Comments on: America’s nuclear energy future Tue, 31 Mar 2015 01:18:20 +0000 hourly 1 By: Aurelio Hanft Thu, 09 Oct 2014 22:07:40 +0000 This is very interesting, You’re a very skilled blogger. I’ve joined your rss feed and look forward to seeking more of your excellent post. Also, I have shared your web site in my social networks!

By: coyotle Fri, 15 Jul 2011 14:38:49 +0000 It appears that ‘We the People” are all farm animals in our little pens(Nevada, South Carolina and all the other States) and that our benefactors have little regard for the us. Just look at the ecological messes in Hanover Washington., Savannah Ga., Oak Ridge Tn. from WWII uranium enrichment plants. In December of 2008 the town of Kingston Tn. was buried in fly ash slurry from a failed fly ash containment pool dating back to the 1930s from a coal fired power plant. This disaster was worse than the Exxon Valdez, yet Homeland Security kept it and 40 plus other potentially dangerous slurry pen sights a secret from the public for years. Only when a freedom of information challenge was brought in Federal Court by the Sierra Club, some Congressmen, Congresswomen and others was this disaster finally made public. StephanLarose,you have hit the nail squarely on the head.

By: me2011 Wed, 22 Jun 2011 18:24:33 +0000 Excellent analysis. The only thing I would like to mention, in addition to the commentary, is related to the selection of Harry Reid’s prior staff in the Obama appointees. Obama appointed the current NRC chairman who had worked prior to his appointment as a staff member with Harry Reid.

Harry Reid seems to be the “man behind the curtain” on too many of Obama’s decision. Our President is more of a theatrical prop where the lines are really being written in Chicago and Las Vegas: two areas notorious for politics and crime.

All great civilizations crumble when the combination becomes too pervasive. Strangely, it’s only obvious in historical reflection.

Evidently we did not lose enough in the banking and real estate adventure. The game continues.

By: auger Sat, 18 Jun 2011 17:04:14 +0000 If history is any guide, read these two paragraphs from a report nine years ago. – “The decision of whether to approve and license the site now rests with President Bush. Should Bush approve the site, Nevada’s only recourse would be an appeal to Congress asking lawmakers to override the president’s action.

Since the Yucca Mountain dump site, about 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas was singled out by Congress 15 years ago, Nevada’s government and a majority of the state’s citizens have opposed the plan. Nevada legislators contend that no other sites were considered by the U.S. Congress, because lawmakers from more populace states did not want nuclear waste in their states.” Jan 12, 2002)
It does not appear to take more than the President’s hand to decide the fate of this project. It also seems unjust at least to place the nuclear graveyard in the very state that makes their feelings about fission known by the number of reactors they use – none

By: aligatorhardt Sat, 18 Jun 2011 11:57:05 +0000 This is one of many recent articles, which based on empty accusations, appears to be sponsored by the nuclear power industry. Not one of the recent articles have allowed the Reid position to offer it’s side of the story. It seems more like a hit piece.
  Even after a couple hours on the NRC website, straight answers about the repository cannot be found there either. It is not surprising that no one wants a mountain of nuclear waste threatening their drinking water. The thousands of years required to hold this waste means that no guarantees could be made about what might happen in periods of time that are at least 10 times longer than the recorded history of mankind. Even our best technology cannot assure containment over these time spans. Then it is further complicated by the fact that we already have more waste than could be stored in the repository, so we will need more and more sites as time goes on.

The people all around the world, have shown in polls that around 2/3 of the populations on average, do not want to continue nuclear power. The industry after 60 years is not competitive financially with other methods without constant cash infusions from the same public that does not want nuclear power. that is in normal operations, when we consider the costs of the disasters , we would have been ahead to just give free power to the citizens, and even that would cost less than society has paid for nuclear power. It is easy to understand the guilt from nuclear bombs used by the US resulting in the effort to show some social value for nuclear technology. But all we have is widespread misery and increased cancer and birth defects to show for it.
We will never be free of these dangers until we stop using nuclear power for electricity production. With today’s technology, we have so many ways to make electricity, there is no need or reason to continue nuclear power.

By: StephanLarose Sat, 18 Jun 2011 07:55:16 +0000 This all begs the question of “why go nuclear?” There is NO solution to the problem of nuclear waste, plus extracting uranium requires tons of fossil fuels and nuclear plants make great targets for terrorists. We’d be far better off, and getting far more jobs generated, if we just made a full transition to sustainable energy sources.

By: Welred Sat, 18 Jun 2011 06:55:58 +0000 Getting Yucca back on line would save billions in energy costs, so you’re argument makes NO sense. Shutting Yucca down costs us a ton of money in the long run, so Obama’s decision to shut it down just makes the recession even worse. This has nothing to do with George Bush, but I know you’ll keep trying.

By: elgecko84 Sat, 18 Jun 2011 03:02:11 +0000 NobleKin- while I agree that Bush messed things up really bad, I fail to see how Obama would have been any different. Both support easy money and stimulus plans, which is precisely what got us, and is keeping us, in this mess. Both have initiated wars that have cost much more than originally quoted and both have extended the Federal govt’s power at the expense of a much higher deficit (Bush with Dept of Ed and Obama with healthcare). People can argue Republican vs. Democrat all they want; once in power they do the exact same thing. So spare me the “if Obama were handed the economy in ’01” argument, we’d be in the same shape we are now.

By: NobleKin Fri, 17 Jun 2011 21:52:18 +0000 Sort of like the father who promised his children Santa would be bringing their Christmas wishes…only to find out his hours at work are being cut and he won’t be able to afford to pay the mortgage.

Obama has had to slog uphill on every issue since taking office.

Who knew the Great Recession would be so bad for so long for so many?

Who knew revenues would fall so short while such drastic measures would be needed to keep the economy from falling into Depression?

Had Obama been handed the economy of 2001, as was handed to W. Bush, I think there would be many things that would have been kept on the Christmas list.

So “another broken campaign promise” to add to the list, given the circumstances…no surprise, really.