Print 185 comment(s) - last by bigdawg1988.. on Jun 25 at 4:36 PM

Abandoned by those who were formerly some of his most loyal constituents, and attacked by his own party President Barack Obama has refused to back down from his nuclear vision.  (Source: The Unsuitable Blog)

Anti-nuclear protestors demonstrate against a pending Vermont plant. The protestors have vowed not to forget Obama's stand in the upcoming 2012 elections.  (Source: SF Bay View)

Despite this opposition Obama's nuclear visions is advancing with the securing of loans for two new reactor units at the Vogtle plant in Georgia (shown here), the activation of the first new nuclear fuel enrichment facility in 30 years, and public hearings on a proposed South Carolina plant.  (Source: NRC)
Nuclear plant, nuclear fuel facility, and loan agreements all advancing, despite protests

Breaking with many members of his party, U.S. President Barack Obama this year called upon the U.S. to regain its lead in nuclear power and embrace new clean nuclear technology.  The move was tremendously unpopular among some of his key constituents.

A February article in Mother Jones blasted the President, accusing him of be in the nuclear industry's pocket, writing:
With the leading projects in dissary (sic), why is the Obama administration rushing to put billions on the line to encourage new construction? The industry has been trying to get Uncle Sam to bankroll its comeback for more than a decade. Between 1999 and 2009, the industry poured more than $600 million into lobbying for its cause and spent almost $63 million on campaign contributions, according to a recent analysis from the Investigative Reporting Workshop at American University. Republicans have long championed nuclear power, putting forward legislation that would call for the construction of 100 new nuclear plants in the next two decades. But the nuclear lobby's most ambitious goals were often stymied by Democrats in Congress—until Obama was elected and his administration began the push for (sic) climate bill.
That was just one of a host of rambling and angry commentaries attacking the President's stand.  Others included -- "Obama’s nuclear error: $54 billion in loan guarantees make little policy or political sense", "5 Reasons Why Nuclear Energy is Even Worse than Clean Coal", "Next in Line for a Bailout: The Nuclear Industry?", "There’s a New Drive for Nuclear Power, But It’s Still a Financial Dead End", "The loan arranger: Obama triples budget for nuke loan guarantee program… but hasn’t seen a single promising application in two years".

Undeterred, Obama has pressed ahead.  On June 10 the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) approved the startup of a $3B USD uranium enrichment plant in New Mexico, the first new nuclear fuel plant to start in over three decades. 

The NRC's landmark decision marked just one of several small victories for Obama's persistent push for nuclear.  It also bring the U.S. up to speed by activating superior centrifuging technologies that have been in place in Europe for over 30 years.  These technologies can improve the quality of fuel and reduce waste.

On June 17 the NRC made another important step towards America's nuclear future with a public hearing held on Duke Energy's pending proposal for a new nuclear plant in Gaffney, South Carolina.  The hearing featured some stiff opposition as a group called Friends of the Earth.  This group has been protesting the pending plant for months and has even aired television ads attacking President Obama's nuclear vision. 

And the most controversial aspect of Obama's plan, perhaps -- $54B USD in proposed loan guarantees for new nuclear plants -- is also gaining traction.  On Thursday Southern Power announced that its Georgia Power subsidiary has reached an agreement with the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to receive $3.4B USD in Federal Financing Bank loans to build two new reactor units.

The new units still have regulatory hurdles to clear, but they now at least have an assurance that 70 percent of the necessary funding will be on hand, thanks to the government.  The new units, to be constructed at Plant Vogtle near Waynesboro, Ga., will create over 800 permanent jobs and provide as much as 2.5 GW of power.

Despite these small victories, President Obama's nuclear vision faces many impending obstacles.  Despite the fact that you could tear down one of the nation's old reactors, replace it with a dozen modern clean reactor designs and still have less net waste, some environmentalist groups remain adamantly opposed to new plant construction.  They have vowed to bury the bid for clean nuclear power under a flood of lawsuits.  If the suits succeed, they will raise the cost of nuclear so high, that it can't even compete with the most expensive forms of nuclear energy, like solar power.

And perhaps the biggest obstacle to Obama's nuclear vision will come in 2012.  That is the year when he will face reelection.  That may prove challenging given that one of his former key constituent groups -- the environmental lobby -- has become one of his staunchest critics.  Regardless, the U.S. is making its first true nuclear progress in 30 years, and that is among the many factors that will already make President Obama's presidency noteworthy.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Friggin hippies.
By spread on 6/19/2010 12:59:19 AM , Rating: 5
Can't please the enviro-nuts.

What is the country supposed to be powered with? Happy thoughts?

RE: Friggin hippies.
By kyleb2112 on 6/19/2010 1:18:10 AM , Rating: 5
Those better be carbon neutral happy thoughts.

RE: Friggin hippies.
By quiksilvr on 6/19/10, Rating: -1
RE: Friggin hippies.
By goku on 6/19/2010 3:20:12 AM , Rating: 2
Improving the energy efficiency of homes can take us a great deal of the way. There are obviously areas that need more energy than others but for the entire southwest, it's entirely feasible for it to be running on 100% renewable energy during the daytime. Too many homes were built during the time of lax insulation requirements and consequently we're using far more energy than we should be just to keep our homes comfortable.

As for lighting, switching from incandescent can be a big help and using an energy efficient electronics is also a big step.

There are a lot of things that can be done in order to save energy and money that have yet to be done.

RE: Friggin hippies.
By Jeff7181 on 6/19/2010 11:50:55 AM , Rating: 2
I just moved into a a new condo and replaced all the 60 watt incandescent bulbs with compact fluorescent that produce an equivalent amount of light and use only 14 watts. They have a 9 year guarantee on them and they were $2 each.

In addition, they produce what I consider a more natural, white light rather than the yellowy tinge you get from incandescent.

In the future I think we need to move away from our current electrical grid. It's inefficient. There's a lot of power lost in transmission lines, so we're generating a lot more power than is actually usable. We either need to improve transmission technology, or create compact power sources that are more widely dispersed so the miles and miles of transmission lines are not required.

A good step in that direction is solar roofing tiles. Not to replace power from power plants, but to supplement it and even feed back into the electrical grid when there's a surplus. We need to improve the efficiency and life of those as well.

Nuclear is a great solution in the mean time. It's not perfect, but it's the best solution we have right now as our energy demands increase. The energy density of fossil fuels along with the hazards of obtaining them and consuming them would seem to make nuclear the obvious choice. Sure there are hazards and risks with nuclear, but technology is at a point where fail-safe systems make it a viable alternative.

The biggest problem right now is that the government is too involved. Everybody knows if an American company finds better-than-nuclear power source, the government will all but take them over and force them to make the technology available to all. When you take away the rewards for innovations you reduce the desire to innovate.

RE: Friggin hippies.
By SPOOFE on 6/19/10, Rating: -1
RE: Friggin hippies.
By Solandri on 6/19/2010 1:21:48 PM , Rating: 4
The incandescent needs 4x as much power as the CFL. Over the lifetime of the bulb, the amount of extra coal burned to power the incandescent releases more mercury into the air than is contained in the CFL.

While you probably want to clear the room and air it out if you break a CFL, the fuss over the mercury they contain is yet another example of people failing to properly take into account opportunity costs. The cost of using a CFL bulb (both in terms of electricity used and mercury released) cannot be compared to the cost of using no lighting at all. It has to be compared to the cost of using an alternate light source - e.g. an incandescent bulb. And the CFL is better for the environment than the incandescent both in terms of electricity used and mercury released. (Of course the mercury release comparison may change if we switch to 90% nuclear power like France.)

RE: Friggin hippies.
By SPOOFE on 6/19/10, Rating: -1
RE: Friggin hippies.
By dark matter on 6/20/2010 1:43:54 PM , Rating: 2
Perhaps it was your ridiculous claim you need a biohazard team if you break a lightbulb. if you can't remember what you wrote then I suggest in future you have a read before you reply again.

RE: Friggin hippies.
By SPOOFE on 6/20/10, Rating: -1
RE: Friggin hippies.
By shin0bi272 on 6/21/2010 2:16:08 AM , Rating: 5
By SPOOFE on 6/19/2010 12:10:26 PM , Rating: 0 quote: I just moved into a a new condo and replaced all the 60 watt incandescent bulbs with compact fluorescent Just be sure to call a biohazard team if one breaks, unless you enjoy inhaling mercury vapors. And make sure you recycle 'em after those nine years. Just sayin'.

I'll take that thousand in unmarked non sequential 20's kthxbai

RE: Friggin hippies.
By SPOOFE on 6/21/2010 4:18:18 PM , Rating: 1
Selective illiteracy is not the most profitable career choice:

"I did recommend it - mercury is toxic, after all, and is regulated as a hazardous material - but I certainly never claimed that one needs it."

The ultimate fact is breaking a fluorescent bulb is considered a biohazard. If you think that is silly, that's a topic for another conversation. The concern of mercury is real, even if overblown for most purposes, and I'm a proponent of informed consumer decisions. It's not just a simple matter of "they use less electricity"; there's an actual, real-world risk associated. I don't know why you're so worked up over someone observing that risk. Do you own stock in fluorescent bulb companies or something?

RE: Friggin hippies.
By ClownPuncher on 6/21/2010 4:51:55 PM , Rating: 2
"Be sure to..." = assertion.

RE: Friggin hippies.
By JediJeb on 6/21/2010 6:43:09 PM , Rating: 2
As far as the amount of mercury in the CFLs it is less that what used to be used in most fillings you got from the dentist. Mercury can be a health hazard for sure, but if you drink one glass of water every day for those 9 years the bulb should last you would ingest more mercury than is contained in that bulb. It also wouldn't surprise me if you would get a larger dose of mercury breathing the air in an older hospital than you would if you broke a CFL in your house. Mercury was used for years in disinfectants, ever remember Mercurichrom that was sold in the pharmacy to put on cuts, I think it was on the market up until the mid 70s, that had mercury in it too.

I'm not saying it is a bad idea to be careful with the CLF bulbs, because it is, but breaking one is not life threatening event either.

RE: Friggin hippies.
By spread on 6/19/2010 12:18:40 PM , Rating: 2
Those CFL bulbs contain mercury vapors which causes brain damage. Better look into LED light bulbs which are just hitting the market. No mercury and they're even more efficient.

I saw some Philips brand ones at Home Depot.

RE: Friggin hippies.
By Reclaimer77 on 6/19/10, Rating: -1
RE: Friggin hippies.
By spread on 6/19/2010 2:42:28 PM , Rating: 3
The sixty dollar ones are the flood lights.

RE: Friggin hippies.
By Reclaimer77 on 6/19/10, Rating: -1
RE: Friggin hippies.
By dark matter on 6/20/2010 1:45:47 PM , Rating: 3
Next time you pass the store, pop in and find out. Perhaps you could even google it. Just a thought.

RE: Friggin hippies.
By YashBudini on 6/20/2010 9:16:34 PM , Rating: 2
Ha, you expect him to work for a living?

RE: Friggin hippies.
By shin0bi272 on 6/21/2010 2:17:49 AM , Rating: 2
between 17 and 50 bucks...

RE: Friggin hippies.
By FITCamaro on 6/21/2010 6:18:56 AM , Rating: 5
A 60 watt replacement bulb at the local Lowes is around $40-50. Sure I might never have to replace it, but I don't have a few thousand dollars to replace all my light bulbs with those.

Some people like to say the cost for the LED bulbs will come down but think about it like this. LED bulbs will last a very long time. What incentive do manufacturers have to lower the price on an item they'll only get to sell to you 2-3 times in your lifetime?

I'm using the CFLs right now. I'm not concerned with the mercury. The real problem with them is that they can flicker.

RE: Friggin hippies.
By SPOOFE on 6/21/2010 4:20:06 PM , Rating: 2
What incentive do manufacturers have to lower the price on an item they'll only get to sell to you 2-3 times in your lifetime?

The fact that LEDs are being used in an increasingly large number of purposes, not just consumer light bulbs.

RE: Friggin hippies.
By Dorkyman on 6/21/2010 4:23:57 PM , Rating: 2
Are you kidding? If a manufacturer sees a business opportunity (i.e. making long-lasting LED bulbs) he would be a fool to NOT exploit it, because he knows if he doesn't someone else will.

RE: Friggin hippies.
By PrinceGaz on 6/19/2010 9:23:50 PM , Rating: 2
C'mon, we all know CFLs were very expensive initially, and you can now get them for less than old incandescent bulbs, and sometimes for just one pence each in a supermarket promotion (I've got more unwanted CFL bulbs than I can use because energy companies here in the UK gave them for free to their customers-- I could throw half a dozen in the bin and still have enough of them to last another decade, which isn't really a very environmentally friendly solution).

LED bulbs will be dirt cheap within five years and there will be no excuse for using anything other than them (as they'll be cheaper to buy, cheaper to run, and not have mercury or anything else particularly damaging in them when disposed of)

RE: Friggin hippies.
By Solandri on 6/20/2010 11:28:08 AM , Rating: 2
Currently, LEDs emit a highly directional light. That makes them great as spot lights or flashlights. But try to make one omnidirectional like an incandescent or CFL and the light output is much less than an incandescent or CFL. No doubt the problem will eventually be solved, but I'm skeptical it'll take only 5 years.

RE: Friggin hippies.
By sprockkets on 6/20/2010 3:17:31 PM , Rating: 2
Already has been solved - that's why the good LED bulbs are expensive: they have the optics to spread the light.

Still not as bright yet compared to CFL, but it is improving.

Still, while not perhaps toxic, LEDs require rare earth metals. There's no escaping the first law of thermodynamics.

RE: Friggin hippies.
By Solandri on 6/21/2010 1:15:58 AM , Rating: 2
The problem I was referring to was the overall light output of LEDs being less than CFL/incandescent. Not the directional nature. I was simply pointing out that the LEDs the vast majority of people have used are directional, so there's a widespread mistaken belief that they're brighter than CFL/incandescents. They're not.

RE: Friggin hippies.
By shin0bi272 on 6/21/2010 2:19:40 AM , Rating: 2
You are paying for those cfl bulbs that they are giving out for 'free' with your power increased bill each month.

RE: Friggin hippies.
By Spivonious on 6/19/2010 11:35:21 PM , Rating: 3
There is such a small amount of mercury in those bulbs that I doubt it would do any harm unless you broke it inside of your mouth and inhaled.

RE: Friggin hippies.
By JasonMick on 6/19/2010 12:42:53 PM , Rating: 5

The biggest problem right now is that the government is too involved. Everybody knows if an American company finds better-than-nuclear power source, the government will all but take them over and force them to make the technology available to all. When you take away the rewards for innovations you reduce the desire to innovate.

I call BS. Clean nuclear is a great power technology -- clean, efficient, and cheap -- and the government isn't trying to take it over.

I think some people who prefer a tighter federal fiscal policy misunderstand why the loans are being offered here to nuclear power providers.

The chief reason is because it's hard for nuclear power companies to secure financing as costs of plants typically vastly overrun due to lawsuits from poorly informed "environmentalists" (which hardly are truely interested in protecting the environment, considering they're denying clean power) and the need for a multitude of safety, environmental impact, and other precautionary studies (which seems particularly ironic given the free passes on impact studies that the exploded Deepwater Horizon rig in the Gulf of Mexico was given!).

The best solution would probably be to ban junk lawsuits against nuclear plant construction and reduce the number of impact studies needed for companies who construct modern clean reactor designs.

Unfortunately, though, Obama has no means to pursue this approach as any such legislation would be promptly shot down by the Democrats in Congress who have unfortunately bowed to the most extreme elements of the environmentalist movement, much as many Republicans have bowed to the extreme elements of the Christian fundamentalist coalition.

So the best he can do is guarantee plant construction loans, allowing them to move ahead with construction, even if private banks refuse them investment because of the artificially created risks.

RE: Friggin hippies.
By Reclaimer77 on 6/19/10, Rating: 0
RE: Friggin hippies.
By smitty3268 on 6/19/10, Rating: 0
RE: Friggin hippies.
By xxsk8er101xx on 6/19/2010 7:16:49 PM , Rating: 2
The thing about liberals such as yourself is that none of you actually read the bill.

Cap and trade is a tax. It's going to raise your gas prices, your electric bill, your food bill, and pretty much everything that involves using energy to produce/make/design/create whatever.

Everything we know and love will be getting taxed. Including nuclear power plants as water vapor contributes to global warming as well. It does make up 98% of the atmosphere and it is a green house gas so it does infact contribute to global warming.

RE: Friggin hippies.
By JonB on 6/20/2010 12:14:53 AM , Rating: 5
First - water vapor does not make up 98% of the atmosphere. I don't think that's what you meant, but it is what you said.

As a nuclear plant employee and nuclear worker for over 30 years, and I work at a plant site that is planning to add two more reactors in the next decade, I can tell you this - the biggest problem facing many plant sites will be the scarcity of cooling water. Steam plants (like coal, oil, natural gas and nuclear) all need to cool and condense steam back to water to be turned back into steam, than back to water. It isn't a highly efficient process and therefore all steam plants need cooling and use water to do it.

Our planned expansion units are being opposed by many, not for any safety concerns, but that they might cause lake levels to drop during drought periods.

RE: Friggin hippies.
By rcpratt on 6/20/2010 12:25:18 AM , Rating: 2
Interesting. Our plant has no such issues, but I suppose that's the benefit of a plant on the Great Lakes. Operating for decades won't lower the water levels by a fraction of an inch.

Units such as Dominion's North Anna (with a proposed new unit) have been operating for decades on Lake Anna, which was created by the utility itself to feed the plant. Having followed their license closely (previously the R-COLA for our application), I never heard of them having this issue either.

RE: Friggin hippies.
By djc208 on 6/21/2010 8:57:52 AM , Rating: 2
No, but their bid to build a new unit has come under fire from locals who are concerned that lake (built to support the reactors) would become too warm with another unit and spoil their recreational use of the lake.

There's just no winning with some people.

RE: Friggin hippies.
By Reclaimer77 on 6/19/2010 7:57:26 PM , Rating: 1
Cap and Trade doesn't nationalize the nuclear power industry.

It doesn't have to, the same goal will be met. Through taxes and fee's, you will use what the Government want's you to, when they want it.

Why don't you actually look it up? Nothing about this is a "Republican" idea, that very statement shows your ignorance. I don't know any "Republican idea" that somehow creates a "free market" out of massive Government taxes and control. Are you retarded?

RE: Friggin hippies.
By smitty3268 on 6/19/10, Rating: -1
RE: Friggin hippies.
By Reclaimer77 on 6/19/10, Rating: 0
RE: Friggin hippies.
By smitty3268 on 6/20/10, Rating: 0
RE: Friggin hippies.
By Reclaimer77 on 6/20/2010 9:35:20 AM , Rating: 2
Ok well I AM saying it isn't perfect, and I'm saying it IS a bad idea.

So let me get this right, the Government is essentially giving businesses a straight jacket and then saying "ok now innovate yourself out of this", and that is a good thing for the free market? Only one thing is going to result from this, the consumer getting railed.

I don't know any unbiased economist that doesn't see Cap and Trade as being a disaster for this countries economy. Even the goal is absurd. Does anyone really think we can lower global temperatures by 2 degrees without destroying our way of life? Do we even know for a fact that man is increasing global temperatures?

RE: Friggin hippies.
By smitty3268 on 6/20/2010 8:26:10 PM , Rating: 3
Ok well I AM saying it isn't perfect, and I'm saying it IS a bad idea. So let me get this right, the Government is essentially giving businesses a straight jacket and then saying "ok now innovate yourself out of this", and that is a good thing for the free market? Only one thing is going to result from this, the consumer getting railed. I don't know any unbiased economist that doesn't see Cap and Trade as being a disaster for this countries economy. Even the goal is absurd. Does anyone really think we can lower global temperatures by 2 degrees without destroying our way of life? Do we even know for a fact that man is increasing global temperatures?

Fine, but you're way off topic and just trolling about how bad some unrelated policy is. This has nothing to do with new nuclear power plants, other than some thin connection you've created in your mind.

So that's where I'm going to exit this conversation.

RE: Friggin hippies.
By Reclaimer77 on 6/21/2010 5:41:10 PM , Rating: 2
OH I see, so I beat you soundly, and suddenly the same discussion you have been having with me is "trolling" and "unrelated" and you are calling it quits.

Gutless, real gutless.

RE: Friggin hippies.
By mcnabney on 6/21/2010 7:23:51 PM , Rating: 3
We elected a moderate, so naturally the extremists and their sheep from both the left and right are going to whine and complain.

RE: Friggin hippies.
By shin0bi272 on 6/21/2010 2:27:25 AM , Rating: 2
You know you really have to stop getting your news from the washington post or the blogosphere it's really like trying to find an anticommunist article in Pravda in the 60's.

RE: Friggin hippies.
By Howard on 6/19/2010 7:11:50 PM , Rating: 1
People who hit-and-run with snide comments that are peripherally relevant often have no idea what they're talking about.

RE: Friggin hippies.
By shin0bi272 on 6/21/2010 2:29:03 AM , Rating: 3
People who hit-and-run with snide comments that are peripherally relevant often have no idea what they're talking about.

case in point

RE: Friggin hippies.
By MrTeal on 6/20/2010 11:29:09 AM , Rating: 5
There are all kind of problems with localized power sources that will keep them from completely replacing the traditional grid. For one, maintenance is much more difficult when your resources are spread all over the place. The grid also provides a measure of security if your local power source drops out.

The bigger issue is efficiency. Yes, you have losses in transmission and distribution, but all else being equal large electric machines are more efficient than small ones. Even in markets like solar, a large installation can use reflectors and GaAs concentrator cells that are 30-40% efficient as opposed to the 10% in commercial Si cells.

Call me biased being an EE, but I really think the governments of Canada and the US need to step up and provide some incentive to rework our aging and overburdened grid; it'd be much more efficient that wasting money on corn-based ethanol and the like.

RE: Friggin hippies.
By spwrozek on 6/21/2010 8:39:23 AM , Rating: 2
EEs do almost all the substation designs but CEs are most of the transmission engineers. 40 people in my department and 1 is an EE. Every IOU I work with has CEs in their transmission line department. So don't be leaving us out of this :)

In America we have a great incentive for rebuilding the grid. It is called guaranteed 11% on capital investments. The IOUs can not lose money. Sure they have to have the money and that has been an issue with the amount the are making and being paid (people not paying, businesses closing or having long shut downs, etc.).

Also there is a lot of work going on in the states to improve the grid. It has been happening since the blackout in '03.

RE: Friggin hippies.
By VahnTitrio on 6/21/2010 10:33:46 AM , Rating: 2
I think it's important to note that most of the power is lost in distribution, not transmission. Planning and building new transmission is already a nightmare, but a complete overhaul of the distribution network would be an engineering nightmare of monumental proportions. It'd be like trying to repave every road in America without closing a single lane.

RE: Friggin hippies.
By Jaybus on 6/21/2010 5:50:36 PM , Rating: 2
Solar radiation (all wavelengths) in the southwest is about 1 kW per square meter. If a solar cell with 100% efficiency across the entire bandwidth were possible, then an equivalent power plant to the proposed 2.5 GW nuke would require an active area of 2.5 million square meters. At 10% efficiency, it would be 25 million square meters of active area. Peak wafer production, so far, was 8,661 MSI (million square inches) produced in 2007 (according to SEMI Silicon Manufacturers Group). That's about 6 million square meters per year. So how long will it take to acquire enough Si cells for a 2.5 GW plant? 4 years of the entire world's production?

The GaAs cells are 3x as efficient, but it will still require 8.33 million square meters. I don't know what the GaAs annual production is, but it certainly is a tiny fraction of the Si production. It simply can't be done any time soon.

In the US, coal plants produce about 50% of the electricity, and 104 nuclear plants produce about 20%. It would take 300 new nukes to replace the coal plants. It would take about 7.5 billion square meters of Si, which would take 12 centuries to produce at the current world Si wafer production rate. I conclude that the President is right to advocate building more nuclear power plants.

RE: Friggin hippies.
By kake on 6/20/2010 12:05:56 PM , Rating: 2
Obviously you've already bought them, but in the future if you have the chance, buy the European style CFL which uses a straight double bend tube versus the spiral that's more popular in the US. All of the installed fluorescent lighting (recessed cans and the such) use these, and they put out a visibly higher amount of light. The wikipedia page on CFLs actually explains this fairly well.

RE: Friggin hippies.
By Jaybus on 6/21/2010 4:39:13 PM , Rating: 2
The same grid is used regardless of power source. I can see a need for a smart grid, meaning that there has to be some way to better monitor how much energy a building puts back onto the grid. I don't see how it can be made more efficient though. There is no way around line loss, unless someone has discovered a high temperature superconductor recently.

RE: Friggin hippies.
By n00bxqb on 6/20/2010 9:59:52 PM , Rating: 2
I cut my energy consumption by about 30% by switching my light bulbs to fluorescent, replacing my CRT TV w/ an LCD TV, replacing my old PC (C2D E8400 @ 3.9 GHz, 8GB DDR2, ATI HD4870, etc.) w/ a new one (AMD P2 X4 965 @ 3.9 GHz, 8GB DDR3, ATI HD5870, etc.), cleaning the back of my fridge, and unplugging my printer when it's not in use. Went from about $30/month last year (February 2009-May 2009) to $20/month (February 2010-May 2010)...

I actually think most of the power savings is from the graphics card because the heat the 4870 puts out relative to the 5870 is astounding. The 5870 runs slightly above room temperature at idle whereas the 4870 would put out almost as much heat as my electric baseboard heaters ...

RE: Friggin hippies.
By afkrotch on 6/21/2010 1:24:08 AM , Rating: 2
I on the other hand, have raise my power usage, due to the summer months.

I leave 4 computers on all the time, putting my electric bill at $250. I'm waiting to see what my bill is like now, with my A/C running 5-6 hours every night.

I don't want to save power. I want nuclear power plants for cheaper power. Screw these stupid radioactive coal mines.

RE: Friggin hippies.
By ClownPuncher on 6/21/2010 3:16:21 PM , Rating: 2
$250 monthly? Good lord, the power company has your balls in a vicegrip.

RE: Friggin hippies.
By shin0bi272 on 6/21/10, Rating: 0
RE: Friggin hippies.
By ipay on 6/19/2010 3:50:22 AM , Rating: 5
Nuclear is a good solution for a couple decades or so, but we can't possibly power the entire nation on fission nuclear power unfortunately.

Really? Do you have proof for that statement, or are you just spreading anti-nuclear FUD? Do you think wind, solar and all the other forms of "renewable" energy will be able to do any better than nuclear?

RE: Friggin hippies.
By freaqie on 6/19/10, Rating: 0
RE: Friggin hippies.
By Phoque on 6/19/2010 8:56:20 AM , Rating: 2
I could add to that bio fuels, to the extent it doesn't starve people.

RE: Friggin hippies.
By SPOOFE on 6/20/2010 12:34:50 PM , Rating: 2
Biofuel would be a lot more interesting if the corn lobby hadn't swiped even more subsidies to turn their product into ethanol. Corn sucks for biofuel, and as you point out, using it has the nasty side effect of taking a swath of food out of circulation. There are other options that can yield much more ethanol per unit that could be very promising, but as long as corn is sucking at the teat biofuel is a dead end.

RE: Friggin hippies.
By shin0bi272 on 6/21/2010 2:38:12 AM , Rating: 2
What other options? woody biomass? algae? neither of these have the cfpp of standard diesel and both are less fuel efficient (meaning you need MORE biofuel to go the same distance... meaning its MORE polluting). I guess these would be fine if you live in the south but if it snows where you live youre boned.

RE: Friggin hippies.
By sviola on 6/21/2010 10:51:28 AM , Rating: 2
There is sugar cane etanol, which has been used here in Brazil since the 70's. Eventough it is not as efficient as gas (my car for instance does 32 mpg on gas and 27 mpg on ethanol), it does provide more power to the engine (in my case, around 5 hp) and costs around 55% of the price of gasoline around here (and gasoline is only more efficient cost wise when ethanol is over 70% of the price of gasoline).

RE: Friggin hippies.
By SPOOFE on 6/21/2010 4:41:29 PM , Rating: 2
neither of these have the cfpp of standard diesel

I wasn't making comparisons to standard diesel; I was making comparisons to fuel derived from corn. Of course the standard anything is going to be preferable. That's why alternative energies are called "alternative".

RE: Friggin hippies.
By Kurz on 6/19/2010 9:18:56 AM , Rating: 3
Read up on Breeder reactors.

RE: Friggin hippies.
By Redwin on 6/19/2010 11:41:48 AM , Rating: 5
Breeder reactors for the win.

People are only against nuclear power because they still think nuclear reactors are the same as the ones at Chernobyl and 3-mile island.

Modern reactor designs can produce more fuel than they consume, yield something like 1% the waste of old graphite moderated reactors, and are designed such that its impossible for them to melt down.

The technology is pretty complicated and I won't claim to understand it completely myself, but in essence old reactors "wanted" to go critical and we introduced elements to slow them down and keep them safe (ie - control rods, etc). If something went catastrophically wrong, the thing could go critical and melt down.

The new reactor designs are such that they "want" to cool off and stop, and we have to introduce things to bring them up to sub-critical and make heat to boil water. Even in the most catastrophic failure though, they never have enough material in the reactor that it could push it up to melt down temps. So, there's physically no way a melt down could occur.

Pretty cool really. This country needs to re-embrace nuclear power

RE: Friggin hippies.
By Master Kenobi on 6/19/2010 12:38:01 PM , Rating: 5
What your looking for is that the older designs that "melted down" were based on a positive coeffecient. If you let the reaction go on its own it would keep going. US reactors are designed around a negative coeffecient. If you let them go on their own they simply stop. You have to keep feeding them to keep them going, and thus the simple answer to meltdowns is cut them off, and bam the reaction stops.

RE: Friggin hippies.
By rcpratt on 6/19/2010 11:55:25 PM , Rating: 2
To clarify, all commercial power reactors ever operated in the United States have had a negative power coefficient. Some Soviet reactors such as Chernobyl operated on a positive power coefficient, but positive reactors no longer exist.

RE: Friggin hippies.
By Solandri on 6/19/2010 10:46:26 AM , Rating: 5
The nuclear waste problem is completely blown out of scale by those scaremongering against it. Take a guess how much spent nuclear fuel is generated by our current reactors to power an average U.S. home for 30 years.

It's about 9.5 kg, by volume about the size of a small water bottle (0.5 liters). So to avoid generating a water bottle sized quantity of nuclear waste per home (which could actually be reprocessed into nearly 10x more fuel), people are proposing covering each home with 30-50 square meters of PV solar panels, which aren't exactly environmentally friendly to manufacture and will end up in a landfill after 30 years. Does that really make sense?

Yes spent nuclear fuel is dangerous. But if you keep in perspective the quantity of waste generated for the amount of energy you get, most reasonable people will agree it's a far, far more sensible choice. Our current nuclear plants have been providing ~20% of our electricity for 50+ years. Where is all the waste they've generated? Since we don't have a permanent storage site yet, they've simply been storing the decades worth of waste on-site. It's that small.

(I don't mention wind and geothermal because they actually have a chance to become cost-competitive with nuclear and coal in the next decade or two. Hydro is by far the best renewable, but is pretty much tapped out in the U.S. with environmentalists blocking any new proposed hydro plant.)

RE: Friggin hippies.
By Uncle on 6/19/2010 1:31:45 PM , Rating: 5
+1 First thing I ask is where the anti nuclear activists get there funding. Through shell companies that if you follow the paper trail leads back to the oil companies. Show me a Nuclear plant in North America that has created as much of an environmental mess as the super clean oil industry. I think its time to reevaluate and sift through the Bullsh*t that the PR people hand out. Now tell me which industry has had the worst environmental impact.Its pretty obvious.For all you anti nuclear people have you checked the Gulf of Mexico lately and in a few months that mess will be going up the east coast. I think your protesting in the wrong area for now. Quit being pawns for the oil industry. They will do what ever it takes to keep their pockets lined.

RE: Friggin hippies.
By darkfoon on 6/19/2010 2:05:18 PM , Rating: 3
I'm going to open with this: I am pro-nuclear power.

An important note you didn't mention, however, is that the waste generated by nuclear plants extends beyond the spent fuel.
Parts of the reactor close to the core need to be replaced (pipes, etc.) as neutron bombardment eventually causes them to degrade and become radioactive themselves. The water used in the reactor also needs to be replaced eventually.

I'm not saying that these are reasons to abandon nuclear, I'm just saying that the waste is more then 9.5 kg. Breeder reactors would reduce the fuel waste even further, and we can come up with other solutions for disposing of irradiated parts.

RE: Friggin hippies.
By rcpratt on 6/19/2010 11:59:11 PM , Rating: 3
This is true, although waste other than spent fuel is far different than high-level waste (spent fuel and mill tailing from enrichment). Pipes and equipment that needs to be replaced is classified as low-level waste (class A, B, C, or GTCC) and is disposed of differently than high-level waste. Low-level waste also includes waste such as radioactive waste from medical applications. We already have facilities to store this waste in the US, unlike HLW.

RE: Friggin hippies.
By AssBall on 6/19/2010 12:41:15 PM , Rating: 2
not even geothermal, (needs hot spots, and run out in 30 years)

Kinda like how Yellowstone ran out 400,000 years ago. Hey, wait a minute...

RE: Friggin hippies.
By Solandri on 6/19/2010 1:27:03 PM , Rating: 5
No, he's right, it's about 30 years. Heat travels through rock at a finite speed. Once you've run your geothermal well for about 30 years, you've cooled down the rock adjacent to your well enough that it's no longer cost-effective to operate the geothermal pump. After you abandon the well, it will take about 50-200 years for the surrounding rock to heat up the rock near the well to its original temperature.

Natural hot springs don't suffer from this because the water in them flows past miles of underwater rock. The water can't extract heat faster than the surrounding rocks can heat up the rock adjacent to the water again. But natural hot springs are rare.

RE: Friggin hippies.
By Solandri on 6/19/2010 11:32:34 PM , Rating: 3
Sigh. Will the person who downrated me please read up on the technology and its limitations? Aside from rare hot springs, geothermal is not a panacea. It can contribute to solving our energy problems, but it won't solve them on its own.

RE: Friggin hippies.
By Reclaimer77 on 6/20/10, Rating: -1
RE: Friggin hippies.
By zmatt on 6/19/2010 5:27:29 PM , Rating: 2
why can't it carry us? The amount of uranium required for a reactor to run is far less than the equivalent oil, we have it in America and plenty of it, and the power out put of one reactor can be more than enough for most cities. I fail to see why it can't sustain us. Forever, no nothing can it's called entropy, but for the foreseeable future yes.

RE: Friggin hippies.
By rcpratt on 6/20/10, Rating: -1
RE: Friggin hippies.
By zmatt on 6/20/2010 6:34:28 PM , Rating: 2
I don't think I mentioned fusion. Fission is good enough. and again, why can't it? Nobody is giving me reasons why. I don't see why we cant base the majority of our power gird on nuclear fission.

RE: Friggin hippies.
By FITCamaro on 6/19/2010 7:33:10 PM , Rating: 3
And why not exactly? We already are 20% nuclear powered with the relatively few nuclear power plants we have. There is plenty of nuclear material available to power the plants. And if the ban on reprocessing ends, there's no reason we can't operate virtually indefinitely on nuclear power. At least until fusion is in fact perfected.

RE: Friggin hippies.
By PrinceGaz on 6/20/2010 7:29:34 PM , Rating: 3
France seems to be doing a most excellent job of powering almost the whole country with nuclear-fission generated electricity. If they can do it, why can't other countries?

RE: Friggin hippies.
By jkostans on 6/19/2010 1:05:56 PM , Rating: 2
So no fart jokes?

RE: Friggin hippies.
By zodiacfml on 6/19/2010 2:01:29 AM , Rating: 5
They strongly believe that they're experts but this the only way to go now that the government is supporting the growth of electric vehicles.

I don't see any move or plan that could be any greener than this.

RE: Friggin hippies.
By WoWCow on 6/19/2010 3:59:33 AM , Rating: 1
I do wonder though, isn't lithium toxic? Don't suppose we can just toss those 'green' EVs into the junkyard and dispose of them as it has been done to cars for years.

There's also the matter of nuclear waste... but I'm pretty sure that is a cliche argument by now.

What I firmly believe is regardless of the source of energy and the storage method we as modern society decide to use, we need understand there is a limited capacity, if not in the source, then the time and space required. (I remember some quote from nuclear power in its early days from supporters as "Too cheap to meter in 30 years", but that never happened due to the time and attitude of people).

I agree with you however. Presently the most efficient source of energy for the masses is nuclear power, and it needs to be used efficiently. At least until we as the human race finally decided to get the act together and get off this rock (AKA Earth, and hopefully not forced off by a nuclear firestorm followed by nuclear winter) and plunder the galaxy and jettison the wastes into the nearest black hole.

RE: Friggin hippies.
By WorldMage on 6/19/2010 8:27:05 AM , Rating: 5
I do wonder though, isn't lithium toxic? Don't suppose we can just toss those 'green' EVs into the junkyard and dispose of them as it has been done to cars for years.

Well anything in sufficient quantities is toxic (including water), but in general Lithium is not toxic, it's actually given as a drug for some forms of mania. Not to mention recovering lithium from the batteries in cars is likely to be profitable and fairly simple. Compare this to the various pollutants generated by burning gas in cars which are diffuse and impossible to collect.

RE: Friggin hippies.
By bug77 on 6/19/2010 11:02:44 AM , Rating: 2
recovering lithium from the batteries in cars is likely to be profitable and fairly simple

Judging by the flourishing industry sprung by existing lithium batteries, I'd be inclined to think otherwise.

RE: Friggin hippies.
By spread on 6/19/2010 2:44:39 PM , Rating: 2
Recycling is cheaper than mining lithium, so yes, it's profitable.

RE: Friggin hippies.
By knutjb on 6/19/2010 2:48:20 PM , Rating: 2
Recycling helps but the demand is growing faster than that. Mining is not going away.

RE: Friggin hippies.
By SPOOFE on 6/19/2010 3:26:11 PM , Rating: 2
It is still new technology, so mining will be more popular; but as battery packs become more omnipresent in vehicles, you'll see more recycling.

RE: Friggin hippies.
By knutjb on 6/20/2010 6:55:45 AM , Rating: 1
You can't make enough batteries if you don't have sufficient supplies in the first place, hence, mining will not be going away anytime soon. Recycling cannot support the demand if there isn't enough in the first place... It's not a matter of popularity, it's supply and demand.

RE: Friggin hippies.
By SPOOFE on 6/20/2010 12:42:29 PM , Rating: 2
It's not a matter of popularity, it's supply and demand.

And demand is affected by... popularity. If nobody wanted it, there'd be no demand.

Mining more lithium puts more lithium on the market. More lithium on the market means (eventually) more lithium to be recycled at the end of a vehicle's life. Outside of significant artificial influences (say, huge taxes on recycling lithium), the situation I just described will inherently lead to more lithium recycling.

Will it supplant mining? Maybe, but nowhere in the perceivable future. But that's not the point; the market is loathe to allow material to go to waste, especially lately.

RE: Friggin hippies.
By fuzzlefizz on 6/19/2010 10:06:18 PM , Rating: 1
Lead acid in most aging cars is more toxic than lithium. :)

RE: Friggin hippies.
By StevoLincolnite on 6/19/10, Rating: -1
RE: Friggin hippies.
By WoWCow on 6/19/2010 3:45:11 AM , Rating: 2
I am no scientist, but I would ask some questions of you...

1) What is the efficiency of geothermal power? From my layman's perspective, cold regions in northern US would benefit little from it unless they have incredibly efficient extraction.

2) I do not know the costs, but what would it take for geothermal plants to break even or reach profitability? Again, if the realized output doesn't meet its theoretical output from the first question, it'll be a hard sale to anyone in the energy industry.

3) Geothermal is very geographically dependent and from what I understand if the consumption exceeds the replenish rates, even a renewable geothermal well can be drained. If I recall correctly, geothermal is very dependent on water and location. I think a good example here would be geyser fields in Southwest USA.

RE: Friggin hippies.
By freaqie on 6/19/2010 7:47:14 AM , Rating: 2
1 very high, 85-95% it is just a turbine really...

it is all about temperature difference, geographical location matters little, however, in some area's drills need to go extremely deep to get to the heat, this makes it economicalle (niet technically) inviable

2 usually about 10 years... i am sorry cannot find a source right now, but after creation the plant requires extremely little maintanace and will run for about 30-40 years. (no fuel)

3 geothermal is indeed geographically dependant,
but there needs not be water in the rock
the rock is first "fracced" basiccaly creating small cracks.
and water is pumped down, and comes up at another vent as steam.

geysers are offcourse good places to build geothermal (often they are actually in fairly cold environemnts) becosue the heat is close to the surface, showing as natural geysers.
but a geothermal plant does not "need"to be close to geysers to work..

i hope that about answers your questions.

RE: Friggin hippies.
By StevoLincolnite on 6/19/2010 11:52:48 AM , Rating: 2
1) What is the efficiency of geothermal power? From my layman's perspective, cold regions in northern US would benefit little from it unless they have incredibly efficient extraction.

Outside temperature really has nothing to do with Geothermal heat sources, Geothermal is excellent in places where there is high-volcanic activity because there is allot of heat in the ground. (Like Greenland and New Zealand?).

To put it in perspective, the thermal energy in the uppermost six miles of the Earth's crust amounts to 50,000 times the energy of all oil and gas resources in the world, that is allot of energy, and it is mostly going un-used, why not tap into it?

I do not know the costs, but what would it take for geothermal plants to break even or reach profitability? Again, if the realized output doesn't meet its theoretical output from the first question, it'll be a hard sale to anyone in the energy industry.

That's a tough one, more research and trials are needed in Geothermal power generation to give you a good answer... But it does have allot of reduced costs over Nuclear like:

1) You don't need a massive and expensive building which can survive bombs and airplanes.

2) You don't need to buy ANY type of fuel (Maybe except water in some cases) and pay for it's transportation.

4) You don't need to pay for a small security task force in the case of Nuclear power plants to protect the "Fuel".

5) Requires less maintenance.

Most of the costs of Geothermal is in the drilling.

Geothermal is very geographically dependent and from what I understand if the consumption exceeds the replenish rates, even a renewable geothermal well can be drained. If I recall correctly, geothermal is very dependent on water and location. I think a good example here would be geyser fields in Southwest USA.

A few years ago it was incredibly geographically dependent, mostly plants were confined to where there was volcanic activity or near a tectonic plate edge or geysers already established.

However with time, technology improves, and so does the amount of locations that Geothermal can be used. - Like in the middle of Australia where there is no Volcanic/Tectonic activity.

Water can also be injected into the Geothermal hole, that's the fuel, and water is heck of allot cheaper to obtain and utilize than any fuel like Gas/Coal/Uranium, it's cheaper and better for the environment to obtain water as well; because there is no strip mining to obtain the fuel if it was needed.

Remember, Nuclear is another fuel source.
It -will- run out one day, sooner than Geothermal ever will.

RE: Friggin hippies.
By kfonda on 6/19/2010 8:21:29 AM , Rating: 2
I would personally like to see more of a push for Geothermal personally

Just out of curiosity, have any studies been done to show the long term environmental effects of geothermal power? On the current small scale, I'm sure it probably does not have much of an impact, but would removing large amounts of geothermal heat from the ground have any effect on the climate, either locally or globally?

I'm not trying to be a troll or anything, I'm just curious.

RE: Friggin hippies.
By Solandri on 6/19/2010 10:14:30 AM , Rating: 2
Natural geothermal vents are the best source, but extremely rare. Without natural vents and water, you have to use enhanced geothermal. That involves drilling wells into regular rock, forcing in water to crack it to increase surface area, then circulating the water to extract the heat from the rocks.

I was very hopeful for this technology too. Unfortunately, a test site sran into seismic problems - basically injecting the water was causing earthquakes. With the litigious nature of the U.S., that means operating this type of geothermal plant means you're pretty much guaranteed to be sued for every earthquake which happens regardless of whether it was natural or was somehow caused by you. So the technical potential is still there, but the economic feasibility has dropped way, way down.

RE: Friggin hippies.
By StevoLincolnite on 6/19/2010 12:01:37 PM , Rating: 2
I was very hopeful for this technology too. Unfortunately, a test site sran into seismic problems - basically injecting the water was causing earthquakes.

That's because... They were doing it in a very seismic active area to begin with, someone wasn't using there brain when they decided to test it there. (City of Basel).

However most of the seismic issues can be mitigated with current techniques and technologies now, so it's really a non-issue if people in charge use common sense.

RE: Friggin hippies.
By brokenaxiom on 6/19/2010 11:09:29 AM , Rating: 1
A deep hole in the ground versus military grade radioactive waste that nobody knows what to do with.... Which would you choose?

I know what to do with the waste. We simply dump it in space. If a certain president didn't recently neuter NASA, then it would work perfectly.

Also the energy density of uranium is a thousand times that of any other non-nuclear source.

RE: Friggin hippies.
By superstition on 6/19/2010 2:33:24 PM , Rating: 3
Dumping nuclear waste in space works great when a shuttle blows up, right?

RE: Friggin hippies.
By knutjb on 6/19/2010 2:46:38 PM , Rating: 3

There are a number of ways to reprocess current materials safely and reduce the dirty foot print, providing environmentalist will give their blessings and that will never happen.

RE: Friggin hippies.
By sdoorex on 6/21/2010 2:52:28 PM , Rating: 2
I'm an environmentalist. I want reprocessing, clean nuclear power, research into future generation 4 reactors including Pebble Bed and Breeders, and a long term storage solution that limits the spread of irreclaimable waste products.

I'd like to put forth a new theory. The people being called environmentalists that are against clean nuclear sources aren't environmentalists, but in actuality anti-technologists and NIMBYs

RE: Friggin hippies.
By brokenaxiom on 6/19/2010 3:25:53 PM , Rating: 1
That's like saying we shouldn't use planes to transport dangerous materials because they could crash. Jesus man. Make them safe and cheap, then we never have to worry again. What's worse the ecological and heath consequences of coal power or a rare missile crash that causes local damage. There is no comparison

RE: Friggin hippies.
By superstition on 6/19/2010 7:40:46 PM , Rating: 2
The onus is on you to prove that the danger posed by a massive amount of nuclear waste exploding high in the atmosphere due to a shuttle explosion is minimal.

RE: Friggin hippies.
By Solandri on 6/20/2010 11:42:08 AM , Rating: 4
Well, the waste itself isn't exploding, the transport vehicle is. The waste would presumably be encased in a container designed to survive such an explosion.

But the reason the idea wouldn't work is because rockets are incredibly inefficient at getting stuff into orbit. For a typical rocket, only about 1% of the weight is payload, the remaining 99% is fuel. So using energy to rocket nuclear waste into space would probably come close to canceling out the energy you got from the nuclear fuel in the first place.

If you could design a working orbital railgun or gas gun, it could work. But this also ignores that the reason we have so much nuclear waste is entirely political. Unlike France, we've decided not to reprocess our waste. Essentially, the "waste" we have still has over 90% of its potential nuclear energy remaining. This is why Yucca Mountain is a better solution. In the future if we ever decide to follow France and reprocess, we can simply open the doors at Yucca and remove the "waste" and use it as fuel.

RE: Friggin hippies.
By michael2k on 6/19/2010 11:46:52 AM , Rating: 2
What happens when you run out of steam?

That's not even a joke. If a site cools too much we lack the ability to recharge it and must wait for the earth to reheat the site.

RE: Friggin hippies.
By knutjb on 6/19/2010 2:39:19 PM , Rating: 4
Read interesting lower heat generation. There is no single solution for power.

The environmentalists, can't spell it without "mental," refuse to accept anything less than horse and buggy, outlaw horses, then people because we are the problem after all... I know there are a few that are sane but few.

Environmentalists prevent without solution, i.e. we must go solar but you can't put it there because of some creature or plant and not over there because we don't like that the required power lines ruin the view. Both cases are occurring in California. If you want EVs you will have more transmission lines.

I think Obama is throwing Nuke out there knowing full well the environmentalist will tie it up in court so he can play both sides of the fence. So he can then tell the public he tried and privately thank the mentals that they saved the country from itself in a vain attempt to placate them for votes. This BP issue will cause him greater problems than nuke power.

RE: Friggin hippies.
By superstition on 6/19/2010 2:32:36 PM , Rating: 2
How about oil-soaked pelicans?

RE: Friggin hippies.
By cmdrdredd on 6/19/2010 2:37:02 PM , Rating: 2
Can't please the enviro-nuts. What is the country supposed to be powered with? Happy thoughts?

Round em up, ship em to Kommiefornia, build a big wall and keep em there.

RE: Friggin hippies.
By knutjb on 6/19/2010 2:51:02 PM , Rating: 3
And don't forget to cutoff all non-green power sources from their grid and see how long it takes for reality to set in.

That would make great reality TV!

RE: Friggin hippies.
By SPOOFE on 6/20/2010 1:02:41 PM , Rating: 3
Los Angeles city council wanted a complete and total boycott of Arizona... not realizing that we have a huge stake in a nuclear plant out there, and a boycott would have cut off a big portion of the city's electricity.

I say go for it; all the emo kids and drama queens out here could use a lesson in what real problems look like.

RE: Friggin hippies.
By cmdrdredd on 6/20/2010 10:20:55 AM , Rating: 1
Can't please the enviro-nuts.

They won't be happy until we are all living in the dark ages with very few laws that work or are enforced. These are the same people who fight against strict immigration laws among other things.

RE: Friggin hippies.
By marvdmartian on 6/21/2010 10:41:48 AM , Rating: 2
Oh, come on.....the heat generated as we all participate in a group hug and sing kumbaya (sp?) will be more than enough to generate enough electricity for everyone's needs!!

RE: Friggin hippies.
By thurston on 6/21/2010 7:04:40 PM , Rating: 2
I wouldn't blame all of nuclear's woes on environmentalists, I imagine the coal lobby is not too keen on seeing nuclear power being used more in the US. Being from coal country most people I talk to do not support nuclear because of the loss of jobs, they don't give a sh!t about the environment.

RE: Friggin hippies.
By lostvyking on 6/21/2010 7:56:38 PM , Rating: 2
Not so long ago...about 70 days ago, Obama broke with the liberals and stated he was FOR off-shore drilling and giving it his support. Look how that turned out. Now he is breaking with the liberals and saying he is for nuclear power and giving THAT his afraid, be VERY afraid!

We don't need loan guarantees
By FITCamaro on 6/19/2010 7:30:09 PM , Rating: 5
We need power companies to have the ability to not have to fight endless lawsuits when trying to get permits for plants. These loan guarantees do nothing to stop those. And I think Obama knows this. He realizes most new plants will never get built but he can say he supported it.

Get rid of the road blocks and power companies will build the plants on their own. Companies stopped building because it was too hard to get approval to even start operating the plant even if it did get built.

RE: We don't need loan guarantees
By magreen on 6/20/2010 8:24:45 AM , Rating: 3
As a law student concerned about finding a job with a firm, and as a moderate environmentalist who fully supports nuclear power, provided it's done properly, I am very pleased with this piece of news.

let's see:
- More nuclear power plants produced, less reliance on oil which pollutes terribly and lines the pockets of Jihad-supporting regimes hostile to the US and US interests

- the promise of more lawsuits, which will employ lots of lawyers and law firms who will *hire me* :)

It's a win-win, personally.

RE: We don't need loan guarantees
By FITCamaro on 6/20/2010 10:04:47 AM , Rating: 2
You do realize that the amount of power generated with petroleum in the US is 1% right?

Going nuclear does nothing to get off oil. Now if you're making an argument that it will allow more electric cars, you still haven't solved the problem of electric cars not meeting most peoples needs. They want a car that can drive 300-400 miles, fill up, and keep going.

RE: We don't need loan guarantees
By atomicrod on 6/20/2010 7:07:07 PM , Rating: 2
Though the amount of power generated in the US by burning oil is rather small NOW, it was not always that way. In 1978, before the second oil price crisis of the 1970s, oil represented 17% of the electrical power production in the United States.

During that same year, nuclear energy represented about 5-6% of our electricity production.

By 1995, nuclear had grown to about 20% of our electrical power production and oil had fallen to about 3-5%. Guess what power source grew most rapidly in exactly the parts of the country that used to use a lot of oil?

There are still places that are part of the United States that get a large fraction of their electrical energy from burning oil - Hawaii, Alaska, Guam, Puerto Rico, and even some parts of Florida at certain times during the year.

Additionally, we still use a fair amount of oil in space heating applications that can readily been supplied by inexpensive electric heat pumps and we use oil to drive locomotives that could be powered with electricity. Electric cars show an additional route of replacing oil combustion with nuclear energy - indirectly, but my favorite example is one with which I have some personal familiarity.

Fully 6% of the world's oil consumption comes from burning diesel and bunker fuel on board large, ocean going ships. We have been using nuclear energy to propel large, ocean going ships in the US, UK, French, Russian and Chinese navies for many decades. There is no technical reason at all why nuclear energy could not gradually replace oil as the power source for ships, freeing up a lot of oil for other forms of transport that are less able to use the larger power systems that are required when you need plenty of shielding and equipment redundancy.

One more thing - wind and solar are only capable of providing electricity, so all of the talk about them being able to reduce oil consumption is also limited by the amount of oil used to produce electricity. Of course, you would have to DOUBLE our current wind and solar electricity production to eliminate oil from the power market since they, too, only produce about 1-2% of the electricity that we currently use.

Rod Adams
Publisher, Atomic Insights

By FITCamaro on 6/21/2010 6:38:49 AM , Rating: 2
There are still places that are part of the United States that get a large fraction of their electrical energy from burning oil - Hawaii, Alaska, Guam, Puerto Rico, and even some parts of Florida at certain times during the year.

Again, this does nothing to change the fact that switching to nuclear power will do nothing to end our reliance on foreign oil. Only producing oil domestically will do that because oil is a vital resource used in far more than just power generation and automotive fuel.

Additionally, we still use a fair amount of oil in space heating applications that can readily been supplied by inexpensive electric heat pumps and we use oil to drive locomotives that could be powered with electricity.

Natural gas is the fuel of choice for heating in cold areas these days vs. oil. And its used because its cheaper than electric power and oil, not to mention more efficient. Yes, if we had more nuclear that would likely change. Personally I don't care what people use. But I prefer natural gas.

As far as locomotives, where exactly will the trains get this electricity unless you plan to string power lines alongside every railroad track like a metro rail? Or are you advocating for nuclear powered trains? Thank you but no. I am fine with nuclear power plants and ships. But trains can crash into things. And they're hardly a secure environment. A far more practical idea is to use biodiesel which we can already grow from algae. Many trains already are diesel/electric hybrids.

Fully 6% of the world's oil consumption comes from burning diesel and bunker fuel on board large, ocean going ships. We have been using nuclear energy to propel large, ocean going ships in the US, UK, French, Russian and Chinese navies for many decades. There is no technical reason at all why nuclear energy could not gradually replace oil as the power source for ships

Again we are back to security. You really want commercial ships with nuclear reactors? While I agree it is a great idea, in the real world, its presents a massive security risk. Who's to guarantee the safety of the nuclear fuel? You'd have to require highly trained security personnel and even then its no guarantee. Not only that but you'd have to keep a nuclear engineer on board who can deal with any issues that might come up.

And I don't want us to double our wind and solar production. Its a waste of land and money. Hugely expensive and produces very little power compared to said land use.

Plant construction cost
By superstition on 6/19/10, Rating: 0
RE: Plant construction cost
By superstition on 6/19/2010 2:27:59 PM , Rating: 1
CERA, Construction costs for new nuclear plants up over 230% since 2000

And that's from 2008.

"The costs of building new American nuclear reactors may be much higher than quoted by the industry."

"A collection of new studies, however, suggest that these figures may underestimate the cost of building new nuclear units by more than a factor of 3."

RE: Plant construction cost
By AssBall on 6/19/2010 4:05:19 PM , Rating: 2
How much of the cost is in construction, and how much of it is tied up in regulation, environmental impact studies, etc., I wonder?

RE: Plant construction cost
By rcpratt on 6/20/2010 12:12:39 AM , Rating: 2
Really, the regulatory/licensing costs are relatively low compared to the overall cost. The budget at the utility I work for is ~$30M/year, with the licensing process lasting 4-6 years.

Part of the reason for the high construction costs is the lack of manufacturing for some of the parts. The reactor pressure vessels, for example, require huge rings of forged steel that can only be created at one place in the world - Japan.

RE: Plant construction cost
By SPOOFE on 6/20/2010 1:05:11 PM , Rating: 3
Really, the regulatory/licensing costs are relatively low

The OFFICIAL costs, true, but in the real cost is in lawsuits and NIMBY morons that can keep the entire process held up for decades. If you had to spend twenty years fighting in court to open ANY business or operation, the costs would be astronomical.

RE: Plant construction cost
By rcpratt on 6/20/2010 12:09:41 AM , Rating: 5
The issue is that nuclear facilities are a front-loaded cost. Over the lifetime of the facility, the cost/kW is lower than any other energy source. The federally insured loans are required because often the front-loaded cost ($5B-$15B) is greater than the net worth of the utility. The utility would have no issue recovering the cost over the lifetime of the plant.

By Amiga500 on 6/19/2010 6:17:02 AM , Rating: 5
And support Obama (and the next president if he is supportive of nuclear power).

For too long have the stupid hippies dominated the airwaves with their crackpot ideas. Its long past time that informed experts started to present proper arguments supporting nuclear power.

Coal plants give off more radioactive material than nuclear plants. Yet the dumb as shit clowns in greenpeace won't hear of it.

By thurston on 6/19/2010 11:27:24 AM , Rating: 2
For too long have the stupid hippies dominated the airwaves with their crackpot ideas.

I didn't know Rush, Beck, Hannity and Boortz are hippies. What hippie dominated airwaves are you talking about? Dope smoking FM types?(thats one of Rush's favorite lines, does that make him an Oxycontin snorting AM type?)

By Etsp on 6/19/2010 11:39:46 AM , Rating: 5
No, they aren't hippies, they're nutjobs.

A good move
By Whedonic on 6/19/2010 4:06:45 PM , Rating: 3
I'm an environmentalist. I support nuclear power. Not all of us are friggin nuts.

RE: A good move
By SPOOFE on 6/20/2010 1:15:17 PM , Rating: 3
The shame is that the most vocal of environmentalists are friggin' nuts.

RE: A good move
By bigdawg1988 on 6/25/2010 4:36:19 PM , Rating: 2
Sadly it seems that the most vocal of ANY group are the friggin' nuts. The rest of us have enough to do in our lives without cramming our beliefs/values/thoughts down someone else's throats.

Funny thing is, why do the left and right wing nuts get all the attention (other than the squeeky wheel thing)? Left wing nuts aren't going to abandon the dems for the republicans, and the right wingers aren't going to vote democrat all of a sudden.
The middle is where people need to pay attention. I guess maybe all the money is coming from the wingnut fringe.

This really makes no sense
By atlmann10 on 6/19/2010 2:11:11 AM , Rating: 2
We know clean coal is a lie, burning fossil (Oil,Gas, Crude, Diesel) fuels, pollutes the environment, we don't have enough rivers to build that many types of energy facilities, and they produce a portion of the energy a nuclear plant does as well. Then on top of that Europe has been running on nuclear at least to a large percentage on nuclear for 30 years. This is all true along with Europe not really having any accidents except for Russia which was because they built it on the cheap and did not repair or maintain it properly. This is all not to mention our energy requirements rise very year because more computers and otherwise IT equipment is bought yearly, and lets not forget the electric cars, and trains the environmentalists love either.

RE: This really makes no sense
By EJ257 on 6/21/2010 10:01:28 AM , Rating: 2
That's because their not really environmentalist at that point, their more like obstructionists. This is really a good idea that's been put on the back burners for too long. Those electric cars are not going to power themselves.

My Plan.
By Harkonnen on 6/19/2010 2:42:53 AM , Rating: 4
I have a plan about how to easily go about building more nuclear reactors.

We take the "environmentalists" to Yucca Mountain to show them how safe the waste will be stored. Then we promptly bury them while they are inside.

Party politics?
By RyanHirst on 6/19/2010 3:52:17 PM , Rating: 4
I wish we could all agree to address issues based exclusively on the criteria at hand, and not arbitrary political distinctions.

Most people don't work that way. Fine. It has to start somewhere, right?

This issue should never fall on political lines. Nor are the environmental concerns sufficiently simple for there to be a single environmental stance. I sink deeply left on many issues, and I think nuclear power is no exception.

Let me explain.

There is a magic solution to the power issue. It revolutionized physics. It's relativity.

From a pure power resources perspective (maximum extraction of power from a minimum of resources) there is one and only one magic bullet: nuclear power.

The environmental concerns are complex. But they are navigable. Explicit storage and safety regulations. Non-plutonium reactors that create waste products with comprehenisble half-lives.

Nuclear power will rest on a scale of federal regulation. I doubt that there are many conservatives or liberals who are comfortable with the idea of Microsoft having its own nuclear facilities. Private nuclear facilities rase some troubling concerns.

Let's see, federal government regulates otherwise dangerous or troubling venture, to alleviate resource scarcity, to provide a basic service to all memeber of the social contract. What could be more progressive?

I cannot comprehend the mindset of any individual who is genuinely concerned about the scarcity of natural resources who is unwilling to investigate nuclear power. The more carefully you assess scarcity, the more important nuclear power becomes.

Attention environmentalists: WE POSSESS THE MAGIC BULLET.

There will never be another power solution which can approach nuclear efficiency (power versus resources; power generated versus remaining extractable energy), even to within a few orders of magnitude.

But he's the Messiah?
By Beenthere on 6/19/2010 6:27:16 PM , Rating: 2
How can he be wrong or do wrong when he's the self-proclaimed Messiah?

RE: But he's the Messiah?
By indignation on 6/20/2010 11:49:29 PM , Rating: 2
I don't think he's on the wrong side for this issue

By atomicrod on 6/20/2010 6:55:02 PM , Rating: 1
One of the reasons I was initially attracted to President Obama was a realization that he has long been interested in intelligent development of nuclear energy. It was probably 2007 when I had a conversation with a friend who is a researcher at Argonne National Laboratory near Chicago and he told me about how his colleagues at the Lab felt about their current senator. Many of them were impressed by his record of support for their activities and especially impressed by the questions that he asked and his responses to their answers.

For example, Argonne has long had a strong contingent of scientists and engineers that recognized that burying slightly used nuclear fuel was a waste - they wanted to recycle it into fuel for fast reactors so they could capture the 95% of the potential energy that light water reactors were not yet capturing and using. Those scientists and engineers know they still have a few commercialization and material hurdles that prevent wide spread deployment of fast reactors right now, but they want the material retained in more convenient locations than a deep hole under a mountain in the desert 60 miles outside Las Vegas. Just moving the fuel material to that location before reusing it would represent a huge waste of time and money, especially given the strength of the opposition to using nuclear energy at all.

I also found people from Exelon, the power generating company that supplies about half of Illinois's load with clean nuclear energy to be quite supportive of Senator and now President Obama.

A few more thoughts - the natural opponents of nuclear energy are not liberals. Nuclear energy done right hits most of their positive hot buttons by providing lots of union jobs, plenty of clean, emission free energy, and helping to keep electrical power rates consumer friendly.

No, the natural opponents of nuclear energy - a clean, abundant, low cost source of reliable energy - are the people who sell our current supply of higher cost, dirtier, less abundant sources of reliable energy.

Those who sell coal, oil and natural gas into a market that never seems to have quite enough energy for the long term make more money when there is the perception of scarcity. If a new competitor enters the market, prices drop and they lose market share. No one who has an interest in locating, extracting, processing, transporting or financing coal, oil or gas would like to see nuclear energy succeed without adding as much cost to the effort as possible.

Many of the conservatives who have mouthed pro-nuclear messages in the past have not been terribly sincere and have made no real effort to reduce the barriers to entry that the fossil fuel backed opposition have erected over the past 30 years. Just think, how many "conservative" pro-nuclear administrations have been in power over those 30 years of no new nuclear power plant construction.

Anyway - Obama gets my support on this issue for being in the right and for having the courage to continue having a real discussion about the only source of reliable energy that can meet our needs for the foreseeable future. It many not last "forever" but the uranium and thorium that we have already identified could power our entire civilization for several hundred years (and several of my colleagues will assert that I am being a bit conservative with that estimate.)

Rod Adams
Publisher, Atomic Insights

By zmatt on 6/21/2010 12:11:46 AM , Rating: 3
Thoughtful response, I enjoyed reading it. However I can't agree with you. I have seen 0 evidence that any right wingers are anti nuclear power. In fact i would say that Nuclear power is one of the things that most people, regardless of political affiliation agree with. I think the issue comes with extreme environmentalists, they have been the most vocal in opposition to nuclear power. As for the energy companies, it is likely and a logical point to make, however if they are against nuclear power they haven't been very public in denouncing it. I honestly think short of Obama making all new plants state run, which would be a bad idea IMHO, the existing energy companies with their large cash flows could quickly and decisively move into the nuclear market if they really wanted to.

I honestly find it hard to think of many major cons to nuclear energy. I see it as a win win for everyone involved except for OPEC and it's members. Environmentalists don't have to worry about smog from power plants and get to look forward to fewer oil tankers, I get cheaper electric bills, and Obama can make jobs and take the credit for it. In the long run it helps out everyone.

By superstition on 6/19/2010 2:36:25 PM , Rating: 3
"Obama recently used nuclear power to paint McCain in a negative light.

After criticizing McCain for wanting to open up more land for oil drilling, Obama added, 'That makes about as much sense as his plan to build 45 new nuclear reactors without a plan for the waste, other than put it — guess where? — right here in Nevada, at Yucca Mountain.'"

Nuclear Fusion is 10-20 years away
By xxsk8er101xx on 6/19/10, Rating: 0
By rcpratt on 6/20/2010 12:19:15 AM , Rating: 3
5-10 years? That will never happen. The issue with fusion is not the nuclear engineering - it's the materials. The key is engineering materials to properly contain the plasma. And even once we do, it will require another 15-20 years to be able to produce that material on a scale that makes fusion economically viable. Then on top of that, you're looking at 10-15+ years for the NRC to sort out all the licensing issues that will come with an entirely new technology.

Pro Nuclear
By brshoemak on 6/19/2010 4:02:40 PM , Rating: 2
I really don't understand environmentalist and the hypocrisy they represent. Many talk about how there is no gray area, it's either green or not yet they blog about their ideas on computers that contain enough toxic components to kill a man and are powered by electricity generated by coal (how many miner work in horrible conditions miles under the earth) and drive cars that contain the same oil spill into the Gulf in unprecedented amounts. So is that just a necessary evil or what.

btw, I support nuclear power - it's more environmentally sound than most other forms of fuel. The radioactive waste is stored miles and miles below the earth in salt deposits and other waste can be reduced. It is the only "renewable" energy source that can provide a sufficient amount of energy to power the nations growing energy needs.

Every other alternative energy source has it's own issues that I could write a paragraph about, but basically boil down to the real estate and impact to economy (think corn cost for biofuel vs. animal feed and consumer usage) needed to create sufficient energy output far outweigh the ability to create that energy at a decent economic rate. Basically, the energy/resource density is not high enough for most alternative energy sources to make sense economically.

Nuclear is definitely not perfect, but it's the best solution we have to eliminate our energy dependence on other countries and not have giant windmills dotting the landscape/coastlines or massive acreage for solar sites that are limited to certain locations.

A shill by any other name
By YashBudini on 6/19/2010 4:31:34 PM , Rating: 2
a lobbyist, a K-street whore. The only "people" the politicians represent, because it's "We the corporations..."

oh boy
By zmatt on 6/19/2010 5:24:44 PM , Rating: 2
While I disagree with him on many things, this is one i am with him on. Nuclear brings cheap and clean power to us and greatly reduces our need for oil. The eco nuts can charge their EVs cheap. I can keep the AC on all the time. And with the oil used in power stations freed up gas prices will fall. We also have uranium on American soil, and the power plants make for a clever way to use warhead form nukes that we can no longer use. Everybody wins. The only people who are pissed of are the uneducated eco-nuts who think that this kind of thing is dangerous. There has never been a reactor melt down in the US. 3 Mile Island didn't melt down, we were able to save it, and very little radiation leaked, and that was 30 years ago with far inferior technology. Chernobyl used 1950's technology, was under staffed, didn't have proper safety devices and wasn't in the best shape either.

Carlin once said...
By rburnham on 6/19/2010 5:52:30 PM , Rating: 2
"But we don't have time for rational solutions!"

He just gets @##* on
By piroroadkill on 6/21/2010 4:01:19 AM , Rating: 2
But nuclear power is the only really viable way to get coal power out of the system. It's superior in every way.

Good for you, Obama.

I agree with obama
By rika13 on 6/21/2010 5:50:32 AM , Rating: 2
Normally, I refer to him as "the Hawaiian" as his senate time and presidency have been an embarrassment to my pride in Illinois.

I must agree wholeheartedly, nuclear is the only way to go. The environazis need to realize that we need power for things like subways, lighting, heating and a/c, hospitals, office buildings and factories, any possible electric vehicles, the internet and all other media, refrigeration, etc.

Without power, there is severely limited mass transit in many large cities, but that doesn't matter as even a McDonald's can't run without power.

Without those electrons, we would have people dying is mass from heat and cold every year, but you won't hear about it since there would be no and no TV stations, but that again doesn't matter as your energy whore 60" gas plasma and computer don't work.

Without the magic in the wall socket, you would hurt yourself stumbling in the dark to your now dead fridge only to reach around for something that is a different color than it was when you put it in, resulting in a walk, as your new EV is a heavy impotent object, like your fridge, to a building with absolutely no function.

If you are one of the "environmentalists", do your part, live in a cave, without fire, since that requires trees be cut down and makes CO2, without driving to the cave and no food shipments, they make CO2 as well.

By zingyoo on 6/21/2010 9:26:45 AM , Rating: 2
OH those cry babies need to get over themselves already.


By btc909 on 6/21/2010 12:14:17 PM , Rating: 2
If the environuts do accept nuclear power they won't have very much to fight against anymore therefore they wouldn't need to exist.

NIMBY - Not In My Backyard. Oh no you are not building a nuclear power plant here.

What's wrong with my sho e?
By ggordonliddy on 6/22/2010 1:16:46 AM , Rating: 2
Why are comments containing the word "sho e" (with no space) in the Subject or Body being immediately rejected? It just fails back to the article page with no error message.

Feet First
By BigDan on 6/24/2010 8:34:02 PM , Rating: 2
I think that the anti nuke crowd just needs to wake up. Its 2010 and they still think that what happened back in the day at three rivers will happen over and over no matter what. My uncle worked at the one in So. CA and he said it had the cleanest working conditions ever. If France can go all nuke powered why can't we? As far as Solar goes you would need massive fields to cover what a nuke plant could do.

This site does need a Mod because it seems the subject at hand goes off on wild tangents and doesn't stay on topic.

No neg here?
By Jjoshua2 on 6/19/2010 1:04:17 AM , Rating: 1
I'm thinking most everyone here agrees that more electricity from nuclear plants is a good idea. I'm wondering what evil plan some people are going to come up with on why he is REALLY doing this. Create secret nuclear labs or something, for a plutonium powered death star? :)

By cruisin3style on 6/19/2010 11:02:30 AM , Rating: 2

Nuclear is definitely the way to go, and I really hope it goes quickly. If all that "his constituents and party shunned him" type stuff is true, I think this is the mark of a pragmatic President that wants to get stuff done to help the country move forward vs. one who sticks to his beliefs and/or voter/party base (stem cell stupidity) and thereby keeps us from making advances.

RE: Nice
By xxsk8er101xx on 6/19/10, Rating: -1
RE: Nice
By walk2k on 6/19/10, Rating: 0
By brokenaxiom on 6/19/2010 11:06:28 AM , Rating: 1
When crackpots put you in office, then you have to live with the fact that when you start making sense, they will try to remove you from office.

For once objectivity
By Zoridon on 6/19/10, Rating: 0
When accidents happen
By drycrust3 on 6/19/10, Rating: 0
By killerclick on 6/19/10, Rating: -1
RE: Subsidies
By thurston on 6/19/2010 11:33:25 AM , Rating: 3
I believe governments should give subsidies to environmentally friendly energy production and tax the other kind until technological development enables clean energy to be competitive.

I think they are one step ahead of you, it's called carbon credits and it will make that capitalist pig Al Gore the richest man in the world. (I'm not being sarcastic he is a capitalist pig)

RE: Subsidies
By YashBudini on 6/19/10, Rating: 0
RE: Subsidies
By thurston on 6/20/2010 12:18:32 AM , Rating: 4
Al Gore is just a Capitalist in Liberal clothing, he doesn't give a shit about the environment. Cap and Trade is just a way to make money in the name of the environment. If I pollute in town A and buy carbon credits from town B, town A is still polluted. It's all just a bullshit scam to make money. I consider myself an environmentalist but Cap and Trade is a farce.

BP, a victim of what? The people of The Gulf and the environment are the victims.

Liberal fear mongering
By sleepeeg3 on 6/19/10, Rating: -1
RE: Liberal fear mongering
By snail on 6/19/2010 2:31:33 AM , Rating: 4
I re-read the article because of the first line in your post. If anything this posting appears to be pro-nuclear rather than demonstrating anything against it.

RE: Liberal fear mongering
By omnicronx on 6/19/2010 3:28:33 AM , Rating: 2
I stopped after reading the first paragraph.. Reading comprehension fail..

Are we reading the same article? If anything its pro nuclear.. You don't give links to sites and call the content ramblings if you agree with it..

RE: Liberal fear mongering
By retrospooty on 6/19/2010 9:26:21 AM , Rating: 4
I stopped after the thread title. "liberal fear mongering". LOL

I hate to break this story, but Obama is liberal, and millions of libs all over the country are pro nuclear. These environuts that are against it are better labelled as envoronuts than liberals.

Our country and our whole way of life depends on cheap energy. Its not a liberal or conservative concern, its an american concern.

I have always said, we need to get off oil for these 3 reasons in order..

1. Economic - We are making countries that hate us rich beyond comprehension.

2. Political - Due to oil, we keep a presence in the middle east, creating enemies. Well funded enemies. We just need to get the hell out of there.

3. Environmental - I am not a man made global warming believer... but the pollutants so thick you can see it in the air over any large city are obviously not healthy to breath for us or our children.

RE: Liberal fear mongering
By thurston on 6/19/2010 11:13:16 AM , Rating: 2
These environuts that are against it are better labelled as envoronuts than liberals.

A more appropriate label would be extreme right wingers since they share the same closed mindedness. Once you get to the extreme left it wraps around to the right, both are closed minded fools.

RE: Liberal fear mongering
By retrospooty on 6/19/2010 3:03:17 PM , Rating: 3
Ya, I guess you could say anyone with "extreme" political views in any direction are pretty well nutty.

Most people live in the middle, if you cant at least see the middle form where you are, you are too far.

RE: Liberal fear mongering
By JasonMick on 6/19/2010 12:31:06 PM , Rating: 4
Had to be another Mick article... What do you have against nuclear?

HA! Despite the rather disturbingly paranoid nature of your comment, I must thank you as you gave me a huge laugh this morning.

Personally I'm actually a firm advocate of nuclear power, and am constantly trying to explain to people the merits of the technology.

That said, if someone as delusional as yourself can take this to be an attack on nuclear power, I feel doubly pleased because I know that I'm doing my job and not letting my bias show through in my writing. So thanks!

Also, in the future I would suggest you avoid blanketly labeling people as liberals or conservatives unless those people choose to refer to themselves with such a distinction.

Personally, I wouldn't call myself a liberal or a conservative. I think claiming ownership to such a narrow title shows that you lack some basic reasoning and independent thinking skills.

You should evaluate each issue independently and make the best decision based on the knowledge you have and your own personal conscience. If anything that is my political philosophy (for those curious).

RE: Liberal fear mongering
By YashBudini on 6/19/2010 4:28:30 PM , Rating: 1
Anyone here knows only right-wing fear mongering is acceptable and approved. All others will be burned as witches.

Got an organic match?

RE: Liberal fear mongering
By sleepeeg3 on 6/20/2010 2:48:50 PM , Rating: 2
Well, I am guilty of only skimming through the first half of your article and getting to the multiple "treehugger" links before ranting. Something I normally make it a point not to do... I apologize to you for the attack and am glad to see you are a nuclear advocate:

I am just a little fed up by the sensational, liberal slant I have seen you and other DT bloggers take in the past. This article appeared to be yet another one. Here is an example:
Better title: "Climate Change" or "Weather Patterns"? Was Tiffany trying to spin something?

For the record... Obama on his "persistent push for nuclear":
2007 - "I am not a nuclear energy proponent."
2010 - "I've said that I'm a promoter of nuclear energy."

I will continue to support nuclear, no matter what the pols in Washington have to say about it, and I hope you will stand by the same conviction.

RE: Liberal fear mongering
By Beenthere on 6/21/2010 12:57:55 AM , Rating: 2
But he's the MESSIAH...

He is all knowing and King of the Universe.

All bow to the Messiah of DC.

RE: Liberal fear mongering
By Dorkyman on 6/21/2010 4:33:37 PM , Rating: 1
Looks like Messiah is going down in flames.

The man in the White House is an accident of history, and has been promoted to a position WAY BEYOND his level of competence.

BTW I have never gotten the impression that he is a fan of nuclear, while previous administrations have been.

By Chiisuchianu on 6/19/10, Rating: -1
RE: loliberals
By sgw2n5 on 6/19/2010 2:08:08 AM , Rating: 1
It's all true!!! Glen Beck says so!!!

I hate hippies and strongly believe that nuclear power is the best option available... but common... you have got to be trollin'... nobody can be that detached from reality.

Mud huts, no genders??? Really?

RE: loliberals
By rdawise on 6/19/10, Rating: 0
RE: loliberals
By retrospooty on 6/19/2010 9:16:37 AM , Rating: 2
clearly he has evolved beyond the need to think.

RE: loliberals
By thurston on 6/20/2010 1:59:53 PM , Rating: 2
clearly he has evolved beyond the need to think.

That is funny.

RE: loliberals
By smut on 6/19/10, Rating: 0
RE: loliberals
By Whedonic on 6/20/2010 10:15:19 PM , Rating: 1
You sound a little cranky. Skip breakfast? Go have a nice bowl of dirt.

"If you look at the last five years, if you look at what major innovations have occurred in computing technology, every single one of them came from AMD. Not a single innovation came from Intel." -- AMD CEO Hector Ruiz in 2007

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki