Comments on: Obama: Nuclear Power OK For Enemies but Not For US?

By: GreyCloak

GreyCloak — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 06:26:46 +0000

Germany, held at bay by the same eco-antis as the US, currently plans to be no-nuke within thirty years.

France, on the other hand is expanding its nuclear power generation capabilities. Over 75% of their electricity is nuclear.

As Germany finds that it is unable to provide its own needs with wind-power and other eco-friendly methods, I have heard that Germany may have to buy power from France, and agree to store French waste. There have been many protests over waste storage in Germany … its own waste is processed in France/Belgium and returned … because Germany has no processing facilities of its own.

By: Xasteius

Xasteius — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 23:32:06 +0000

2nd link here.

http://www.redstate.com/settingsun/2009/05/06/republicans-to-obama-where-is-the-science-behind-your-yucca-mountain-decision/#comment-139

By: Xasteius

Xasteius — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 23:31:23 +0000

and current license for YM stinks IMO

By: Xasteius

Xasteius — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 14:31:18 +0000

AREVA has made their not-so-secret company goal of taking over the nuclear industry.

By: GreyCloak

GreyCloak — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 07:31:09 +0000

The tax put on everybody for Yucca Mountain still has an $18 billion surplus. Congress took the money and never spent it for the purpose for which it was intended.

Yucca Mountain is actually ready to accept waste, but Congress won’t let it. Meanwhile, the products intended for disposal are sitting in concrete containers or pools of water all over the United States.

We stopped research on recycling fuel rods or using “spent” fuel to create “new” fuel thirty years ago.

Meanwhile, even France generates over 75% of its electricity from nuclear plants … and the Japanese now own one of the two US companies that were once able to make nuclear plants.

By: GreyCloak

GreyCloak — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 07:23:22 +0000

Clinton agreed to send oil to North Korea to help with electricity production until they could build nuclear plants. But he never followed through: the first contracts for designing North Korea's nuclear power plants were not issued until 2000.

By: GreyCloak

GreyCloak — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 07:18:21 +0000

Ayup … although a study of fish near the oldest [Dresden] commercial nuclear plant near Chicago showed that not only had they not developed extra heads, but were actually thriving in the warm waters created by the plant.

By: jeepnpat1

jeepnpat1 — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 03:27:20 +0000

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/03/us/03nuke.html?_r=2&ref=global-home&pagewanted=all

Of course because we have inept people releasing information.

By: redneck_hippie

redneck_hippie — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 01:40:38 +0000

By: kyle8

kyle8 — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 01:29:05 +0000

could use that old “waste” as fuel.

By: carlsbadd

carlsbadd — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 01:25:56 +0000

12+ billion in tax payer money (directly ot through energy fee’s from nuclear power plants) And the enviro nuts and fighting tooth and nail to keep it closed forever.
We can’t reuse our spent supplies like other countries to “re-fuel ” current plants due to security reasons. Nuclear waste is guarded almost as well as Fort Knox

Clean, renewable and produces no CO2 and our country refuses to build more, insanity at it’s best.

By: izoneguy

izoneguy — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 00:54:54 +0000

The emperor has no brains

By: civil_truth

civil_truth — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 22:34:06 +0000

..surely net importers of oil and gas have an even stronger need for nuclear power.

This is where Obama’s position breaks down on logic – and becomes an attempt to cripple and perhaps destroy our economy – and blame it on the next administration (if they’re Republicans), since it will take some years for the effects to become dominant,

By: E Pluribus Unum

E Pluribus Unum — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 22:25:02 +0000

LOL!

By: NightTwister

NightTwister — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 22:16:02 +0000

It’ll definitely be an issue in the Senate and CO-4 races in 2010.

By: deevee

deevee — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 22:02:51 +0000

It was the Clinton administration in 1994 that secured “not hostile” North Korea nuclear capability http://download.premiereradio.net/guest/rushlimb/pdf/nailing.pdf , for electricity they claimed, but hey, they were only “cheating”.

Same with Iran “a nation that claims it needs nuclear power for domestic energy” , only the naive would believe.

Why do they get nuclear energy and we get third world, 20% efficient, expensive windmills, you might light a bulb, not power an industrial nation.

By: gekster

gekster — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 21:07:02 +0000

By: evanm

evanm — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 21:06:57 +0000

My second way: How is it okay for our enemies to develop nuclear technology, but not okay for our allies to develop settlements?

By: kyle8

kyle8 — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 21:03:17 +0000

when unemployment and inflation are in high double digits and gas is over $5.00 a gallon.

It’s coming, soon.

By: leonidas

leonidas — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 20:56:56 +0000

This is an outrageous policy and we and our friends will suffer mightily for it.

Obama does not put the interests of the United States first and that is a truly frightening fact.

When will Americans in large numbers realize this? When something truly awful happens again??