Home | Community | Message Board


Myco Supply
Please support our sponsors.

General Interest >> Political Discussion

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Amazon Shop for: Portable Greenhouse

Jump to first unread post. Pages: 1 | 2 | Next >  [ show all ]
Offlinelonestar2004
Live to party,work to affordit.
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/03/04
Posts: 8,978
Loc: South Texas
Last seen: 5 years, 10 months
Bush: U.S. needs more nuclear power plants.
    #4325697 - 06/22/05 06:29 PM (11 years, 8 months ago)

Bush: U.S. needs more nuclear power plants

By NEDRA PICKLER
ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER


President Bush, center, tours the control room of Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant with Mayo Shattuck, chairman, president, and CEO of Constellation Energy, left, and Eric Nehf, control room operator, right, in Lusby, Md., Wednesday, June 22, 2005. President Bush later spoke about energy and economic security at the facility. (AP Photo/Charles Dharapak)
LUSBY, Md. -- Pushing for the construction of nuclear power plants, President Bush on Wednesday pressed Congress to send him an energy bill, though he acknowledged that even when he signs the legislation, gasoline prices at the pump won't fall overnight.

Bush is promoting nuclear power as a way to take the pressure off fossil fuels - oil, natural gas and coal.

"It's time for this country to start building nuclear power plants again," said Bush, who noted that while the U.S. gets 20 percent of its electricity from nuclear reactors, France meets 78 percent of its electricity needs with nuclear power.

While Bush's speech was focused on energy, he also spoke about economic concerns like Social Security, medical liability insurance, education, permanent tax relief and trade. It was part of a White House effort to focus on economic security for Americans as well as national security in the war on terrorism.

"Listen, I understand parts of our country are still struggling from the effects of the recession and the attacks," he said, ticking off Americans' worries about jobs going overseas and the need to learn new skills, health care costs and retirement security.

"So even though the numbers are still good, there are still worries out there in the country," Bush said.

"We're not taking the good numbers for granted - we're moving aggressively with a pro-growth, pro-worker set of economic policies that will enhance economic security in this country."

Before he spoke, Bush, wearing a white hard hat and shirt sleeves, walked through the plant's sweltering turbine building and its control room, where he thanked workers for "taking time to explain all the dials and gauges." Executives from the plant, operated by Constellation Energy Group Inc., also showed Bush their confidential plans for building a third reactor onsite - if they can get a federal license.



Calvert Cliffs is a candidate for the construction of the first nuclear energy reactor in the United States in 30 years. It is one of six sites that a consortium of nuclear power companies, including the Baltimore-based Constellation Energy, is considering as a location for a new type of advanced reactor.

"The energy bill will help us expand our use of the one energy source that is completely domestic, plentiful in quantity, environmentally friendly and able to generate massive amounts of electricity and that's nuclear power," Bush said.

"I look forward to signing that bill and it's going to be an important part of developing a national energy strategy," he said. "I recognize, and you recognize that when I sign that bill, your gasoline prices aren't going to drop. This problem has been long in the making."

Not since 1973 has an order been placed for a new reactor. Two events helped end, for a time, any U.S. interest in reactors beyond those already under construction: the partial meltdown at Three Mile Island nuclear plant in Pennsylvania in 1979 and the 1986 explosion at the Chernobyl plant in the Ukraine.

Even some environmentalists have abandoned their opposition to nuclear power, arguing it is needed to address climate change because reactors do not produce "greenhouse" gases as do fossil fuels. Other environmentalists are not convinced, citing worries about reactor waste and safety.

Without some government help, no new reactors are likely to be built before 2025, according to the Energy Information Agency, the government's energy statistical agency. Congress is considering loan guarantees for new-design reactors, and lawmakers are expected to come up with other tax breaks. But a Bush proposal to provide "risk insurance" to protect the industry against licensing or legal delays has attracted little interest on Capitol Hill.
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/a...Nuclear%20Power


--------------------
America's debt problem is a "sign of leadership failure"

We have "reckless fiscal policies"

America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership.

Americans deserve better

Barack Obama


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisibleluvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,050
Loc: Lost In Space
Re: Bush: U.S. needs more nuclear power plants. [Re: lonestar2004]
    #4327568 - 06/23/05 06:15 AM (11 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:


Bush: U.S. needs more nuclear power plants



He's right.


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineGazzBut
Refraction

Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,770
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 4 days, 13 hours
Re: Bush: U.S. needs more nuclear power plants. [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #4327654 - 06/23/05 07:38 AM (11 years, 8 months ago)

My god! I agree with Bush and Luvdemshrooms WTF is going on????  :smile:


--------------------
Always Smi2le


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineSeussA
Error: divide byzero

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 1 month, 23 days
Re: Bush: U.S. needs more nuclear power plants. [Re: GazzBut]
    #4327859 - 06/23/05 10:46 AM (11 years, 8 months ago)

>> Bush: U.S. needs more nuclear power plants
> He's right.
> My god! I agree with Bush and Luvdemshrooms WTF is going on?

Hehe... three wrongs.  :smile:

We need money for research of renewable energy sources that do not pollute, not more fission based nuclear power plants.  I have nothing against nuclear power, as long as it isn't fission based... unfortunately, this technology does not yet exist.  Perhaps we should invest in education and methods to reduce waste rather than spending money on plants to satisfy our hunger and produce even more waste.


--------------------
Just another spore in the wind.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 2 years, 1 month
Re: Bush: U.S. needs more nuclear power plants. [Re: Seuss]
    #4327866 - 06/23/05 10:53 AM (11 years, 8 months ago)

Bush, LDS, and GazzBut are right. Seuss is wrong.



Phred


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleGijith
Daisy Chain Eater

Registered: 12/04/03
Posts: 2,400
Loc: New York
Re: Bush: U.S. needs more nuclear power plants. [Re: lonestar2004]
    #4328083 - 06/23/05 12:44 PM (11 years, 8 months ago)

This seems cool to me. My only concern is that the financial help Washington is granting could be better spent. It takes a long time to build a reactor and a functional plant. Wind power continues to become more cost efficient, due to advancing technology and scaling techniques. It wouldn't suprise me if wind power was a better alternative by the time these plants were opperational. And Yucca Mountain ain't cheap.

It's hard to make policy based on estimation though. So, yeah, seems cool.

Though, Phred, I'm suprised to see you piling on. I thought you were some sort of advocate of the laissez-faire.


--------------------
what's with neocons and the word 'ilk'?


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 2 years, 1 month
Re: Bush: U.S. needs more nuclear power plants. [Re: Gijith]
    #4328178 - 06/23/05 01:08 PM (11 years, 8 months ago)

I am indeed an advocate of laissez-faire. That's why I approve of the government getting out of the way of corporations wishing to build new nuke generating stations.

As you are undoubtedly aware, the greatest amount of time (and money) expended on building a new nuke plant is used in dealing with the endless reviews, commissions, panels, and interminable court challenges and re-challenges and re-re-challenges and appeal of the re-re-challenges brought by enviro-whackos against the builders. Anything the government does to reduce this obstructionism is a step in the right direction in my view.



Phred


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineGazzBut
Refraction

Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,770
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 4 days, 13 hours
Re: Bush: U.S. needs more nuclear power plants. [Re: Phred]
    #4328855 - 06/23/05 04:21 PM (11 years, 8 months ago)

Thanks for the bold type it makes me feel kinda important!  :smile:


--------------------
Always Smi2le


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 2 years, 1 month
Re: Bush: U.S. needs more nuclear power plants. [Re: GazzBut]
    #4328924 - 06/23/05 04:41 PM (11 years, 8 months ago)

What bold type? Your name isn't in bold type.


Phred


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineGazzBut
Refraction

Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,770
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 4 days, 13 hours
Re: Bush: U.S. needs more nuclear power plants. [Re: Phred]
    #4328931 - 06/23/05 04:44 PM (11 years, 8 months ago)

Lol it was a minute ago!


--------------------
Always Smi2le


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 2 years, 1 month
Re: Bush: U.S. needs more nuclear power plants. [Re: GazzBut]
    #4328987 - 06/23/05 04:57 PM (11 years, 8 months ago)

Were you using the search function, by any chance?


Phred


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleGijith
Daisy Chain Eater

Registered: 12/04/03
Posts: 2,400
Loc: New York
Re: Bush: U.S. needs more nuclear power plants. [Re: Phred]
    #4329063 - 06/23/05 05:20 PM (11 years, 8 months ago)

I agree with you. But isn't the whole laissez-faire notion that companies should be able to compete on equal footing?

By the way, lay off the enviro-whackos.


--------------------
what's with neocons and the word 'ilk'?


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisibleafoaf
CEO DBK?
 User Gallery

Registered: 11/08/02
Posts: 32,665
Loc: Ripple's Heart
Re: Bush: U.S. needs more nuclear power plants. [Re: lonestar2004]
    #4329101 - 06/23/05 05:30 PM (11 years, 8 months ago)

I don't know if I necessarily agree with nuclear power
as a good path to travel down.

They generate an excessive amount of waste that is
extremely dangerous over VERY long periods of time.
Furthermore, in this day and age, do we really need
to be putting up huge Achilles Heels across the US?

It's already been pointed out just how unsecure our
existing nuclear infrastructure is...it just seems dangerous
to build bigger and bigger targets that don't have net
positive benefit.


--------------------
All I know is The Growery is a place where losers who get banned here go.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleSilversoul
Rhizome
Male User Gallery

Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
Re: Bush: U.S. needs more nuclear power plants. [Re: afoaf]
    #4329130 - 06/23/05 05:40 PM (11 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

afoaf said:
I don't know if I necessarily agree with nuclear power
as a good path to travel down.

They generate an excessive amount of waste that is
extremely dangerous over VERY long periods of time.
Furthermore, in this day and age, do we really need
to be putting up huge Achilles Heels across the US?

It's already been pointed out just how unsecure our
existing nuclear infrastructure is...it just seems dangerous
to build bigger and bigger targets that don't have net
positive benefit.



Agreed. While we do need to move away from fossil fuels, I think nuclear energy is too costly for the short-term benefit it provides. As Gijith pointed out, wind energy is getting increasingly efficient, and would probably be a much better alternative by the time these nuclear plants are built. I think we can hold out until then. I also see autonomous building techniques, such as solar roofs, being widely implemented in the near future.


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleDieCommie
Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 28,071
Re: Bush: U.S. needs more nuclear power plants. [Re: lonestar2004]
    #4329148 - 06/23/05 05:45 PM (11 years, 8 months ago)

Nuclear Fission is the way to go. :thumbup:

Although waste stays dangerous for "very" long periods of time, Yucca Mountain would store waste safley long after the waste decays to safe levels.    A hundred thousand years seems like a long time period for us, but its not from a geological standpoint.  It will take millions of years for the earth to reform itself and expose a deep geological repository.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleGijith
Daisy Chain Eater

Registered: 12/04/03
Posts: 2,400
Loc: New York
Re: Bush: U.S. needs more nuclear power plants. [Re: DieCommie]
    #4329183 - 06/23/05 05:59 PM (11 years, 8 months ago)

:thumbup:

But this is assuming they do Yucca as it needs to be done!
If they start trimming the funding I'm going to flip out. The geology seems good, based on the reports I've seen. What's worrisome is that the government is underfunding the transportation, which is crucial. Moving this stuff around is very dangerous. If new rail systems need to be constructed to avoid moving the shipments through major cities, so be it. I think taxpayers would gladly lay down money for that. Atlanta, Chicago, my dear dirty Buffalo, Salt Lake City and, of course, Las Vegas, would all have waste going through their metropolitan areas. Not cool.


--------------------
what's with neocons and the word 'ilk'?


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 2 years, 1 month
Re: Bush: U.S. needs more nuclear power plants. [Re: Gijith]
    #4329203 - 06/23/05 06:06 PM (11 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

But isn't the whole laissez-faire notion that companies should be able to compete on equal footing?




It is indeed. This is why I favor the government getting out of the way of those who wish to build nuke plants. I don't even ask that they stop giving preferential treatment (subsidies, tax breaks) to other energy companies looking at solar or tidal or wind or fuel cell or whatever technologies. They should of course instantly stop all of those subsidies but I realize they never will -- it's enough of a start for me that they simply cease co-operating with the obstructionist enviro-whackos.

What's your objection to my excoriation of the enviro-whackos, by the way? From the posts you've made here you're far from one yourself. Do you have friends or relatives who are enviro-whackos, perhaps?


Phred


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleGijith
Daisy Chain Eater

Registered: 12/04/03
Posts: 2,400
Loc: New York
Re: Bush: U.S. needs more nuclear power plants. [Re: Phred]
    #4329225 - 06/23/05 06:14 PM (11 years, 8 months ago)

Clarified. As long as you're aware that the breaks aren't being evenly distributed.

I'm not entirely sure what makes someone an 'enviro-whacko' or a 'libbie' for that matter, but I know I'm regularly considered both.


--------------------
what's with neocons and the word 'ilk'?


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleDieCommie
Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 28,071
Re: Bush: U.S. needs more nuclear power plants. [Re: Gijith]
    #4329233 - 06/23/05 06:18 PM (11 years, 8 months ago)

Quote:

Gijith said:Moving this stuff around is very dangerous.


I disagree. Ive seen the trials they did on the casks which contain the waste. Those things are strong as hell.

The engineers job was to try and break them, and they couldnt do it. They impacted them with fully loaded trains, and they didnt break. They dropped them on to a small I-beam in an attempt to puncture them and they couldnt. They engulfed them in jet fuel and immoliated them for an hour and a half and they integrity was never comprimised. I would feel safe with those casks bieng transported near my home for sure.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 2 years, 1 month
Re: Bush: U.S. needs more nuclear power plants. [Re: DieCommie]
    #4329256 - 06/23/05 06:25 PM (11 years, 8 months ago)

I believe Gijith may have been referring not just to the structural integrity of the casks themselves but also to the possibility of them becoming targets for terrorist attacks or thefts.

If that was what he meant, might I suggest that the shipments be accompanied by armed detachments of National Guardsmen? Let's face it, in the past the National Guard has been called into service for less critical missions than guarding the transport of nuclear materials.


Phred


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Jump to top. Pages: 1 | 2 | Next >  [ show all ]

Amazon Shop for: Portable Greenhouse

General Interest >> Political Discussion

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Nuclear Power Plants -- Shut ' em down or build even more?
( 1 2 all )
AsanteA 2,625 24 09/10/05 04:40 PM
by Asante
* Russia delays start-up of Iran nuclear power plant by one ye wingnutx 528 1 10/13/03 09:08 PM
by lysergic
* Heretical Position On Nuclear Power
( 1 2 all )
Luddite 3,116 38 04/22/08 06:59 AM
by Seuss
* Should we give the United Arab Emirates our nuclear power secrets? Coaster 640 14 05/01/09 09:32 AM
by Prisoner#1
* Venezuela to seek Nuclear Power with Iran's Help.
( 1 2 all )
lonestar2004 1,720 21 05/25/05 03:04 PM
by Vvellum
* John McCain calls for 700+ new nuclear plants costing $4 trillion
( 1 2 all )
lonestar2004 3,333 31 05/24/08 05:28 AM
by Seuss
* Going Nuclear Again
( 1 2 all )
lonestar2004 1,495 33 11/15/04 03:25 PM
by BleaK
* Nuclear revival
( 1 2 3 4 all )
JesusChrist 4,027 63 04/01/05 03:50 PM
by Baby_Hitler

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Prisoner#1, Enlil
2,418 topic views. 0 members, 4 guests and 7 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Toggle Favorite | Print Topic | Stats ]
Search this thread:
Everything Mushrooms
Please support our sponsors.

Copyright 1997-2017 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.091 seconds spending 0.003 seconds on 16 queries.