Obama budget exposes nuclear lie
In his State of the Union Address, President Obama purported to reach across the aisle by endorsing a “new generation of safe, clean nuclear power plants”…before pushing cap and trade.
The nearly $4 trillion budget he released today exposes his nuclear lie.
It zeroes out funds for the besieged Yucca Mountain nuclear storage facility in Nevada — one of the few, prominent Obama campaign pledges that he looks like he’s actually fulfilling:
President Barack Obama will propose eliminating funding for the Yucca Mountain project in a new budget he will submit to Congress on Monday, according to Nevada lawmakers who were notified over the weekend.
The White House also said it will take steps “in the near future” to withdraw a pending license application to build the long-planned nuclear waste repository, which could be a decisive move in ending the government’s 23-year focus on developing the Nevada site for radioactive waste storage and disposal.
Coupled with the formation Friday of a blue ribbon commission to study nuclear waste management, officials said the budget will underscore Obama’s “commitment to pursuing a responsible, long-term strategy” for handling waste generated by nuclear utilities and government defense agencies.
The plan also would fulfill an Obama campaign promise to end the Yucca Mountain program, which has been unpopular with many Nevadans and the state’s top leaders.
“This is great news,” said Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., who has consulted with Obama on an exit strategy for Yucca Mountain.
“President Obama is keeping his word to Nevada and I thank him for working with me as we try to find a safer solution for dealing with the nation’s nuclear waste,” Reid said in a statement.
“This budget is a bulldozer that will help Nevada flatten Yucca Mountain into a permanent pile of rubble,” said Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev.
Energy Secretary Steven Chu and eco-czar Carol Browner are also dancing on Yucca’s grave — and will oversee a toothless new panel to come up with something better. Paralysis by analysis. As Brian Sussman points out, we already had an alternative:
Following the State of the Union, in a conference call with reporters on the same day the nuclear financing plan was unveiled, Energy Secretary Steven Chu announced the creation of a special panel to find a solution for storing nuclear waste.
Problem is, we had a solution — Yucca Mountain. But it’s on the president’s no-fund list.
The Obama Fail blog draws parallels to the Gitmo debacle:
In his first week in office, President Obama signed an executive order promising to close Guantanamo Bay within one year. It hasn’t happened and there is no indication it will happen anytime soon. Here’s how it breaks down:
1. Make a bold announcement
2. Do nothing
3. Blame someone else when #1 fails to happenThis is exactly what is happening with nuclear energy. Americans are supposed to feel some sort of pride that “we can do better”…Furthermore, we will figure out exactly where to store spent nuclear material, even though there are no options presently on the table. But we are Americans so you just have to believe that it will be sorted out. And when it is all finally sorted out, then President Obama can get around to building all those new power plants.
Ain’t. Gonna. Happen.
***
The budget includes loan guarantees of more than $54 billion for nuclear energy firms — but the feds haven’t approved a new application for a reactor in more than two decades.
False hope, chump change.
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
 |
Electric Cars in China May Be Worse for the Environment Than Gas-Powered Cars
February 13, 2012 04:21 PM by Doug Powers
48 Comments
Reminder: Global Warming Still Going to Cause Chocolate Shortage
February 11, 2012 02:31 PM by Doug Powers
34 Comments
Nancy Pelosi Explains Why Obama Flip-Flopped on Super PACs
February 9, 2012 10:08 PM by Doug Powers
50 Comments
Report: Solyndra Sold Assets Cheap to Entity with Close Ties to Investors
February 9, 2012 10:08 AM by Doug Powers
49 CommentsFormer Democrat Rep. Regrets Vote for Obamacare Due to Contraceptive Coverage
February 7, 2012 03:40 PM by Doug Powers
75 Comments
Middle Class Payroll Tax Cut Extension Comes Courtesy of Mortgage Fees on Home Buyers
February 6, 2012 01:36 PM by Doug Powers
35 CommentsConcrete Evidence Man is Causing Glacier Retreat
February 2, 2012 03:07 PM by Doug Powers
68 Comments
Hiring Spree in NYC
February 1, 2012 02:47 PM by Doug Powers
43 CommentsMr. and Mrs. Cranky Pants
January 27, 2012 10:35 AM by Michelle Malkin
138 Comments
Categories: Barack Obama,Enviro-nitwits,Harry Reid
Pundit & Pundette
» Bishop Jenky, Nicki Minaj, and the "98%"Sister Toldjah
» Obama’s new budget is a bad jokeJustOneMinute
» We Hear From The Department Of Good Ideas And False Choices
I could right away he was lying in his SOTU address. His blue lips were moving.
“Could tell”
Number 2 is preferable to the alternative, when it comes to his agenda.
zero is a liar and anyone watching the bogus sotu joke address should have been able to see through the bs. lying is a zero way of life.
I wish some of these people had taken science classes during their educations.
The danger with Yucca never merited the efforts against it.
It’s a pity that they rely on environmentalists for analysis on these issues.
Par for the course. Screw up the entire country in an attempt to insure that a couple Democrats can keep their seats in Congress.
The logical alternative to Yucca Mountain is what? We could overrun Iran and store it all there.
Hmmmmmmm…. maybe I am on to something.
I don’t trust BHO 99% of the time. My 1% is asking if he plans a long range nuclear power solution, using the French method of reusing the majority of spent waste. (???)
Since the nation now needs a nuclear storage facility, may I suggest Washington D.C. It’s not like anything up there is actually benefiting the nation.
I can’t recall how many millions have already been spent on Yucca Mountain. Surely reopening it now would qualify as a “shovel-ready” project.
with the rest of the ‘spent rods’.
That’s what you do when you don’t know how to handle a problem, want it to go away, and show that you’re doing “something” about the problem, if asked.
That was killed during the Carter years. Obama has already told the nuclear power industry they will not be re-imbursed for their loses (hundreds of millions of dollars) resulting from the Yucca Mountain cancellation. The man is a destroyer and anyone who thinks he is going quietly into retirement after 2012 (presuming he is defeated in the election and presuming the election is held) is gravely mistaken. He is just warming up.
Gladz,
I’m positive Obama does not know enough about nuclear power to even be aware of something like this. He could not have a 5 minute factual conversation about nuclear power, or any other technical subject unless it was filled with environmental-liberal dogmas. Somebody that thinks caulking windows and blowing insulation in the attic are high tech-green jobs probably isn’t exactly a rocket scientist.
You must read this issue of Imprimus from Hillsdale College. It’s about terrestrial (or nuclear) energy. It explains just how clean and safe nuclear energy is and how unsafe and unclean coal is. But the libtards don’t get it because, as Ann Coulter put it, they think Jane Fonda’s movie The China Syndrome is hard science.
The author explains the faults with the Soviet (you know, socialism?) reactor at Chernobyl and why it was so unsafe.
France gets about 80% of it’s energy from nuclear. Japan, which is the only country to be “nuked” also gets about 80% of it’s energy from nuclear. Why? So they aren’t beholden to the rest of the world for coal or to the jihadis or the socialist dictators for oil. Duh!
The U.S. is intelligent enough to use nuclear. Unfortunately, we have liberals in this country; which means intelligence doesn’t enter into the argument.
Perfect!
He wants to be another FDR: all powerful and president for life.
Didn’t I just hear that Georgia is currently building two nuclear plants? And what is wrong with recycling the waste? Doesn’t France do that? And isn’t it working for them? What am I missing here? Why do I sound like zzzzzyyyyzzzz with all my questions? Don’t answer that!
Pawn this off to a panel? Do nothing? Lie in a speech?
Hello! White House correspondents/WDC reporters, Major Garrett … Jack Tapper … Ask questions will ya???
I believe the money spent on Yucca Mountain is in the billions. It’s a friggen 1000 ft. deep hole in the middle of the desert. Absolutely no reason why it shouldn’t be used. The alternative of storing thousands of spent fuel assemblies in far less secure facilities at over 60 plant sites around the country is far more hazardous than storing and monitoring it in a 2 billion dollar facility designed for that purpose.
More lies and deceit from the liar-in-chief.
The budget includes loan guarantees of more than $54 billion for nuclear energy firms — but the feds haven’t approved a new application for a reactor in more than two decades.
Has Pres Obama been denying applications for new reactors for the past twenty years?
If this is paralysis by analysis why provide loan gaurantees? A consistent policy would be not to offer any kind of funding pending a decision on what to do with the waste.
What this Administration will be judged on, with respect to nuclear power, is what happens when a utility seeks approval to build a new nuclear power plant. And, how the Administration deals with the environmentalists who will oppose new nuclear power plants.
Why isn’t the Administration shutting down nuclear power plants now? There is no waste plan. Any level of consistentcy would require shutting the plants down, now.
Being against Yucca Mountain does not mean being anti-nuclear. Providing loan gaurantees means you support nuclear power.
And, what is Pres Obama’s nuclear lie?
Billions have been spent preparing Yucca Mt. as a depository. They wanted it shuttered specifically to kill nuclear power.
“There’s nowhere to put the waste”, they cry.
Buckwheat should begin adding, “yea, that’s the ticket” after every one of his pledges.
Anyone with a brain knew that Obama was lying when he mentioned building nuclear plants. He will NEVER do that. It is not in his plan at all. He thinks that wind and sun and foreign oil will take care of all our energy needs. And if not, well, we will just need to change our way of living to the level of third world. That is fine with him as long as he and his cronies don’t have to live that way. This country has so much clean energy potential and between the progressives and the environmental wackos, they are destroying our future. I truly hate them for what they are doing, and I consider them all traitors.
France doesn’t recycle waste, they recycle rods by extracting unused uranium and plutonium. Long term storage is still an issue, but the volume is less. Breeder reactors are another solution for waste because they “burn” most of the waste from standard reactors, but they produce weapons grade plutonium. Activists have ended those as well.
ROFLMAO
You have made my day.
There are no bad questions, just bad answers.
When were the Georgia nuclear power plants applications filed? No matter. I will do the google.
What was also “missed” – from groundbreaking to going online, we’re looking @ 10 YEARS ………………
Semper Fi’
DM
Here we are, going round and round trying to figure out what the heck this man means.
Obama needs to clarify.
Or maybe it’s the chaos thing again.
Yucca Mountain has been used as a political football for years here in Nevada. The left has used it to frighten people so much that the “death” of Yucca will be used by Dingy as reason we should send him back to DC. He will hold it up as an example of what we gain by having him as the “highest ranking, most powerful voice in DC that Nevada has ever had!”
GAG
I googled it myself and it looks like they currently have two plants and want to build another one. I must have heard it wrong.
Why so pessimistic? I’m sure as soon as all the costly environmental impact studies are complete, all the regulatory hoops are jumped through, all the permits are bought and fees paid, and plans for transport and storage of waste are finalized, the…oh.
Nevermind.
The nuclear lie is that there will be no more nuclear plants. If there was a better solution to Yucca Mountain, (besides reprocessing), it would have been pursued years ago. Why are we “looking for something else” after spending 2 billion on Yucca Mountain? If the “something else’ takes half as long as Yucca Mountain we can expect to have it ready in maybe 20 years….if we don’t decide when we finish the something else that we must have still something else.
Smoke and mirrors, BS, no intent to piss of his far-left base with more nuclear power.
:
Simple, the loan guarentees make it LOOK like he is doing somthing…
What really needs to happen is that the EPA needs to fast track these permits… but they won’t do that.
Also, Congress needs to rescind the Law which does not allow us to reprocess Nuclear waste… (which would get rid of most of the waste anyway).
America was made great by creating the BEST solution which could be used at the time… not by punting its problems down the road HOPING for some braniac to come up with a new solution 20 years from now…
Open Yuca… Reprocess… get the EPA out of the way… and Drill, baby, Drill.
1. Make a bold announcement
2. Do nothing
3. Blame
someone elseBush when #1 fails to happenZyg, “Right There Questioning” works fine in the classroom – I used it all the time – but in the real world, it’s a poor substitute for genuine debate; it just makes you look really naive and disingenuous.
If you have to ask…
Thanks for clarifying monad8888
I like this ‘solution’.
Absolutely not. No one is going to build a plant until the waste problem is solved and they know it, that’s why Yucca Mt was so important.
There is no current solution to this problem. Kicking the can down the road by storing it was the solution. Now we’re looking at 20+ years until a storage solution can be developed, then implementation for another decade or two, and THEN we might see something nuclear started in this country.
Yea, purposely delaying the ability to build a nuclear plant for 40 years is being pro-nuclear and a solution for quickly getting off fossil fuels.
IF the power plants get built, they will be built by Exelon. Be afraid! They have a history of leaking all over Illinois (and contributing to Obama)
http://www.publiccitizen.org/cmep/energy_enviro_nuclear/nuclear_power_plants/reactor_safety/articles.cfm?ID=15089
Your questions don’t sound like they were written by Ellie Light.
I just can’t understand how they think we can survive without some kind of energy plans for the future. They have to KNOW that sun and wind are not the answer! I mean, they are fine as far as they go, but will never provide all our needs. Also, being dependant on foreign oil is getting more and more dangerous. Plans MUST be made to get us energy independant or we will certainly be done as a nation. What really makes me angry is thinking about the Republican majority we had for a while, and the fact that none of these energy issues were resolved at that time. They squandered so many opportunities and are as culpable as the libs. Our “leadership” has been derelict for a very long time and we have never held them accountable for it. I say throw them all in jail, as they all played a part in this mess.
OK, here’s the link that speaks to the two new nuclear power plants in Georgia.
http://www.ajc.com/business/georgia-power-works-on-264161.html
Pres Obama and his Administration will, and should, be judged on nuclear power by how they deal with the two new Georgia nuclear power plants.
Wassamatta Barry, not enough 8-A businesses on the contract?
We’ll need liquid transportation fuels, hydrocrabon based, for decades, at least.
But a series of medium sized and standardized nuclear reactors, base don the highly successful and virtually sailor proof A4W/A1G reactor plants that power the Nimitx class carriers, could be built cheapy, in a standardized way. Maybe the government should help pay the way on these, simply because of the red tape and Jane Fonda looniness, and seel them at cost to the local utilities when built.
The A4W/A1G, while not as large as most civilian reactors, is the largest in the Navy, and provide 550 Megawatts of reliable power. They are designed to survive rugged life aboard a warship, and unlike, say, Three Mile Island, have capabilities for loop isolation, and emergency reactor fill, and would have a track record of close to a century of steaming years.
I work for an oil company, but that is one alternative energy source that I’d stand besides because it actually helps this country.
It’s apparent that Obama either 1) doesn’t have a clue as to how nuclear power plants work, or 2) is playing off of the fears of those who don’t know how nuclear power plants work. monadd888 is dead-on in terms of recycling and/or storing spent fuel rods. This may come as a shock to most, but nuclear power plants do not explode into large mushroom clouds. Power plants that use water as a moderator will not go through meltdown, as opposed to carbon moderators the idiot Russians used. Here in the U.S., if the core overheats, you merely drain the water, and-voilà!- no more reaction.
Right now, all of the waste is stored on site at the power plants themselves in large concrete casks. Yucca mountain is a good solution, but since when did any politician ever care about actually solving a problem when they can perpetuate the problem and make it appear they are solving it?
Well, we refuse to drill for our own oil, and natural gas.
We burn our own food, in the form of ethanol.
We are now trying to tax the coal industry into the dustbin of history via cap and trade.
Why should nuclear power be any different?
We’re batting a thousand.
Hmmmm, because you can’t figure out what the heck Pres Obama means, you believe he is lying?
What needs to be clarified? The budget does not include funding for Yucca Mountain. The budget includes funding for loan gaurantees for nuclear power.
There will be no nuclear storage at Yucca Mountain, there will continue to be storage at the current plants.
What is chaotic about that? Read the link from post #40. It provides a great point of departure for an honest dicussion on this topic.
I’m guessing “Public CItizen” is anti-nuclear? There will never be a time when someone will not report that something leaked from a nuclear power plant, whether it be here, in France or somewhere else. The question is what is the truth about the so-called “leakage”….and is it a reason to not use nuclear power? That decision must also consider the consequences of producing energy from other methods, or not producing it at all.
I worked at a nuclear power plant for 30 years….and yes, there was an occasional minor leak. Absolutely nothing will ever be 100% leakproof 100% of the time. If you are against nuclear power you can take that fact and turn it into anything you want in the attempt to prevent the use of nuclear power….and that is exactly what is being done.
The Greens have hammered windmills up Obama’s ass. What’s as disconcerting to me is there’s ZERO positive (much less support) news and “science” shows featuring the benefits of nuclear power like on Disovery/Science/National Geo Channels, which are unchallenged feeding anti-nuclear staple and scenery-killing windmills to millions of adults and schoolchildren every day. (Please — who’s taking them on??) Long long ago I met NASA’s Dr. Robert Jastrow at a Columbia space science seminar and he was lamenting how the (1970′s) Green movement had space scientists so worried stiff about funding that they stifled any mention of space nuclear propulsion and even using nukes for asteroid mining and blowing up any heading for us (why they suddenly fell in love with pokey solar sails and non-nuke tech). He also mentioned the brief time the U.S. base in Antarctica (before it became a Green playground) was the cleanest period that facility ever was before the Green U.N. banned anything nuclear there and in came smokey oil burners and trillions of empty oil drums.
James Greenidge
Queens NY
That horse has left the barn already. He supports a “new generation of safe, clean nuclear power plants”.
Read the link from post #40. Pres Obama and his Administration will, and should, be judged by how they deal with the two new Georgia nuclear power plants.
I couldn’t believe he made the statement about nuclear energy and I was right. It was unbelievable and now undeliverable. What a joke. And he also talked about offshore drilling. As a Virginian with a lot to gain, I wonder how he will wield his monkey wrench to screw that promise up?
If Obama is serious about meeting this country’s energy needs, including nuclear power – and I do not for one moment believe he is – then he would instruct his EPA director to get off the stick and release the hundred or so previously approved mining permits she is withholding: everyday she delays releasing them means more mine closures and laid-off miners’ and their families go on public assistance!
go = going
February 2010: Not in the Black History Month
It’s a financial reference for all those Al Sharpton wannabe race reverends out there waiting to pounce.
Ummmm, Pres Obama is actually doing something. Is he doing enough? Is another question. I would have liked to have seen much more stimulus funds going to nuclear power plant construction vice street theater.
Not sure fast track is even an option. I prefer a deliberate forward moving process to bring the new plants on line.
OK, Pres Obama should push Congress to do this.
OK.
Yuca Mountain is not the only answer. Storage currently exist at each nuclear site.
Yep, reprocess.
No, the EPA is a necessary evil.
Yep, drill and drill safely.
Ummmm, are there no questions in a debate? You are unlikely to be successfull in a debate if you fail to challenge the assertions of your opponent, . . . when you do not ask questions of them.
Yes, I have to ask, because an assertion was made, without stating specifically what that lie is.
Go ahead, state what Pres Obama’s lie is.
Yep, whether this is a debate or discussion, I am asking you a question. One that you seem to be unwilling to answer.
Hooray for those who expose the Copenhagen charade. The environitwits have lost some ground. I have always hated the way they robbed me of my common sense environmentalism. I couldn’t say I was for clean energy without giving the impression that I supported their outlandish plans for our planet.
Not true. Two new nuclear power plants are planned for Georgia. Moreover, the waste continues to be stored at the current nuclear facilities around the country. Absent Yucca Mountain, there will be storage capacity built on-site for the waste generated at the new Georgia plants.
Not having a central storage facility for nuclear waste is a strawman created to prevent more nuclear power plants. It is a false argument. Well before storage became an issue, what was done with the waste? It was stored on the site where it was created. And, this will continue to happen.
Who has been delaying building nuclear power plants for forty years and claims to be pro-nuclear? Who says nuclear power is a solution for quickly getting off fossil fuels?
The current method is beyond bad. The risks of this method are nothing we want to continue to incur.
Reprocessing will take how long and at what expense to put in place. The EPA impact studies alone will take how long?
Yucca Mountain fits the old Napoleon maxim that “A good plan today is better than a perfect plan tomorrow.”
It’s stupid for you to suggest that Obama can’t be judged for giving into anti-scientific concerns about Yucca.
Yucca is most certainly a data point with respect to his treatment of the industry. You haven’t even defended his action – you’ve simply claimed that his action is somehow meaningless. Strange.
Well we could always send the waste to the moon right?…oh I forgot… Obama canceled going back…never mind.
You’ve never heard of leading the witness? That’s what RTQ’s are about, and your overuse of them is meant to lead readers into only accepting your answers and positions. It’s an unfair tactic in debate.
Did you not read MM’s article? Prove he really intends to build more plants. Name the states where they will be built, the dates and places of the approved permits, and where the waste will be stored. If he were serious and this whole thing not a smoke screen, there would have been governors and regulators standing with him – either physically or in spirit.
And as I said earlier, if he’s finally getting serious about energy, then why not direct the EPA to release the mining permits.
It’s the simplest thing he could do and it would mean a world of difference to Appalachian miners and their families – oh yeah, I forgot – Appalachians did not vote for him in the primary or the general!
Oh well, I guess that teaches us -
Why is the current method beyond bad? What are the risks that we do not want to continue?
I don’t know how long reprocessing will take or how much it will cost. Should this option be off the table?
I don’t know how long the EPA studies will take. How ever long it takes, should whatever they are studying be taken off the table as an option?
As does the plan to store waste at the current sites where it is created.
A good plan today, storing the waste where it is created, is better than a perfect plan tomorrow, in storing it somewhere else.
Excellent point! I thought Obama was all about empirically based facts and science over mysticism – surely he can trust the studies that attest to Yucca’s long-term safety and viability in deciding nuclear power’s place among our energy alternatives.
Just recently the enviromental movement used words like “contamination” and “exposure” and “leakage” when discussing nuclear power plants, but now magically they are pronounced by Obama as “safe” and “clean.”
He is simply trying to help Reid get re-elected.
It’s in Maryland, but I believe this fits the “highest and best use” for FedEx field.
How, exactly, is having thousands of highly radioactive spent fuel assemblies storied all around the nation at more that 60 sites that were not originally designed to store them, many of which are much closer to populated areas than Yucca Mountain, an acceptable way to handle the waste problem, but Yucca Mountain is not? Yucca Mountain is a central, designed for long-term storage, monitored and protected storage facility which makes far more sense than hundreds to thousands of spent fuel assemblies setting around, either in concrete cast or in cooling water pools, at each of 60 plus different locations. A terrorist attack on any one of these sites would be much easier to carry out than one at Yucca Mountain.
It’s nuts not to use the place we have already spent 2 billion plus on. No matter what the alternative is, somebody won’t like it.
If anyone’s interested, the Las Vegas Review-Journal has a collection of Yucca Mtn articles, going all the way back to 2002. …including one today, about Ø’s proposal to cut the funding.
Yes, I have heard of this, . . . in a court of law. This is not a court of law.
Nope. I only hope that the question gets answered. And, my hopes continue to be dashed because you still haven’t answered the question. As for my position you are welcome to disagree with it, but please answer the question. I am hardly being unfair. You however, don’t address the questions.
I am going to try one more time. What is Pres Obama’s lie with regard to this issue?
Yes, I read it. Did you? Then it should be easy for you to cut and paste the lie Pres Obama told. You were led to the kool aid, and you drank it.
Post #40 has a link that speaks to two new nuclear power plants in Georgia.
The waste will be stored where it is created.
Hmmmm, it is obvious that you did not read MM’s article. MM referenced what Pres Obama said at the State of the Union. It is also obvious that you have no idea what the SOTU is. The President stands alone at the SOTU.
Or, maybe you were taking a tangent, and creating a strawman to avoid addressing the actual issue and question. [Note: That is an extremely weak and poor debating tactic.]
Your caveat about ‘spirit’ cannot be demonstrated unless of course a Governor states that they were spiritually with Pres Obama on his nuclear power position delivered at the SOTU.
Well, there are plenty of Governors out there who I am sure are pro-nuclear and will agree that there should be a “new generation of safe, clean nuclear power plants,” as stated by Pres Obam. Yep, that is a guess and a pretty good one.
I am not going for your tangents and redirection. The topic is nuclear power. We can discuss mining on another thread.
I am sure it would and we can discuss mining on another thread.
Another thread, another time.
Last time I checked, uranium is still mined.
Obama knows that it doesn’t do any good to guarantee loans if the nuc power investors are nervous about their future sources of fuel and disposal – with or without a loan guarantee.
Romeo13′s statement is certainly germane.
Not when one does the risk analysis it doesn’t.
http://74.6.239.67/search/cache?ei=UTF-8&p=yucca+mountain+risk+assessment&rd=r2&fr=yfp-t-701-s&u=epw.senate.gov/repwhitepapers/YuccaMountainEPWReport.pdf&w=yucca+mountain+mountains+risk+assessment+assessments&d=YKy596m4UOFi&icp=1&.intl=us&sig=YjvweBRVyKAYmDQ3km4mpw–
Yea, because Yucca Mt was supposed to come on board shortly to reduce their liability costs. My father had a lot of interaction with Duke Power because his plant was one of the biggest users of the grid, and the #1 issue was liability due to the storage of waste on site. The more waste, the higher the cost. Duke VPs told him they’d never build another one unless the problems were solved. So I don’t think you understand the issues.
The right isn’t the one defining the need for ‘clean’ energy, the left and Obama are defining it as non-CO2. According to Obama, the problem is NOW and it’s urgent. The right wants nuclear as a partial solution to the urgent problem as defined by the left. That is the pro-nuclear position. The solution to most of the current problems with nuclear was Yucca. Obama is ending it, thus he is not taking THE pro-nuclear position. The only strawman argument is claiming the pro-nuclear position is shutting down Yucca.
It’s like someone not in favor of offshore windmills because they spoil the view claiming to be in favor of it if the windmills are invisible therefore they’re pro-wind.
No doubt Yucca Mountain is the most studied real estate on earth.
Not having that facility doesn’t mean nuclear power has to be stopped. Not having that facility does not mean we can’t have new nuclear facilities. It means new nuclear facilities will have to make alternative plans for the storage of waste. It means old nuclear facilities will have to make plans for storage.
It means the increaed cost associated with new plants will preclude there ever being built. It means the government has broken many promises to the power companies over the years concerning waste storage. If Yucca Mountain isn’t good enough, what will be? How do the power companies know the government won’t suddenly decide there are enough spent fuel assemblies stored in the open at the various plant sites?
Obama may be all ears, but he doesn’t listen, he only tells.
From the report Flyoverman linked to:
Actualy, it does.
Due to security concerns, and the colocation with urban environments… storing nuclear waste localy is a REALLY bad idea.
Tell me, do you want a waste dump in YOUR backyard? Or would you rather have it stored in a cave, in the middle of nowhere, in a specialy designed facility?
Local storage also adds to the insurance costs of running a plant… so we ALL pay those costs in higher electricity bills, as those costs are passed onto the consumer.
This is JUST like Obamas SOTU “we need to make tough decisions about drilling” line… all rhetoric… he will not take the needed steps to actualy make this happen.
More from the report:
Who in their right mind would invest in nuclear energy given those kinds of cost liabilities caused by the government’s REFUSAL to pull the trigger on the best waste management option available?
Which will take decades of new technology development to figure out, effectively ending nuclear as an option until, if ever, such technology is developed. That is not the pro-nuclear position. It’ll take centuries to develop the invisible windmill, at least according to Michio Kaku.
Folks:
Perhaps the mystery has been solved!
Now and then the question comes up, “What happened to lgm – AKA Sybil?”
It is quite possible that he/?she? has reappeared in yet another personality: ZZZ-ZZZ-ZZZ-ZZZZZZ.Z.Z.Z…. of the interminable, empty, never-ending posts.
The pompom-wielding cheerleading for all things socialist and anti-American, while actually saying nothing, is compelling evidence.
I understand the issues. And, as presented MM did not discuss liablity. It was framed as Pres Obama lying.
That being said, yes, liability concerning waste is an important component to the continued use of nuclear power.
Ask your Dad how much waste is produced in a year of nuclear power generation. It can fit in a shoe box. Nuclear waste is currently being stored on the sites where it is created. Much of the liability costs come from the fear mongering of potential accidents. The design of the current storage facilities mitigates much of what can actually go wrong, accidentally or otherwise.
What would be helpful is wider knowledge of what is currently being done to protect us from currently stored nuclear waste.
The Duke Power VP’s issue is a parochial one that we all experience. We don’t want to pay for something if we can get someone else to pay for it.
The Duke Power VP should grow a pair and put his money where his mouth is, and his butt is not. Use substantiative arguments supported by the facts demonstrating the safety of local storage. Teach the knuckleheaded naysayers the truth. Live close to the plant and raise your family there. Employees, too. I think safety would become and remain your first priority.
OK. Agreed.
Not when there are alternatives to Yucca Mountain. Accept the liability of storage of the waste where it is created. Plan for it and deal with it. Explain in detail how well the plans will work. Address the fear mongering straight on. Don’t plan to have others mitigate your responsibilities.
When you are willing to accept the rewards you should also be willing to accept the risks.
Only one question. What was done before the idea of Yucca Mountain was advanced?
The waste was stored on site and the power companies paid for it. They no longer want to pay for it, and that is another issue. To make it contemporary, the nuclear power companies want a bailout.
[Note: I will stipulate that the various nuclear power companies will pay a fee to have their waste stored at Yucca Mountain. What is that fee relative to having them pay for their own storage? I don't know, but I suspect it is far more than using a Government supported and subsidized facility.]
That is an issue of placement, not one of pro- or anti-windmill. I am pro-hunting, though I do not support squirrel hunting in downtown Wash, DC.
Am I anti-hunting because squirrels should not be hunted in downtown Wash, DC?
zyzzyg, you brought up the ‘L’ word, I didn’t.
Check #7 where I give him some slack (and that’s a lot from me). Albeit I was corrected about the exact French solution (recycling the rods = much less waste) but my post was in consideration of a lean toward the French.
And Hmmmm yourself! This thread looks like many of us are having to assume what the dude wants to do!(Maybe you work in the administration and then know exactly what he meant.)
I’ll be watching Georgia.
How many centuries have we been burning coal and they didn’t tell you how much radiation it spews when you burn it? Kinda like lung cancer from smoking cigarettes..it got swept under the rug.
I have worked in nuke power plants since 1980. There are many types of rad waste. The spent rods and clean up resins are the worst. The spent fuel pool stores the rods but no place for resins or other low level waste. The pools can accomodate large numbers of rods but it is finite. We needed Yucca. I just love the government because the dump billions into something then walk away from it. As you know all spent fuel is being kept onsight so its literally in everyones backyard across the nation.
Nope. It means that it will cost the consumer more, should the plants be built. It is rarely a concern of how much it costs, it is more often how much will it make.
Agreed. At least at this stage. Like it, or not, Pres Obama assumes the obligations made by his predecessors. It is incumbent upon him to deliver on those promises.
Though my hope is that the power companies (and others) learn from this.
Excellant question and it deserves an answer. At this juncture, before a final decision by the Government is made, it is up to the power companies themselves to store the waste.
Unfortunately, the power companies don’t know what the Government will, or won’t do. Therefore, moving forward they should not look to the Government for answers, help, subsidies, or a bailout.
A bit of a cheap shot, but OK there is a theme there. The unfortunate reality is that his job includes being the decider.
In the beginning, the power companies were told there would be reprocessing, saving them lot’s of money and greatly reducing the amount of nuclear waste that needed long term storage. A reprocessing plant was built in South Carolina, tested and made ready for operation when the Peanut Brain, Jimmy Carter permanently shut it down. Years of floundering about took place and finally Yucca Mt. was chosen as the central waste storage location. After many more years of delays and assorted BS it is no longer going to be available.
If the actual radioactive material that needs long term storage could be extracted from each spend fuel assembly it might fit, “in a shoebox”. To do that however, would be effectively “reprocessing” which we aren’t going to do. That leaves thousands of spent fuel assemblies at each plant site, each one about 15″ by 15″ by approimately 12 ft. long, with about 200 “fuel rods”, filled with thousands of uranuium, plutonium and other radioactive isotopes, to be stored at the plant. Bigger than most shoeboxes I believe. The concrete cast containing spent fuel assemblies are literally setting outside after being stored in the spent fuel pool for 5 years or so. Shielding and natural air ciculation take care of the cooling and radiation reduction requirements. When I used to walk past these concrete casts at the plant I would ask myself, “how is this safer than Yucca Moutain”. The obvious answer is, “it isn’t”, nor is it cheaper…and Yucca Mountain is ready to use.
goot one happy…lmao.
Oregon State professor has come up with system for reusing nuclear waste to a point where there is hardly anything left to bury, hide or deal with. Just happens France and other foreign countries are using his findings, hence France and 80% of the power comes from nuclear energy. And America is still shaking in fear from 3 mile Island where no one was harmed.
What are you talking about?
A company has every right to decline an investment if it doesn’t like the risks.
It’s stupid for you to suggest that Duke is somehow obligated to learn more about the science as a way to mitigate the risk – as if they have any regulatory control over the issues. It’s not a matter of them wanting someone for free or a bailout. It’s about them knowing that an economical solution will exist in the future. An economical solution should be doubted given the stupidity of government.
We all know that Duke understands the waste issue thoroughly. What Duke can’t predict is the extent of the government’s stupidity with respect to waste.
Obama just gave the industry a reason to believe that the stupidity can be quite damaging. So why should anyone risk more resources and capital pursuing nuclear power objectives given the hostile environment this government just demonstrated.
You’ve obviously never performed any investment analysis.
The decision is usually based on how much it may “make” and the associated risks.
The power companies and others will absolutely learn that Obama is anti-nuclear. They will see right through his loan guarantee stupidity.
I would never purchase a house simply because someone guaranteed the loan for the bank. That guarantee doesn’t help me out at all. The decision to invest in the house will still be governed by the same economics as if no loan guarantee existed.
Not when you plan properly for doing so.
When it is done properly, I would have no problem with it.
That works, too. And, it must be done properly, as well.
OK. Agreed.
I will agree that Pres Obama is kicking the can down the road on nuclear waste storage, and at a minimum is making a political move to help Sen Reid get re-elected. The reality is, he will have to make a decision. He boxed himself in with this decision.
Will the nuclear power industry be best served by having a Government supported and subsidized nuclear waste storage facility? Absolutely. And yes, the sooner the better.
Only an idiot would state this.
The nuclear power industry in this county is a SLAVE to regulation. An entire government agency exists to micromanage this industry.
Companies aren’t looking for a bailout. They’re looking for indications that they won’t get screwed with overly expensive regulatory requirements in the future. Obama just gave them a reason to believe that future screws are likely.
Nope. No new technology is required. We know how to store nuclear waste.
Invisible windmill? Huh? I think I missed something somewhere.
None of this matters. The only thing that matters is what the government dictates. Too much of their past dictations have ignored common sense and science.
This is your first accurate statement about this issue.
Again. It doesn’t matter what we know. The only thing that matters is what the government will allow.
His invisible windmill analogy was spot on. I’m not surprised that you don’t understand it.
I pity you.
So many others are adding to the discussion and you want to take the messenger to task vice addressing the issue or the message.
You are welcome to do so, but it adds nothing except to reveal that you are the one who is empty and without anything valid to add.
Are you sure you read what MM wrote? Did you happen to notice the title of the thread? Or, maybe this nugget from the body of the text MM wrote, “The nearly $4 trillion budget he released today exposes his nuclear lie.”?
MM brought up the ‘L’ word.
OK.
My first post in this thread was #20, and you cut and pasted from it in post #20 making several statements.
You initially took issue with what I posted. I did not take issue with what you initially posted. My post (#20) is in response to what MM is talking about. You do understand this, don’t you?
You should not assume anything because it makes an . . . well, I hope you can finish that saying.
More importantly, why assume anything? It is clear from what MM posted where Pres Obama stands based on his budget. No to Yucca, yes to loan gaurantees and more studies.
Nope. I just had to read what MM posted. Somehwere in there is a supposed ‘lie’ that I have yet to discover. Many have been led to the kool aid and have drunken heavily from the trough.
As will I, and hoping they are successfull in moving forward with their plans.
CORRECTION
My first post in this thread was #20, and you cut and pasted from it in post #27 making several statements.
Maybe that panel will come up with some great idea like blasting the waste into the sun!
This would fit their agenda perfectly as they are cancelling the space program.
Seems like we can all agree that Obama has now become the Anti-Kennedy!
zyzzyg,
I’ll make this easy for you.
Obama lied about supporting efforts to boast nuclear power capacity. His actions with respect to Yucca are completely sufficient to justify the L word.
If the French, even, can do it, and we have perfectly designed ready made medium sized reactors in the A4W/A1G plant of the CVN-68 class carriers modified for civilian power generation, no reason not to go nuclear.
Nuclesr Power Reality:
For certain crimes I favor the death penalty….but there is no means of execution I find acceptable.
Equals:
I favor more nuclear power when an “accepable” way to deal with nuclear waste is found.