Secretary Chu: Obama Still Supports Expanding Nuclear Plants In The U.S.

Source: ABC

Secretary Chu: Obama Still Supports Expanding Nuclear Plants In The U.S.


Despite the ongoing nuclear crisis in Japan, President Obama continues to support nuclear power and the construction of new reactors in the U.S., Energy Secretary Steven Chu said this morning on Capitol Hill.

At a House Energy and Commerce Committee hearing, Rep. Joe Barton, R-Tex., asked Chu where the president stands and whether he still supports a “rebirth” of nuclear power in the United States.

“The president and the administration believe we have to be looking very, very closely at the events in Japan. We have to apply whatever lessons that can be and will be learned from what has happened and what is happening in Japan,” Chu explained. “Those lessons would then be applied to first look at our current existing fleet of reactors, to make sure that they can be used safely and… how as one proceeds forward, any lessons learned can be applied.”

“It would be premature to say anything other than we will use this opportunity to learn as best we can,” he said.

<snip>


Read more: http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2011/03/secretary-chu-obama-still-supports-expanding-nuclear-plants-in-the-us.html

Appalling, really...

The shame. :sarcasm:

completely off your radar, not in your energy lexicon, has been noted.

That was the entire mantra of the anti-nuclear crusade back in the 1970s and 1980s. Let's ignore it, wind and solar will save us. The net result is that we get much less than 1% of our electricity needs--not even total energy, just electricity--from solar and wind. Even some of the people who helped kill nuclear development back then, like the founder of Greenpeace, admit now that they were absolutely wrong to do so. And yet, some people seem to feel we need to keep doing the same thing over and over again, expecting that when we finally build enough wind and solar power to make a difference, that we won't have completely rendered the planet uninhabitable with coal and oil in the meantime.

and it's the latter I was referring to ... oh snap ... I forgot ... Obama just said in the face of Japanese nuke disaster that he still wants to build more and more nuke plants. never mind.

Everyone assumes that if we just pushed hard enough on solar and wind, it will take care of everything. But speaking as someone who's run the numbers on that, it's simply not there. If we want to stop creating a climate catastrophe, we need ALL the greenhouse-free options, right now.

but apparently that learning will not even include the consideration of possibly maybe replacing nuclear power with anything, ANYTHING else.

It is difficult to learn anything at all when one already has one's mind made up that one has all the answers.



Tansy Gold

Using nuclear power to boil water is about the dirtiest, most expensive, most dangerous possible way to do that.

So why do they do it? Cause the government will give you large bucks, accept all liabilities, and give you a machine that basically prints money.

If we gave wind and solar 1% of the money spent on nuclear, we'd be complete by now.

BTW, wind supplied 25% of the total electric needs of Texas last October and November...

Sorry. Inconvenient facts.

it is convenient?

Thanks. Save me search time

Renewable energy subsidies are currently $7 billion a year, proposed to be raised to $15 billion a year.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Energy_For_America

Nuclear subsidies total $500 million for the next two new plants, and $250 million for the four plants after that, total $2 billion dollars.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Power_2010_Program

Large-scale wind-generated electricity has been going on in the US since before we even knew you COULD split the atom.

And no, I'm describing the complete subsidies granted in the most current law. Those subsidies for the next six online plants ARE the entire field.

that never passed, right?

And your second is for just 4 new plants, not counting all the rest in operation which continue to be subsidized from start to finish.

In my backyard alone, the Texas state government agreed to accept all liability and financial encumbrance if the privately owned waste dump at Andrews ever leaks, and furthermore, the folks in Andrews passed a bond issue to loan billionaire Harold Simmons the money at better interest than he could borrow elsewhere. And yes, waste disposal is part of the cost of nuclear plants.

Didn't read the report on nuclear subsidies that shows it would have cost less to buy electricity on the open market and give it away than to have spent what he have on nuclear plants, did you?

here it is: http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear_power/nuclear_power_and_global_warming/nuclear-power-subsidies-report.html

What part of that wasn't clear?

And no, there are no subsidies for existing plants. While both state and federal government accept ultimate liability, that has never actually been used or invoked for any reason.

In any event, you are citing as "proof" an anti-nuclear group known for shading their data. Please provide independent proof of your claim, or retract.

Less than nukes, oil, and coal combined.

of the value of the electricity produced.

http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear_power/nuclear_power_and_global_warming/nuclear-power-subsidies-report.html

Government subsidies to the nuclear power industry over the past fifty years have been so large in proportion to the value of the energy produced that in some cases it would have cost taxpayers less to simply buy kilowatts on the open market and give them away, according to a February 2011 report by the Union of Concerned Scientists.

The report, Nuclear Power: Still Not Viable without Subsidies, looks at the economic impacts and policy implications of subsidies to the nuclear power industry—past, present, and proposed.


Very good stuff at the link. These are actual inconvenient facts.

Or is it simply the convenient presentation of a thin slice of the facts to support a position?

I think that when there are public hearings, the outcry will be so great they won't dare build any more.

...clearly doesn't work.

campaign appearance in Iowa yesterday. :banghead:

STFU for now. No one wants to hear this when concern is at such an incredible level.

Jesus! Totally clueless, is this administration when it comes to messaging

Wrong message, wrong delivery and wrong timing. 0 for 3

Might as well post a radiation danger sign with the word "Hope" printed across it.

Once again, Mr. President, you can color me unimpressed. I don't think you are nearly as smart as you seem to think you are. You seem to believe a lot of bad adivce.

...go hand in hand. Mankind abounds in it.

- A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.......

K&R

As to arrogance, STFU, ya fucking liberal retard.

and still manage to fail the final exam.

Who thinks he'll "learn" from this?

It's always the same - follow the money.

and I do not like what the hell I see, capitalism is killing us

Shame on you, Barack Obama. Corporate shill. This is what happens when you put CEOs in charge of your administration.

They need to change the slogan on the bumper stickers - "Win the Future - And Buy Duct Tape!"

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I don't see stupidity, naivete or insanity, except maybe on the part of folk who really believe that we're better briefed than the POTUS or that dummies become editor in chief of Harvard Law Review or run the campaigns Obama ran.