American Horse
AKA "Mustang"
Ame®icano;2003948 said:Ame®icano;2003893 said:Have I said something is wrong with this? No. And you calling ME a wingnut.
If you red my old posts you would find I am for nuclear energy all along.
Now, seems that nuclear energy suddenly comes as Obama's solution for failing to produce green energy and green jobs. Therefore, my question is still, what happened with "green energy"? Not so popular anymore?
Look at Zoom's post, this wasn't to be unexpected. Obama never ruled out Nuclear Energy in the first place.
However, green energy takes time to develop. Nuclear Energy is something we can start to develop now and be sure that's it working by a certain time.
And no, you never said anything was wrong with this, but you seemed to take a shot at Obama just the same. And you call the green energy Obama's solution but not this? Who do you think made this solution up? Sherlock Holmes?![]()
Who made up green energy solution? No, it's not Obama. Yes, it was Clinton.
Btw, remember the election? Obama criticizes McCain's nuclear power plan
From the link - Quote: "Obama, a Democrat, said the Republican candidate lacked a plan for storage of the waste. It was among several energy-strategy ideas that Obama said were "not serious energy policies." ...
Obama was speaking in Nevada, a state where proposals to build a nuclear waste disposal site at Yucca Mountain have generated strong opposition. ...
"It doesn't make sense for America," Obama said. "In fact, it makes about as much sense as his proposal to build 45 new nuclear reactors without a plan to store the waste some place other than right here at Yucca Mountain," the Illinois senator said. ...
Opposition in the U.S. Congress to the Yucca Mountain waste site is among the hurdles it faces. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Democrat from Nevada, is among those who oppose it.... "
If Obama were serious he would offer a combined proposal for a solution, additionally he would rescind the Carter prohibition to recycle nuclear fuel, and thereby solve the storage of waste problem.
Here is Patrick Moore one of the founders of Greenpeace (the original focus of which was to stop nuclear weapons and nuclear weapons testing) on the subject: Interview with Dr. Patrick Moore|B-Green Collaborative
Moore:
We are also capable of recycling used nuclear fuel as France has been doing for thirty years. Japan has just built a $30 billion facility to recycle their used nuclear fuel. About 95% of the energy is still in that spent fuel and we can extract that and use it. There are thousands of years of nuclear energy if we recycle the used fuel. The US has to get back into the recycling industry, which they quit during the Carter administration. The US was the world’s leader in this at one time. That was a long time ago, but it is time to get back in it. Anyone who is thinking about this in a positive way, about how to move forward, includes recycling as part of the plan.
Moore now supports nuclear energy generation and recycling nuclear fuel as the greenest and safest of options.
Why wouldn’t Obama get behind a full solution instead of only the first part which will certainly be hobbled by the lack of the second?
If he supports nuclear energy and If he opposes Yucca Mountain storage, why isn't he for the obvious alternative?
Moore says that nuclear fuel, after ultimate recycling and re-use, would be harmless in just 300 years, that the fuel, in it's interim stages, would be stored at the nuclear generating plants
Last edited: