> The liberals will freak! They don't WANT cheap, clean energy...what > Do they want? Hmmmm...
Power is what they want;control.
That's very hard to believe,since Obama is on record saying that he would not allow new nuclear plants without safe storage facilities,and has already cut funding for Yucca Mountain,effectively killing any "safe storage" site in the US.(which is badly and urgently needed)
Obama is also on record for saying he wants energy prices to climb drastically,and that US people need to lower their standard of living.
IMO,that statement is merely a diversion.(another LIE)
>The liberals will freak! They don't WANT cheap, clean energy...what Do they >want? Hmmmm...
They want total control. A fascist/marxist/socialist state. No more, no less.
Gunner
"IMHO, some people here give Jeff far more attention than he deserves, but obviously craves. The most appropriate response, and perhaps the cruelest, IMO, is to simply killfile and ignore him. An alternative, if you must, would be to post the same standard reply to his every post, listing the manifold reasons why he ought to be ignored. Just my $0.02 worth."
> Obama energy czar: Nuclear power integral to America's 'low-carbon > future'
Good. I've got my thermonuclear clothes dryer up and running.
-- Paul Hovnanian mailto:P...@Hovnanian.com ------------------------------------------------------------------ IRS: We've got what it takes to take what you've got.
Buerste wrote: > "Rich Grise" <richgr...@example.net> wrote in message > news:pan.2009.11.02.21.56.36.402354@example.net... >> Obama energy czar: Nuclear power integral to America's 'low-carbon >> future'
> The liberals will freak! They don't WANT cheap, clean energy...what Do they > want? Hmmmm...
I'm not a liberal but I do want cheap, clean energy. As long as they put the nuclear plant right near your house and store the spent uranium there too I'm all for it. Then we can use the new power grid to bring the clean power to me.
On a sunny day (Mon, 02 Nov 2009 20:56:48 -0800) it happened "Paul Hovnanian P.E." <p...@hovnanian.com> wrote in <4AEFB810.81AE2...@hovnanian.com>:
>Rich Grise wrote:
>> Obama energy czar: Nuclear power integral to America's 'low-carbon >> future'
>Good. I've got my thermonuclear clothes dryer up and running.
It seems the nuke industry is now in control of the media, and to boot that, now atacks Al Gore (and makes the pople anti-clean energy) :-) This article was published today, Gore on the defence: 'Gore's Dual Role in Spotlight: Advocate and Investor' http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/03/business/energy-environment/03gore....
Interesting that this comes from the leftists weenies? LOL, see how the media manipulate you? But I am all for nuke power, always was, more people die in coal mining each year then have ever been killed by nuke accidents. Would not go so far as to use the nuke waste for an RTC for everybody on the balcony, but the thought has occurred. If just nobody would drill in it :-)
>-- >Paul Hovnanian mailto:P...@Hovnanian.com >------------------------------------------------------------------ >IRS: We've got what it takes to take what you've got.
If that nuclear industry would be able to deliver :-)
The Areva/Siemens 1600 MW power plant OL3 over here was supposed to be connected to the net this year, but now it appears likely that the connection will occur in 2012.
> Buerste wrote: >> "Rich Grise" <richgr...@example.net> wrote in message >> news:pan.2009.11.02.21.56.36.402354@example.net... >>> Obama energy czar: Nuclear power integral to America's 'low-carbon >>> future'
>> The liberals will freak! They don't WANT cheap, clean energy...what Do >> they want? Hmmmm...
> I'm not a liberal but I do want cheap, clean energy. As long as they put > the nuclear plant right near your house and store the spent uranium there > too I'm all for it. Then we can use the new power grid to bring the clean > power to me.
> Hawke
The French reprocess waste into more fuel. Their waste is almost nothing, they use the fuel differently too. It's said that the waste in a French reactor that would generate power for a family of four for their lives would fit in a tea cup. Obama just killed funding for Yucca Mountain, tell me THAT'S not pure politics! Do some research on the latest technologies.
<davesmith...@digitalpath.net> wrote: >Buerste wrote: >> "Rich Grise" <richgr...@example.net> wrote in message >> news:pan.2009.11.02.21.56.36.402354@example.net... >>> Obama energy czar: Nuclear power integral to America's 'low-carbon >>> future'
>I'm not a liberal but I do want cheap, clean energy. As long as they put >the nuclear plant right near your house and store the spent uranium >there too I'm all for it. Then we can use the new power grid to bring >the clean power to me.
If I lived next door to a nuke plant it would most likely be the least hazardous thing in my life. As of now I'm about 30-40 miles away.
My former job was most likely the most hardazdous. The greedy exec's and the union got that sent to China where they know how to handle hazards, or at least how to hide the bodies.
> On a sunny day (Mon, 02 Nov 2009 20:56:48 -0800) it happened "Paul > Hovnanian > P.E." <p...@hovnanian.com> wrote in <4AEFB810.81AE2...@hovnanian.com>:
>>Rich Grise wrote:
>>> Obama energy czar: Nuclear power integral to America's 'low-carbon >>> future'
>>Good. I've got my thermonuclear clothes dryer up and running.
> It seems the nuke industry is now in control of the media, > and to boot that, now atacks Al Gore > (and makes the pople anti-clean energy) :-) > This article was published today, Gore on the defence: > 'Gore's Dual Role in Spotlight: Advocate and Investor' > http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/03/business/energy-environment/03gore....
> Interesting that this comes from the leftists weenies? LOL, > see how the media manipulate you? > But I am all for nuke power, always was, more people die in coal mining > each year then have ever been killed by nuke accidents.
Add to that, the air pollution that causes some people breathing problems and the mercury in fish caused by coal burning. Someday we will be able to charge our electric cars and reduce our oil imports from the middle east. HOPE Obama can make this CHANGE in the next three years. Then outta there! Mike
> >The liberals will freak! They don't WANT cheap, clean energy...what Do they > >want? Hmmmm...
> They want total control. > A fascist/marxist/socialist state. > No more, no less.
> Gunner
> "IMHO, some people here give Jeff far more attention than he deserves, > but obviously craves. The most appropriate response, and perhaps the > cruelest, IMO, is to simply killfile and ignore him. An alternative, if > you must, would be to post the same standard reply to his every post, > listing the manifold reasons why he ought to be ignored. Just my $0.02 > worth."
Sure, let's completely bankrupt the country. Nothing like a power source that has never paid its own way after 60-70 years of government R&D, requires special exemptions from liability (at taxpayer expense), and has unresolved waste and terrorist-threat issues.
What is it about nuclear power that makes so many so-called libertarians subvert their own values?
If nuclear power is so great, why can't these mega-companies & private enterprise do it without the government subsidies?
On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 12:34:14 +0000, Jan Panteltje wrote: > But I am all for nuke power, always was, more people die in coal mining > each year then have ever been killed by nuke accidents.
More people have been killed in TEDDY KENNEDY'S CAR than have been killed by nuclear power accidents in the US.
> > cassiope <f...@u.washington.edu> wrote in news:0c446b5b-9ce3-4ff1-932e- > > ad1425298...@f1g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
> >> If nuclear power is so great, why can't these mega-companies & private > >> enterprise > >> do it without the government subsidies?
> > Lawsuits.
> what subsidies? > Seems gov't puts more obstacles in their way than hands out subsidies.
> -- > Jim Yanik > jyanik > at > localnet > dot com
Think of all the R&D - that we continue to pay for. All the work developing waste treatment methods & facilities. A large part of the US DoE has, for many years gone towards nuclear energy. And related to "lawsuits" - the US government is - by statute - limits the liability of nuclear power facilities. It doesn't protect the nuclear industry from "little" lawsuits, but if they screw up big-time - you stand to pay for it, not the companies that made the mess. But the nuclear industry tells us they can't proceed without these corporate liability limits. Why is that?
IIRC you are old enough to remember the slogan "to cheap to meter". Yeah, and we'll get all our money back from Bush's TARP program, too.
When we think back to how the US government (mostly through military and space programs) developed technologies that became the basis of the electronics industry -I suspect that most of us would agree that this "investment" paid of well in many ways. Many companies now sell devices and products free of government involvment in their development or production. It's past time for the nuclear power industry to get off the dole.
> If that nuclear industry would be able to deliver :-)
> The Areva/Siemens 1600 MW power plant OL3 over here was supposed to be > connected to the net this year, but now it appears likely that the > connection will occur in 2012.
> Paul
Bad timing. That's when the world is supposed to end.
|
