georgeob1 wrote:Cycloptichorn wrote:Is he really actively opposed to nukes?
Quote:CHICAGO (Reuters) - U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said on Friday nuclear power was "not a panacea" for U.S. energy woes but it is worth investigating its further development.
During a meeting with U.S. governors, Obama noted that nuclear power does not emit greenhouse gases and therefore the United States should consider investing research dollars into whether nuclear waste can be stored safely for its reuse.
But he said, "I don't think that nuclear power is a panacea."
Seems he's in the middle on this issue, which isn't bad for a Dem.
That was July 20th of this year.
Cycloptichron
Well, I agree it could be worse. However, I don't consider it particularly insightful of him in acknowledging that nuclear power doesn't involve the emission of greenhouse gases (perhaps he will also announce that the sun will rise tomorrow). As to the proposition that "we should consider investing research dollars into whether nuclear waste can be stored safely for its reuse", I am amazed at his apparent ignorance of the salient facts. We have been deeply involved in such research for several decades and reasonably good solutions have already been found and even built -- the repository at Yucca Mountain is the prominent example. Pity he can't find the energy to oppose his party's position on opening it after the expenditure of tens of billions of public funds in its design, construction and legal defense in the face of the litigious actions of zealous opponents.
Nuclear power is obviously not the panacea. Neither are wind or solar. In his elevated rhetoric Obama has correctly emphasized that
there is no panacea, and that a complex, but comprehensive array of actions will be required to solve the problem. It is merely unfortunate that he lacks the political courage and will to apply his wise governing principle in this critical area to some of its most important and obvious applications.
Thanks for the acknowledgement above. I'm really not the crank you sometimes suggest. Similarly, some of my pointed criticisms of some of your arguments are based, not on the contempt you suggest, but rather on the belief that you have the ability to do better. Many folks here are not worth the effort.
Nods all the way through.
Obama is dropping the ball, badly imo, by riding the middle on such a simple solution to both the rising cost of power and the rising concerns over the environment. Nuclear Power
should be at the forefront of his proposed solution.
He is a gifted speaker and motivator and should use those gifts to educate the general public to the simple truth, and do away with decades of deception and paranoia once and for all. To the extend some may believe these United States are a danger with nuclear bi-products; we are already beyond the point of critical massÂ… so more means virtually nothing.
