President Obama Stands by Nuclear Power

[Better Believe It]

Obama Stands by Nuclear Power
By JARED A. FAVOLE And TENNILLE TRACY
March 15, 2011

Obama administration officials Monday brushed aside calls for a freeze on new U.S. nuclear power development, and sought to reassure the public the nation's nuclear facilities are safe and the threat of harmful radiation reaching U.S. soil from Japan is minimal.

The Obama administration has said it wants to speed construction of nuclear-power facilities as part of a strategy to support sources of energy that emit little or no carbon dioxide or other gases linked to climate change.

White House spokesman Jay Carney said Monday that Mr. Obama continued to support nuclear power, and that the administration would incorporate lessons from the Japanese accident into regulations.

Even before the disaster in Japan, the U.S. nuclear industry's ambitious expansion plans were running into trouble. Natural gas has been so cheap that utilities have turned to it to generate electricity, rather than contemplate building multibillion-dollar reactors. The recession also has damped demand for electrical power, further diminishing the appeal of investment in nuclear facilities.

Read the full article at:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703363904576200973216100488.html?mod=WSJ_WSJ_US_News_6

[Poll_Blind]

1. Just niot TOO closely. n/t

PB

[msongs]

2. he wants to give the nuke industry $50 billion in loans they will never pay back nt

[wtmusic]

8. Loan guarantees aren't loans. nt

[bananas]

34. These are both loan guarantees and federal loans

Taking money that should go to education and giving it to fat-cat corporations:
"Nuclear Loan Guarantees Aren’t Just Guarantees: They are Actual Taxpayer Loans"
"The Federal Financing Bank (FFB) is a little-known government entity that more typically makes loans to universities, colleges, rural electric co-ops and other small-scale projects."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x231521

[defendandprotect]

93. kr

[CountAllVotes]

3. what the hell does it take

To wake Mr. President up? :grr: :argh:

:kick:

[Better Believe It]

5. A few nuclear meltdowns in California might do it .... or maybe not.

[Arugula Latte]

71. Diablo Canyon was built to (supposedly) withstand only a 7.5 quake

It's an old facility. It's on the ocean.

That thing could render a large chunk of California uninhabitable for eons.

Still, the pro-nuke crowd thinks it's all worth it. Absolutely disgusting.

[dgibby]

46. A few of these, perhaps?

:nuke: :nuke: :nuke:

[Tesha]

51. He's awake.

He just doesn't want a couple of micrograms of
Polonium-210 to somehow turn up in his coffee.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polonium

Tesha

[Matariki]

70. Oh yeah, like that Russian guy...

[Lorien]

91. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

And we don't have enough of it.

[wtmusic]

4. The US coal industry, which kills 25,000 Americans every year,

couldn't pay for better PR.

The biggest challenge in charting a course for energy policy is maintaining perspective.

[MadHound]

19. How's this for perspective, stop with the false "coal or nukes " dichotomy.

That is simply no longer the choice, and those who continue to try and use that tactic are simply engaged in fear-mongering that is designed to promote their own agenda. The fact of the matter is that green renewables can now provide for all our energy needs.

<http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/JDEnPolicyPt1.pdf>

As the report states, the only true barriers in front of implementing green renewables are social and political. Which category do you fall into?

[wtmusic]

25. Don't even bother posting repeatedly-debunked Jacobsen

at a time like this. Wind/solar will never make a significant contribution to our power needs.

The biggest challenge in charting a course for energy policy is maintaining perspective.

[MadHound]

28. Debunked? Really?

Show me where, besides in your own mind, that this has been debunked.

[wtmusic]

36. That argument is putting me to sleep thinking about it.

How's this? Hang out in Environment/Energy for a few weeks and you'll see Jacobsen's head pop up several times, and get whacked as many. An environmental Whack-a-Mole™.

Somehow that doesn't stop the faithful coming back for more. A mystery, but enough to egg him on I guess.

I keep looking for peer-reviewed work that backs him up, but no one wants to go out on that limb. Do you have some sources? :shrug:

[MadHound]

38. You're the one that's claimed he has been debunked,

So either put up or shut up. It's easy enough to include a link to where this debunking is. But hey, remember, we're talking science here, so this needs to be facts you're linking to, not opinion.

I'll be waiting.

[wtmusic]

40. Someone to back him up. Put up or shut up.

Basing policy around one person's opinion is insanity.

[MadHound]

44. In other words you have nothing,

Meanwhile, Jacobsen and the Stanford study are solid science, peer reviewed and everything.

God, you pro nuke people are so sadly predictable. Spout bullshit and nonsense with nothing to back your happy ass up with.

If you've got something to debunk Jacobsen, out with it. Otherwise, with every post you make, all you're doing is proving that you're engaged in spin and propaganda, not science or rationality.

[wtmusic]

47. Just for starters

http://energyfromthorium.com/2008/12/11/a-review-of-mark-z-jacobsons-review/

Come back with specifics or don't bother.

[MadHound]

54. How's this for specifics,

Your review that you're using to "debunk" the Jacobsen study that I linked to came out two years before Jacobsen released his study entitled "Providing all Global Energy with Wind, Water, and
Solar Power, Part I: Technologies, Energy Resources,Quantities and Areas of Infrastructure, and Materials" Your "debunker" is reviewing an entirely different piece altogether.

Whoops, what, didn't bother to read the title of the piece I linked to, or simply didn't bother to read it period?

Oh, and your reviewer, Charles Barton, doesn't have a scientific, much less nuclear energy background. He is a retired counselor whose father was a pioneer in nuclear chemistry.
<http://theenergycollective.com/users/charlesbarton>

So basically you are using a reviewer who doesn't have the scientific background to properly judge matters, with a daddy worship complex to boot, all to try and review and debunk the wrong piece.

Wow, talk about fail.

How's that for specific.

[Bluebear]

103. +

[wtmusic]

52. more

http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/11/03/wws-2030-critique/

[MadHound]

56. Again, a critique of the wrong piece,

This review came out a year before the Jacobsen piece I linked to.

And again, you are using the same author as the source, the same man who has no scientific background, that counselor with a daddy worship complex.

Try again.

[wtmusic]

62. Whatever.

No one except his disciples gives a shit what Jacobson thinks. The National Academy of Sciences thinks renewables might be able to contribute 20% of US electricity by 2035 - as much as nuclear is right now. Too little, too late. That hack Nobel-prizewinner Stephen Chu agrees, and is on board with Obama.

I think they outcred an outlier Stanford professor, don't you?

http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=12619

[MadHound]

64. Again, you are linking to outdated pieces,

Sad, your efforts at repudiating the Jacobsen piece are sad. Using outdated works, two of which are written by a non-scientist.

Can't do any better than that, hmm.

Meanwhile, the Jacobsen piece stands as the most recent peer reviewed science out there.

[wtmusic]

65. Apparently the White House is unaware of Jacobson's revolutionary work

since the 2009 NAS report came out. What is it that has changed in the last two years? Do you have any idea?

*crickets*

[MadHound]

67. Either unaware of it, or like yourself, choosing to ignore it,

After all, the White House has a lot invested in promoting nuclear power, and such investment tends to blind people to scientific reality. Exhibit A, yourself.

[wtmusic]

68. Now we're getting somewhere.

What is it the White House has invested in promoting nuclear power?

[MadHound]

72. A lot of political capital.

After all, one of Obama's campaign promises was to revive the nuclear industry, and unlike several other of his promises, he seems hell bent on fulfilling this one. Of course it probably helps that the nuclear industry was a major Obama donor. He received $70,000 from Exelon for his '06 Senate run, and $275,000 from them for his '08 presidential bid. Money buys influence, and apparently the ability to disregard current realities as well.

[bananas]

101. The nuclear industry has dumped a ton of money into lobbying and PR

NEI hired H&K which created a front group to spread the bullshit.
And they've bought off a lot of politicians.

[Bluebear]

104. +

[bananas]

42. The anti-science pro-nukes didn't understand opportunity costs

and thought that the Nuclear Energy Institute was an environmental organization,
when it's actually the official lobbying organization of the nuclear industry and tells outright lies.
Jacobson's work is fully referenced, only an incompetent wouldn't be able to find peer-reviewed work that backs him up.

[bananas]

37. Jacobson hasn't been debunked, his studies are rock-solid. nt

[joshcryer]

94. Not debunked, merely rendered insignificant.

Jacobson is calling for 300 Apollo's or 50 WWII's of investment. It is not happening and will not happen. Therefore it has no relevance.

The WEO 2010 shows that renewable energy is not slated to have a significant role to play for 50 years. We're going to burn all our fossil fuels first.

[bananas]

100. Neither debumked nor rendered insignificant. nt

[Junkdrawer]

6. He stood by deepwater drilling, a few (partial???) meltdowns aren't going...

to change his mind on Nuclear Power.

[Shagbark Hickory]

7. Of course. Our bought and paid for govt supports the highest bidder, always.

[somone]

9. GE seeks major share in $150 billion expansion of India's nuclear industry over next decade:

http://www.thehindu.com/business/companies/article1537519.ece

The nuclear disaster in Japan’s quake-hit Fukushima nuclear power plant could not have come at a worse time for the U.S.-based General Electric Co (GE), which is holding its Corporate Executive Council (CEC) meet in the Capital as part of its plans to seek a major share in the $150 billion expansion of India’s nuclear industry over the next decade.

The Fukushima NPP, which has seen two explosions in the last four days after being hit by a massive earthquake and Tsunami, has a reactor installed by GE.

GE chairman and Chief Executive Jeffrey Immelt said here on Monday that it was too early to assess what kind of impact the nuclear accident in Japan will have on the future of the nuclear industry around the globe. “We will offer technical assistance to the Japanese joint venture (JV) partner Hitachi Limited to avert any kind of nuclear crisis,” he told reporters here...

To repeated questions on what the disaster in Japan holds for the future of the company, Mr. Immelt said: “It is early days. Let people do exploration of what happened and let the process take its course. Our first priority is to support the government and people of Japan and be transparent,” he remarked. GE announced a donation of $5 million to the relief effort...

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

10. Well, he's finally showing what he stands for. Nukes, off-shore drilling, a lost war in Afghanistan

Impressive.

[Skip_In_Boulder]

18. Don't forget tax cuts for the rich.

Is this what a Democrat looks like these days?

[Melissa G]

48. We can add torture of a US soldier. n/t

[Bluebear]

105. .

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

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

[EFerrari]

12. Lucky Germany. n/t

[HereSince1628]

13. So nuclear plants are not local or state issues

I need a freakin program to keep track of who's on what base and which have a role for our President and which don't...

[LoZoccolo]

14. Good for him.

A good leader can avoid knee-jerk reactions like that.

[Forkboy]

20. I'll buy you a first class ticket to Fukushima.

Then you can spout your brave talk about knee jerk reactions. My bet, you'd clam up faster than a Republican on trial.

[ret5hd]

22. I'll go in halfsies, cause i agree with you on every count.

:rofl:

[LoZoccolo]

24. I live in Chicago where there is a coal plant which keeps getting grandfathered from having

to comply with environmental regulations.

Am I missing something? Is Obama specifically proposing the construction of nuclear plants based on 40 year-old designs next to fault lines and heavily-populated areas?

[Forkboy]

26. So no on the trip?

[LoZoccolo]

29. Of course not.

Yours is a false analogy.

[Forkboy]

76. No, not really.

Just illustrating the lack of courage in your position. Easy to puff out your chest and be bold when the problem is half a world away. You wouldn't go over there right now even if it was totally feasable, and we all know it. Nuclear power is a-ok, as long as you don't have to personally be affected. Then it sucks.

Your position, as always, is vacuous.

[LoZoccolo]

81. Are you really going to buy me the ticket?

How soon can you have it?

[sabrina 1]

63. He's obviously convinced that now that we have perfected

the construction of nuclear plants, as he claimed we had made so much progress with the technology of oil rigs that there was virtually no chance of a disaster of the kind imagined when the ban was put in place, that as with Offshore Drilling, we have nothing to worry about.

As everyone knows, 18 days after that claim was made, 11 people lost their lives and we are yet to find out how many more.

He stated that he had consulted with experts before making his decision on Offshore Drilling.

I hope the experts advising him on Nuclear Power have more credibility.

You'll have to forgive people if they are not too impressed with experts he consults with on these matters.

[LoZoccolo]

27. P.S. The Green Party staged a demonstration protesting said coal plant. n/t

[Forkboy]

75. That's great. I'm not a Green, so how is this relevant?

I mean, I know why you brought it up and all, but I'd love to hear you say it.

[LoZoccolo]

82. I brought it up because I am against the Green Party.

The testimony of a hostile witness is usually given extra consideration.

[LynneSin]

30. I don't think we have any reactors built near major fault lines

I mean I've lived near TMI for half of my life (before & after the accident) and I still support nuclear energy.

If we do have nuclear reactors near these fault lines I hope we are doing what we can to ensure they withstand a 9.0+ earthquake.

[MadHound]

35. There are four in Southern Cal near fault lines,

One, Diablo Canyon, sits right on a seismically active fault line. There are another four or five within a hundred miles or less of New Madrid, sitting on porous limestone that is riddled with caves and sink holes.

[LynneSin]

41. Now that I'm challenged with

I've lived my entire life near various nuclear power plants including TMI, Peach Bottom, Limerick and now Salem NJ. For me I just never had an issue with it. I remember waterskiing on the river right in front of TMI - when I was really young (like around 8 or so) I thought TMI was where clouds were made because there was always big white fluffy clouds coming out of it.

Growing up, I realize that Nuclear Power is an important part of our energy plan but yeah, I would be a bit more bothered if I was living on a massive fault line. We really don't see earthquakes here in the Mid-Atlantic Region or if we do they are like 3.5 or less.

[wtmusic]

43. Oh really. What four are they? nt

[MadHound]

49. Diablo Canyon Units 1 & 2, and San Onofre Units 1 & 2. n/t

[wtmusic]

50. Very forward thinking of you, but the Christianitos fault hasn't been active

for 100,000 years. Nuclear engineers think of things like that (when they hear the word "fault", they don't collapse in a panic).

[MadHound]

57. Yeah, but the other three fault zones that lie near San Onofre have been active

And much more recently than 100,000 years ago.

[wtmusic]

58. Which ones are those? nt

[Name removed]

59. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[NYC_SKP]

87. More accurately, there are two reactors at Diablo Canyon and three at San Onofre, only two operating

For a total of Four Reactors at two Sites in the Golden State.

http://www.nrc.gov/info-finder/region-state/california.html

[suffragette]

61. Looks like South Carolina does. Also Hanford (in WA) stores

waste and that waste could spill and, yeah, we have many active fault lines here in WA. Also for Hanford, the storage wasn't designed to high specs for a earthquake.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savannah_River_Site
http://scearthquakes.cofc.edu/support_files/scearthquakes_022009.pdf


http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/news/123760591274621.xml&coll=7
http://hsap.pnl.gov/analysis.asp


There are also the Canadian ones:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2011/03/14/f-nuclear-power-plants-canada-emergency-preparedness.html

[Forkboy]

79. San Onofre is built to withstand a 7.0...close to the San Andreas fault.

But it was built by Bechtel (they even put in a 420 ton reactor vessel...backwards), so I'm sure it's safe...

That's just one. California has many of them.

[Angry Dragon]

15. Need to build a plant in DC if it is such a good idea

[LynneSin]

33. Trust me, DC is not that far from a bunch of nuclear plants

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_reactors#United_States_of_America

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calvert_Cliffs_Nuclear_Generating_Station

[Marblehead]

16. he stands

with anyone that has $$, the workers don't

[Better Believe It]

17. Nuclear helps stop global warming. Right?

[wtmusic]

21. Because in general people have the attention span of a gnat

the kind of ignorance portrayed in that cartoon will be the death of us. A slow, lingering one at that.

[nc4bo]

31. I'm sure he & his buddies have all the wherewithall to build their own underground shelter

big enough to sustain their wives, kids and whomever for however long it takes to just "ride it out".

We'll keep right on burn baby burnin' and drill baby drillin' ourselves right into oblivion - you betcha!

I think of this as just a big fat wake up call for all to get serious about creating alternative, earth friendly energy.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

53. Don't you think they already have at least one already and all ready?

[dkf]

23. Yeah they should build one next to the White House and another

Next to his house in Chicago.

[SidDithers]

66. Funny you mention Chicago...

considering it was in Chicago that Enrico Fermi and colleagues built the worlds first artificial nuclear reactor, under the stands of the football stadium at the University of Chicago.

Sid

Edit: grammar

[glinda]

32. And they refuse to provide alternative energy to replace that 20% it provides in electicity.

[meow mix]

39. stupid defeatist,. build something else...

nuke is the only option my ass

[pulledpork]

45. D'oh!

[NeedleCast]

55. Good

[treestar]

60. Earthquake happens in Japan

It's all about Obama.

:rofl:

[Better Believe It]

69. When White House spokesman Jay Carney said that Obama continued to support nuclear power, it is

about President Obama!

Did you think Carney was talking about "American Idol"?

[treestar]

95. the Obama obsessed will see nothing else but Obama

they will blame the results of "American Idol" on Obama.

[ljm2002]

77. Oh for crying out loud...

...let's recap, shall we?

1 - earthquake happens in Japan
2 - tsunami happens in Japan
3 - both cause damage to nuclear plant at Fukushima
4 - explosions at Fukushima
5 - President Obama comes out publicly in support of nuclear power.
6 - posters on DU, a political discussion board, begin commenting on Obama's stance.

:rofl: indeed

[Better Believe It]

83. And when people talk about the war in Afghanistan they drag President Obama into it!

[treestar]

97. Step 5 is only for the Obama-Obsessed

Is your description of Step 5 even true? Likely exaggerated.

Why should there be no nuclear power in non-earthquake prone areas?

But what did Obama say? The Obama obsessed people of the world should have direct quotes, and context.

[ljm2002]

99. From the article in the OP:

"White House spokesman Jay Carney said Monday that Mr. Obama continued to support nuclear power, and that the administration would incorporate lessons from the Japanese accident into regulations."

So let's see: Jay Carney specifically states that "Mr. Obama continued to support nuclear power". Now you are correct, it was not a direct quote of President Obama himself. Last time I checked, though, the position of White House spokesman is generally taken to mean someone who speaks FOR THE PRESIDENT when speaking in his official capacity. Furthermore, Mr. Carney specifically named Mr. Obama in his statement. I think it is fair to infer that he is speaking for the president in this case.

BTW, it seems to me that you are the one who is Obama-obsessed, seemingly driven to leap to his defense at any perceived slight.

On the topic at hand, you ask "Why should there be no nuclear power in non-earthquake prone areas?"

Now see, this perfectly illustrates the lack of imagination that some people have. Guess what? Earthquakes are not the only possible disasters. Terrorists, system malfunctions, operator errors, materials failures such as metal fatigue and corrosion -- all of these things can happen, and with more and more nuclear plants, the likelihood of one or more of them happening at one of the plants increases accordingly. You cannot make anything 100% safe, that is understood. In the case of nuclear power, however, the worst-case scenario is truly catastrophic, and on a large scale, and the effects linger for a long, long time.

[ReggieVeggie]

106. the obama-obsessed?

wouldn't that be you?

[IDemo]

73. Why is "conservation" a more toxic term than "radioactive"?

Oops, sorry, I forgot: because conserving energy won't result in billions for certain entities.

[ljm2002]

78. Hear, hear!

I remember when Cheney dismissed any discussion of energy conservation, saying "while it may be a personal virtue, it is not a part of a comprehensive energy policy."

Why the hell not, indeed.

[GeorgeGist]

74. Rather foolish to answer the question ...

before learning the lesson.

[Lucky 13]

80. Sure he does. He has a nice roomy fallout shelter.

The rest of us... not so much.

[in_cog_ni_to]

84. He's from Illinois and Exelon has given him a LOT of $$$$$ AND

Illinois has more Nuclear facilities than any other state. He has a bunch of asses to kiss here. They put him in office. Payback time.

<snip>
Obama has received hundreds of thousands of dollars from the nation's largest nuclear power operator. Exelon Corp. is the second-largest contributor to Obama's presidential campaign, after financial services company UBS, according to an analysis by the Center for Responsive Politics.

Exelon executives and employees have given $161,000 to Obama's presidential bid. He's received an additional $86,000 since 1998 from Exelon's political action committee, employees and predecessor, Commonwealth Edison. Obama got money from the company in his 1998 bid for the Illinois state Senate and for his failed 2000 congressional campaign. Exelon also donated to Obama's PAC and his successful 2004 U.S. Senate bid.<snip>

http://www.lvrj.com/opinion/7509662.html

[Vidar]

85. He sure knows how to pick the losers!

[Bluebear]

86. And Gulf seafood is safe to eat!

[Better Believe It]

88. No thanks. I'll buy my fish caught off the coast of Japan!

[fascisthunter]

89. he's a fraud beholden to money

[undeterred]

90. Well, I heard Japan is looking for some committed volunteers.

Real soon.

[defendandprotect]

92. OK -- next Question ... Who stands by Obama?

[Zorra]

96. A few years ago I thought Obama was a decent, intelligent person.

I'm still holding out for hope on the decent part.

[unkachuck]

98. "...wants to speed construction of nuclear-power facilities..."

....really?....Fukushima makes you guys in the administration want to move faster???....I would have thought the opposite....

....and this is coming from a government that hasn't even fixed Katrina yet....the credibility of todays' politicians on matters of grave importance is non-existent....

[Bluebear]

102. 'The Obama administration has said it wants to speed construction of nuclear-power facilities'

Oh yes, let's do, Mr. President.

Impeccable timing as usual.