OK, so what America wants and needs is no more nuclear reactors..right? No more fossil fuel either. We are to make all our energy needs out of raindrops and rainbows. Now granted there are cheaper alternatives to NEW nuclear. Right now the alternative is coal or natural gas with the ability to supply base load. Last time natural gas was tried the cost skyrocketed and some units never started. Of course with Frackin the cost should go down but the same people who want to stop nuclear want to stop frackin. One of the first things Obama did was bow down to Harry Reid and shut Yucca mountain. I said it then and I say it now, that is going to lead to disaster. Maybe not now and maybe not in the near future but it is going to happen with on site storage. There was an answer now we have none. So when the inevitable happens the blood will be on Reid's and Obama's hands. As we see in this story, progress is once again stopped by Obama. But this isn't important stuff let's continue to dwell on Romney's tax returns. NRC Freezes Nuclear Reactor Operating and Construction Licensing Activity NRC Freezes Nuclear Reactor Operating and Construction Licensing Activity | FacilityBlog On June 8th, the Court threw out the NRC rule that permitted licensing and re-licensing of nuclear reactors based on the supposition that (a) the NRC will find a way to dispose of spent reactor fuel to be generated by reactors at some time in the future when it becomes “necessary” and (b) in the mean time, spent fuel can be stored safely at reactor sites. The Court noted that, after decades of failure to site a repository, including 20 years of working on the now abandoned Yucca Mountain repository, the NRC “has no long-term plan other than hoping for a geologic repository.” Therefore it is possible that spent fuel will be stored at reactor sites “on a permanent basis.” Under the circumstances, the NRC must examine the environmental consequences of failing to establish a repository when one is needed. The Court also rejected NRC’s decision minimizing the risks of leaks or fires from spent fuel stored in reactor pools during future storage, because the NRC had not demonstrated that these future impacts would be insignificant. The Court found that past experience with pool leaks was not an adequate predictor of future experience. It also concluded that the NRC had not shown that catastrophic fires in spent fuel pools were so unlikely that their risks could be ignored.