Books, movies, politics, and whatever I want

Is Obama going Nuclear?

February 13, 2010 – 21:55 | by admin

It seems that our Dear Leader may actually keep one of his promises. According to

The Obama administration’s planned loan guarantee to build the first nuclear power plant in the U.S in almost three decades is part of a broad shift in energy strategy to lessen dependence on foreign oil and reduce the use of other fossil fuels blamed for global warming.

President Barack Obama called for “a new generation of safe, clean nuclear power plants” in his Jan. 27 State of the Union speech and followed that by proposing to triple loan guarantees for new nuclear plants. He wants to use nuclear power and other alternative sources of energy in his effort to shift energy policy.

Obama in the coming week will announce the loan guarantee to build the nuclear power plant, an administration official said Friday. The two new Southern Co. reactors to be built in Burke, Ga., are part of a White House energy plan that administration officials hope will draw Republican support.

Yup, safe, clean nuclear energy. Plentiful electrical energy completely free of greenhouse gases.
Also good for the economy, as Dr. Pournelle stated:

I have to say it again: cheap energy will cause a boom. The only cheap energy I know of is nuclear. Three Hundred Billion bucks in nuclear power will do wonders for the economy. We build 100 1000 MegaWatt nuclear power plants — they will cost no more than 2 billion each and my guess is that the average cost will be closer to 1 billion each (that is the first one costs about 20 billion and the 100th costs about 800 million). The rest of the money goes to prizes and X projects to convert electricity into mobility.

Greenpeace founder Patrick Moore also thinks it is the ecologically sound thing to do.

I am not alone among seasoned environmental activists in changing my mind on this subject. British atmospheric scientist James Lovelock, father of the Gaia theory, believes that nuclear energy is the only way to avoid catastrophic climate change. Stewart Brand, founder of the “Whole Earth Catalog,” says the environmental movement must embrace nuclear energy to wean ourselves from fossil fuels. On occasion, such opinions have been met with excommunication from the anti-nuclear priesthood: The late British Bishop Hugh Montefiore, founder and director of Friends of the Earth, was forced to resign from the group’s board after he wrote a pro-nuclear article in a church newsletter.

Over the past 20 years, one of the simplest tools — the machete — has been used to kill more than a million people in Africa, far more than were killed in the Hiroshima and Nagasaki nuclear bombings combined. What are car bombs made of? Diesel oil, fertilizer and cars. If we banned everything that can be used to kill people, we would never have harnessed fire.

the 103 nuclear plants operating in the United States effectively avoid the release of 700 million tons of CO2emissions annually — the equivalent of the exhaust from more than 100 million automobiles. Imagine if the ratio of coal to nuclear were reversed so that only 20 percent of our electricity was generated from coal and 60 percent from nuclear. This would go a long way toward cleaning the air and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Every responsible environmentalist should support a move in that direction.

Tags: , , , ,

Related Post

Put Your Related Post Plugin Code Here :)
  1. 3 Responses to “Is Obama going Nuclear?”

  2. By Leslie Bates on Feb 14, 2010 | Reply

    The cooling systems of nuclear power stations generate water vapor. Water vapor is known to have environment altering effects and is claimed by some to also be a greenhouse gas. This will be used as an excuse for halting the construction of nuclear power plants.

    But as we all know, the maximum effective range of an excuse is zero.

  3. By Mark Urbin on Feb 14, 2010 | Reply

    There you go again, inserting facts into the “climate change/global warming” debate.

    Yes, water vapor is the most common greenhouse gas by far. It is produced by hydrogen powered fuel cells as well.

    There is no graft involved in trying regulate water vapor though.

    The main problem with our Dear Leader’s nuclear plan is that it only two plants. Fifty or more would make it possible to start taking coal and natural gas electrical power plants off line. Not only does a large number of nuclear power plants provide a more favorable environment for electric or plug in hybrid cars, it frees up natural gas as a source of vehicle fuel and coal for conversion to vehicle fuel.

    Not only is building new nuclear power plants environmentally and economically sound, it makes good sense for natural security as well, since it reduces out dependence on oil from countries run by dictators who are fundamentally opposed to the American system of government.

  4. By Leslie Bates on Feb 15, 2010 | Reply

    There you go again, actually thinking about actual consequences…

Post a Comment