find that a whole new breed of political leaders will be in Washington, and that he is not as bright as he thinks he is. I would advise him to start studying the constitution, because my guess is they will be spoon feeding it to him one constitutional right after another.