The Progressive: "President Obama must be regretting his Pollyannish view of nuclear power ...."

Calamity Reveals Folly of Nuclear Power
By Amitabh Pal
Managing Editor of The Progressive
March 14, 2011

The unfolding nuclear calamity shows us how misguided the domestic and global push for nuclear power has been. Among the culprits is none other than President Obama.

“President Obama’s fiscal year 2012 budget outlines a plan for reviving the country’s nuclear power industry, calling for $36 billion in government-backed loan guarantees for new nuclear reactors and setting aside more than $800 million for nuclear energy research,” The Hill reported last month. “Obama has said that nuclear power is a key component of the country’s energy future.”

He must be regretting his Pollyannaish view of nuclear power, though there seems to be a reluctance to officially admit a fundamental rethink on the issue.

It’s too bad that it takes a disaster of this magnitude to teach us the risks associated with nuclear energy. Those risks are way too high. We have no future with nuclear power.

Read the full article at:

http://www.progressive.org/ap031411.html

then I can't imagine he would regret this one.

Welcome to DU, by the way. :hi:

when the information changed? Obama needs to change his stance on this.

:shrug:

to be as safe as possible. We need to find the end of the
Japan's problem before we try to take any action. We need
to know what really happened.

Nuclear power has always been a disaster waiting to happen.

Unfortunately, unlike some kinds of accidents, the aftermath of a nuclear one is long lasting and devastating.

Or appointing Wall St. to his cabinet/staff/everything.

nothing at all.

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

that nuclear energy isn't as safe as we've been hearing of late from many sources including the administration. This is happening right now in a country as technologically advanced as the U.S. using state of the art safety systems, not the rotting from the core USSR of 25 years ago. The debate about going forward with nuke energy isn't solely the safety of nuclear vs. fossil. It's the expense of nuclear energy and the opportunity costs of investing in nuclear energy at the expense of renewable energy.