Obama moves to end nuclear energy?

March 4, 2009

The Obama administration is driving a stake into the heart of the U.S. nuclear power industry by cutting-off funding for the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste storage program in President Obama’s budget proposal.

The Washington Post reported this morning that,

Yucca Mountain is not an option.

Yucca Mountain opponent Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) called Obama’s action,

“… our most significant victory to date in our battle to protect Nevada from becoming the country’s toxic wasteland.”

Now, nuclear power plants will have to continue to store spent fuel on-site in hopes of someday being able to reprocess spent fuel like the French do.

But will the anti-nuclear greens permit that to happen? When will the nuclear power industry realize that the greens are not its friends?

If we can’t store nuclear waste in Yucca Mountain, can we at least dump the greens there? According to EPA standards for Yucca Mountain, humanity would be safe from the greens for at least one million years.

7 Responses to “Obama moves to end nuclear energy?”

  1. wa777 Says:

    Re: justbeau 3/4/09 – “Obama favors expansion of nuclear energy.”

    Clever lawyer; he left himself a loophole, as usual. If storing it underground in geologically-stable catacombs is “unsafe”, then so must be storing it in casks be “unsafe”.

    Clinton, Hillary Rodham, Edwards, John, and Obama, Barack. “Democrat candidates: Complete debate transcript.” Las Vegas Sun, January 15, 2008. http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2008/jan/15/debate-transcript/.

    WILLIAMS: … And let’s talk for a moment about Yucca Mountain. …
    OBAMA: I will end the notion of Yucca Mountain because it has not been based on the sort of sound science that can assure the people in Nevada that they’re going to be safe. And that, I think, was a mistake.
    Now, you hate to see billions of dollars having already been spent on a mistake, but what I don’t want to do is spend additional billions of dollars and potentially create a situation that is not safe for the people of Nevada. So I’ve already — I’ve been clear from the start that Yucca, I think, was a misconceived project. We are going to have to figure out how are we storing nuclear waste.

    And what I want to do is to get the best experts around the table and make a determination: What are our options based on the best science available? And I think there’s a solution that can be had that’s good for the country but also good for the people of Nevada.

    CLINTON: Well, I voted against Yucca Mountain in 2001. I have been consistently against Yucca Mountain. I held a hearing in the Environment Committee, the first that we’ve had in some time, looking at all the reasons why Yucca Mountain is not workable. The science does not support it. We do have to figure out what to do with nuclear waste.
    BTW: Edwards (that paragon of trustworthiness) charged “… the forged documents that have been revealed….” But followup revealed that the signature had been forged (not the document), and it was caught by the agency itself.

  2. justbeau Says:

    If Sen Reid controls Nevada and the Senate, then Yucca Mountain has political difficulties. If this President wants to be re-elected, he is going to need to find some positive and practical ways forward on energy issues, in due course.

  3. I guess I needed to be more clear. If you can’t dig for coal, and you can’t tap off-shore natural gas, how will we become energy self-sufficient any time soon? we also have no capability to re-process spent nuclear fuel at this time. The only facility that is trying has been denied so many times I don’t think they are trying at this time. I would love to switch to nuclear. However, it is unreasonable to assume it will be a viable alternative within twenty years or more. We can become energy self-sufficient very quickly. it won’t happen with unreasonable restrictions though. ideology will have to be tempered while the infrastructure is developed and Obama seems completely inflexible in that regard.

  4. justbeau Says:

    If one accepts the article above, it can be inferred Obama favors reprocessing “spent fuel as the French do.”
    BTW, coal is not obtained from off-shore drilling.

  5. OK, he loves nuclear power. But, he opposes doing anything with the waste. What’s the end result?

    He favors natural gas and hates coal. But prohibits any off-shore drilling. What’s the end result?

    He wants greener industry, but is ramping up the carbon credit program. What’s the end result?

    He wants energy independence. But will bankrupt any new coal producers. What’s the end result?

    I mean, come on, how many times you gonna fall for the same thing?

  6. justbeau Says:

    Obama favors expansion of nuclear energy.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: