Obama: Iran has a "right" to nuclear energy

[DavidS]

Dear President Obama:

Appeasement of our enemies works just fine!

Signed,

Czeckeslovakia

 

[WillowTree]

Ohhhhh, nanner nanner nanner, from the schoolgirl bully.

poor little lefty,, being bullied by a right winger.. oh boo fucking hoo!

Your bullying is an unfortunate trait only YOU should be worried about--not who you direct it at. I couldn't care less. My concern is that illiterates like you exist and actually believe you contribute something worthy to a conversation.

poor wittle wefty somebowdy pickin on her! boo hoo hoo,, cannot dispute my points so you resort to calling me a bully,, don't think anyone can see that? doya??

 

[Newby]

Seems like any nation has as much a 'right' to anything any other nation has... unless we have two sets of rules for nations to abide by?

So all nations are equal when it comes to national security and stability in regards to government infrastructure and control of nuclear facilities so that it doesn't fall into the wrong hands? Not to mention the financial status to provide the type of security and stability that's needed?

I think under law - all actors should be equal. As for the rest of your question, I was not eactly sure what you were asking. But, yeah - one standard is ideal, instead of 'our rules' and 'their rules'.

If you don't understand the 'rest of my question', then you aren't capable of addressing the issue as it needs to be addressed.

 

[DavidS]

Think about this, liberals:

Do you want to be tomorrow, with Iran as we are today with North Korea?

 

[elvis]

Dear President Obama:

Appeasement of our enemies works just fine!

Signed,

Czeckeslovakia

Barack Chamberlain promised change. You're getting it.

 

[WillowTree]

So what. Who the fuck are you to decide what national rescources a nation MUST use up before persuing another form of energy? OH yea, a comfy jew hiding behinde the freedom of the US. silly me.

Your jewish racism is showing, dave. Careful, don't let a girl like Amanda intimidate you.

Who said they must use it up? I think what's been pointed out is their so called legitimate concern is a smoke screen because they have an insane amount of oil. They arent in an energy crisis. We are.

Yet we cant drill. We cant use nuclear energy. Heck, the environmentalists are starting to oppose solar energy because it "causes global warming" and wind and water power because the fish and birds could be hurt. We are supposed to go back into the dark ages while giving a homicidal regime the keys to killing millions of people.

How is this possibly a good policy?

Leave them damn dumb democwats in charge and you ain't never gonna have nuttin but $40/gal gasoline.. ignorant libtards..

 

[MaggieMae]

I'm waiting.. why haven't we built some???? why can't we drill our own gas and natural gas?? why doyathink?? tell me without googling..

I already answered why no refineries are being built, and I already told you we ARE drilling for oil as well as extracting natural gas. That's MY answer, without Googling, but obviously you want me to repeat everything contained in this one-stop website. Do your own fucking research, then come back and ask some SMART questions instead of just smartASS questions. Is that asking too much?

Energy Information Administration - EIA - Official Energy Statistics from the U.S. Government

what you are studiously avoiding telling me. is that the pop up Pelsoi plan has been to block all offshore drilling where it counts, we are now banned from drilling off our shores where the oil is.. we are allowed to drill where it isn't ,,and you studiously avoid telling me how and why and when we will build enough nuclear plants to provide energy for the nation cause you and I both know wind ain't gonna do it,, neither is solar?? know why?? cause the dishonest fuck known as Ted Kennedy don't like the sight of windmills in his backyard and that dishonest fuck known as Nancy Pelosi don't want no goddamned solar panels in her desert,, and you cannot run an airplane on a far. now start from there.. and we'll go on with this discussion

I never asserted there wasn't political opposition to nuclear, wind, and any other environmentally fragile debate. There have been over a hundred nuclear power plants built since Three Mile Island and it isn't a matter of just slapping them together to solve all our energy problems. There were 69 commercial reactors in the U.S. 30 years ago, and today there are 104. Nuclear power now produces about 20% of the nation's electricity. Nuclear energy is NOT going to be scrapped.

Your rant is simply an OPINION, drawn from like minded people who never, EVER look at the big picture. If you did, in this case, you would know damned well that as I said, we already drill all over this country--not just in Texas and Alaska--and natural gas pipelines are constantly being built and/or upgraded. When they are not, it almost always has to do with private ownership of mineral rights, licensing requirements, etc., not Nancy Pelosi or Ted Kennedy.

Have we SHUT DOWN any oil wells or gas pipelines? If so, then you'd have something to bitch about. In the meantime, you're just bitching for the sake of bitching. End of discussion.

 

[Newby]

Iran is sitting on more untapped oil than Iowa has ears of corn. Oil is cheap, it's efficient, everything they have runs on it, they export it, they import it, they refine it - the oil business in Iran is like the corn business in Iowa. The best part is - gas in Iran is CHEAP. It needs to be. Why? Up to 70% of Iran is below the poverty line. (http://www.nscb.gov.ph/poverty/conference/papers/3_Iran.pdf)

Let me repeat that. 70% of Iran is BELOW the poverty line.

In 2006 Iran, a population of 66 million people consumed 145 billion kWh of electricity.

Compare that with the United Kingdom, which has the same population and consumes 348.5 billion kWh of electricity.

Iran's GDP is $842 billion.

Compare that to the UK with a similar population - their GDP is $2.2 trillion.

Additionally, the UK is 244,820 sq km.

Iran? 1.648 million sq km.

That's 5x the size of the United Kingdom in land mass and 1/4 their GDP. They have an abundant natural resource that is extremely cheap that everyone uses.

In essence, Iran has absolutely NO NEED for nuclear energy.

Finally, the type of nuclear energy they are processing is weapons grade Uranium hexafluoride (uf6) - not civilian grade.

If it takes you a few minutes to figure out an excuse as to why they need nuclear energy, then it takes too long. America's power plants are at or above capacity and more need to be built. There is ample reason for nuclear energy in the US.

There is NO reason for nuclear energy in Iran. NONE whatsoever.... except to make bombs.

So what. Who the fuck are you to decide what national rescources a nation MUST use up before persuing another form of energy? OH yea, a comfy jew hiding behinde the freedom of the US. silly me.

Your jewish racism is showing, dave. Careful, don't let a girl like Amanda intimidate you.

Who said anything about using up resources? Why would a poor country that doesn't have a great deal of money develop nuclear fuel when it already has an extremely cheap fuel that is exceeding the needs of its local population?

I know Iran is not a capitalistic democracy, but there is always a supply and demand thing. If there is ample supply that is very cheap and abundant why would they create the availability of a new product for which there is no demand for with very limited supply and costs a hell of a lot of money?

You make an excellent point. If you read what I posted about nuclear plant construction in the U.S., it can take up to 20 years to construct and the costs are astronomical, which is why the EIA has said why there isn't any new development on the horizon here, and we're supposedly a 'rich' nation.

 

[MaggieMae]

probably from obama, sweetie.

"To achieve our goal of generating 25 percent of our energy from renewable sources by 2025, we will make unprecedented investments in clean, renewable energy – solar, wind, biofuels, and geothermal power"

i don't see any mention of nuclear power as part of his plan.
probably a typo.

Organizing for America | BarackObama.com | Energy

Oh how you people LOOOOOOOVE to cherry pick and present it as gospel.

"Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama favors the continued use of nuclear power and sees it as an integral and inevitable part of any effective U.S. energy policy, especially in light of growing concerns about global warming.

"Nevertheless, Obama believes the United States must not increase its reliance on nuclear energy until other critical issues, such as national security and nuclear waste disposal, have been adequately addressed. Obama has said, “I don’t think that nuclear power is a panacea” for America’s energy problems.

“Nuclear power represents more than 70 percent of our non-carbon generated electricity,” Obama says in his energy plan. “It is unlikely that we can meet our aggressive climate goals if we eliminate nuclear power as an option. However, before an expansion of nuclear power can be considered, key issues must be addressed including: security of nuclear fuel and waste, waste storage, and proliferation.”

Obama on Nuclear Energy - Election 2008 - Barack Obama on Nuclear Energy

It's been Obama's position all along.

What he means is,, and I'll say this slowly cause you are a libtard after all.. " It ain't never gonna happen" is what he means..

Sure... Whatever you say, genius.

 

[WillowTree]

uh, who is banning nukes here in the US? I live no less than 1 hour from a fucking nuclear reactor. Hell, the college IN TOWN has a goddamn nuke reactor! Why must you say dumb shit?

when was the last fucking time we built one? and how much energy do they provide... where are the forthcoming permits to build the plants we need.. Hello? I'll wait.. popcorn in hand. oh and while yer at it explain why we can't drill our own fucking oil and natural gas whydonchya?

You dumb bitch... Ameren UE here in Missouri was two cunthairs away from building ANOTHER nuke plant but folded the idea after they couldn't get the state voters to PAY FOR IT. Google it, you fucking dingleberry.

They HAD permits to build. They DIDNT have the cash to build it without fleecing the very fucking customers that decided not to vote to pay for a fucking new plant.

Your tired fucking rhetoric is old.

UPDATE: AmerenUE suspends plans for new mid-Missouri nuclear reactor - Columbia Missourian

oh do go on! you cite me one little example,, and call me the idiot?? idiot!

 

[MaggieMae]

probably from obama, sweetie.

"To achieve our goal of generating 25 percent of our energy from renewable sources by 2025, we will make unprecedented investments in clean, renewable energy – solar, wind, biofuels, and geothermal power"

i don't see any mention of nuclear power as part of his plan.
probably a typo.

Organizing for America | BarackObama.com | Energy

Oh how you people LOOOOOOOVE to cherry pick and present it as gospel.

"Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama favors the continued use of nuclear power and sees it as an integral and inevitable part of any effective U.S. energy policy, especially in light of growing concerns about global warming.

"Nevertheless, Obama believes the United States must not increase its reliance on nuclear energy until other critical issues, such as national security and nuclear waste disposal, have been adequately addressed. Obama has said, “I don’t think that nuclear power is a panacea” for America’s energy problems.

“Nuclear power represents more than 70 percent of our non-carbon generated electricity,” Obama says in his energy plan. “It is unlikely that we can meet our aggressive climate goals if we eliminate nuclear power as an option. However, before an expansion of nuclear power can be considered, key issues must be addressed including: security of nuclear fuel and waste, waste storage, and proliferation.”

Obama on Nuclear Energy - Election 2008 - Barack Obama on Nuclear Energy

It's been Obama's position all along.

yeah, silly me. i should have known better than to quote the entire statement from his web site.
i'm sorry i couldn't keep up with his relentless spin; i've got inner ear problems.

Look, O clueless one, just Google Obama on Nuclear Energy and you'll see all sorts of articles where he is quoted. Soooooooooooooooooooooooooo sorry, I picked one from <gasp> his OWN website, where one would THINK those were HIS actual words. Duh...

 

[WillowTree]

Oh how you people LOOOOOOOVE to cherry pick and present it as gospel.

"Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama favors the continued use of nuclear power and sees it as an integral and inevitable part of any effective U.S. energy policy, especially in light of growing concerns about global warming.

"Nevertheless, Obama believes the United States must not increase its reliance on nuclear energy until other critical issues, such as national security and nuclear waste disposal, have been adequately addressed. Obama has said, “I don’t think that nuclear power is a panacea” for America’s energy problems.

“Nuclear power represents more than 70 percent of our non-carbon generated electricity,” Obama says in his energy plan. “It is unlikely that we can meet our aggressive climate goals if we eliminate nuclear power as an option. However, before an expansion of nuclear power can be considered, key issues must be addressed including: security of nuclear fuel and waste, waste storage, and proliferation.”

Obama on Nuclear Energy - Election 2008 - Barack Obama on Nuclear Energy

It's been Obama's position all along.

What he means is,, and I'll say this slowly cause you are a libtard after all.. " It ain't never gonna happen" is what he means..

Sure... Whatever you say, genius.

and so? when in the year of our lord do you think we will build the nuclear plants we need?? genius?

 

[WillowTree]

Oh how you people LOOOOOOOVE to cherry pick and present it as gospel.

"Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama favors the continued use of nuclear power and sees it as an integral and inevitable part of any effective U.S. energy policy, especially in light of growing concerns about global warming.

"Nevertheless, Obama believes the United States must not increase its reliance on nuclear energy until other critical issues, such as national security and nuclear waste disposal, have been adequately addressed. Obama has said, “I don’t think that nuclear power is a panacea” for America’s energy problems.

“Nuclear power represents more than 70 percent of our non-carbon generated electricity,” Obama says in his energy plan. “It is unlikely that we can meet our aggressive climate goals if we eliminate nuclear power as an option. However, before an expansion of nuclear power can be considered, key issues must be addressed including: security of nuclear fuel and waste, waste storage, and proliferation.”

Obama on Nuclear Energy - Election 2008 - Barack Obama on Nuclear Energy

It's been Obama's position all along.

yeah, silly me. i should have known better than to quote the entire statement from his web site.
i'm sorry i couldn't keep up with his relentless spin; i've got inner ear problems.

Look, O clueless one, just Google Obama on Nuclear Energy and you'll see all sorts of articles where he is quoted. Soooooooooooooooooooooooooo sorry, I picked one from <gasp> his OWN website, where one would THINK those were HIS actual words. Duh...

Face it. You are just one big fat FAIL

 

[Newby]

I already answered why no refineries are being built, and I already told you we ARE drilling for oil as well as extracting natural gas. That's MY answer, without Googling, but obviously you want me to repeat everything contained in this one-stop website. Do your own fucking research, then come back and ask some SMART questions instead of just smartASS questions. Is that asking too much?

Energy Information Administration - EIA - Official Energy Statistics from the U.S. Government

what you are studiously avoiding telling me. is that the pop up Pelsoi plan has been to block all offshore drilling where it counts, we are now banned from drilling off our shores where the oil is.. we are allowed to drill where it isn't ,,and you studiously avoid telling me how and why and when we will build enough nuclear plants to provide energy for the nation cause you and I both know wind ain't gonna do it,, neither is solar?? know why?? cause the dishonest fuck known as Ted Kennedy don't like the sight of windmills in his backyard and that dishonest fuck known as Nancy Pelosi don't want no goddamned solar panels in her desert,, and you cannot run an airplane on a far. now start from there.. and we'll go on with this discussion

I never asserted there wasn't political opposition to nuclear, wind, and any other environmentally fragile debate. There have been over a hundred nuclear power plants built since Three Mile Island and it isn't a matter of just slapping them together to solve all our energy problems. There were 69 commercial reactors in the U.S. 30 years ago, and today there are 104. Nuclear power now produces about 20% of the nation's electricity. Nuclear energy is NOT going to be scrapped.

Your rant is simply an OPINION, drawn from like minded people who never, EVER look at the big picture. If you did, in this case, you would know damned well that as I said, we already drill all over this country--not just in Texas and Alaska--and natural gas pipelines are constantly being built and/or upgraded. When they are not, it almost always has to do with private ownership of mineral rights, licensing requirements, etc., not Nancy Pelosi or Ted Kennedy.

Have we SHUT DOWN any oil wells or gas pipelines? If so, then you'd have something to bitch about. In the meantime, you're just bitching for the sake of bitching. End of discussion.

Where did you get your information on the construction of nuclear facilities from? Whenever I looked it up on the EIA website, that's not what I found:

Opinions vary regarding the future of nuclear power, but it is a fact that existing U.S. plants are performing well. Nuclear power plants now operate at a 90 percent capacity factor, compared to 56 percent in 1980. Additionally and in contrast to oil and gas, nuclear fuel costs are low and relatively stable. Fuel costs now average less than one half cent per kilowatthour. This is well below the costs of major competing fossil fuels. Production costs for nuclear power, operation and maintenance plus fuel costs, are also low, averaging 1.8 cents per kilowatt-hour. This cost roughly matches coal and is significantly below the costs of operating a natural gas plant.

Despite all of this relatively attractive news regarding nuclear power, there has been no new order for a nuclear power plant since the 1970s. The last nuclear plant to be completed went on line in 1996. A few, perhaps four, construction licenses are still valid or are being renewed for half-completed reactors, but there are no active plans to finish these reactors.

They may not have finished until the 90's because it takes over 20 years to complete one.

 

[WillowTree]

I already answered why no refineries are being built, and I already told you we ARE drilling for oil as well as extracting natural gas. That's MY answer, without Googling, but obviously you want me to repeat everything contained in this one-stop website. Do your own fucking research, then come back and ask some SMART questions instead of just smartASS questions. Is that asking too much?

Energy Information Administration - EIA - Official Energy Statistics from the U.S. Government

what you are studiously avoiding telling me. is that the pop up Pelsoi plan has been to block all offshore drilling where it counts, we are now banned from drilling off our shores where the oil is.. we are allowed to drill where it isn't ,,and you studiously avoid telling me how and why and when we will build enough nuclear plants to provide energy for the nation cause you and I both know wind ain't gonna do it,, neither is solar?? know why?? cause the dishonest fuck known as Ted Kennedy don't like the sight of windmills in his backyard and that dishonest fuck known as Nancy Pelosi don't want no goddamned solar panels in her desert,, and you cannot run an airplane on a far. now start from there.. and we'll go on with this discussion

I never asserted there wasn't political opposition to nuclear, wind, and any other environmentally fragile debate. There have been over a hundred nuclear power plants built since Three Mile Island and it isn't a matter of just slapping them together to solve all our energy problems. There were 69 commercial reactors in the U.S. 30 years ago, and today there are 104. Nuclear power now produces about 20% of the nation's electricity. Nuclear energy is NOT going to be scrapped.

Your rant is simply an OPINION, drawn from like minded people who never, EVER look at the big picture. If you did, in this case, you would know damned well that as I said, we already drill all over this country--not just in Texas and Alaska--and natural gas pipelines are constantly being built and/or upgraded. When they are not, it almost always has to do with private ownership of mineral rights, licensing requirements, etc., not Nancy Pelosi or Ted Kennedy.

Have we SHUT DOWN any oil wells or gas pipelines? If so, then you'd have something to bitch about. In the meantime, you're just bitching for the sake of bitching. End of discussion.

Oh so Pelosi isn't gonna move to preserve her desert from solar panels,, isn"t??? and Ted Kennedy didn't move to preserve his backyard from wind mills??? didn't???? shit girl you slay me.

 

[Sinatra]

I already answered why no refineries are being built, and I already told you we ARE drilling for oil as well as extracting natural gas. That's MY answer, without Googling, but obviously you want me to repeat everything contained in this one-stop website. Do your own fucking research, then come back and ask some SMART questions instead of just smartASS questions. Is that asking too much?

Energy Information Administration - EIA - Official Energy Statistics from the U.S. Government

what you are studiously avoiding telling me. is that the pop up Pelsoi plan has been to block all offshore drilling where it counts, we are now banned from drilling off our shores where the oil is.. we are allowed to drill where it isn't ,,and you studiously avoid telling me how and why and when we will build enough nuclear plants to provide energy for the nation cause you and I both know wind ain't gonna do it,, neither is solar?? know why?? cause the dishonest fuck known as Ted Kennedy don't like the sight of windmills in his backyard and that dishonest fuck known as Nancy Pelosi don't want no goddamned solar panels in her desert,, and you cannot run an airplane on a far. now start from there.. and we'll go on with this discussion

I never asserted there wasn't political opposition to nuclear, wind, and any other environmentally fragile debate. There have been over a hundred nuclear power plants built since Three Mile Island and it isn't a matter of just slapping them together to solve all our energy problems. There were 69 commercial reactors in the U.S. 30 years ago, and today there are 104. Nuclear power now produces about 20% of the nation's electricity. Nuclear energy is NOT going to be scrapped.

Your rant is simply an OPINION, drawn from like minded people who never, EVER look at the big picture. If you did, in this case, you would know damned well that as I said, we already drill all over this country--not just in Texas and Alaska--and natural gas pipelines are constantly being built and/or upgraded. When they are not, it almost always has to do with private ownership of mineral rights, licensing requirements, etc., not Nancy Pelosi or Ted Kennedy.

Have we SHUT DOWN any oil wells or gas pipelines? If so, then you'd have something to bitch about. In the meantime, you're just bitching for the sake of bitching. End of discussion.

Over 100 plants built since Three Mile Island? Please link to your source regarding that.

It is my understanding that NO new plants have been commissioned in the United States since Three Mile Island - roughly 30 years. In fact, plans for 96 new nuclear facilities were shelved after the Three Mile Island incident.

Currently the United States has 104 nuclear reactors up and running - but they are getting old. Nuclear energy is the only viable, proven technology for producing base load energy that produces minimal greenhouse emissions. (not that I care so much about that - but you would think the enviros would, but they despise nuclear energy. Go figure...)

Instead of 20% of power produced by nuclear, it is entirely reasonable to set a goal of 50% of all power coming from nuclear within a ten year period. This would not only create many high paying jobs, but also greatly reduce our dependence upon foreign oil.

The fact so many environmentalists in this country are unwilling to concede the logic of nuclear power as a quite viable alternative source of energy to coal and oil, is indicative of their complete lack of logic and reason on the subject.

Time for America to go nuclear - all the way baby.

 

[WillowTree]

what you are studiously avoiding telling me. is that the pop up Pelsoi plan has been to block all offshore drilling where it counts, we are now banned from drilling off our shores where the oil is.. we are allowed to drill where it isn't ,,and you studiously avoid telling me how and why and when we will build enough nuclear plants to provide energy for the nation cause you and I both know wind ain't gonna do it,, neither is solar?? know why?? cause the dishonest fuck known as Ted Kennedy don't like the sight of windmills in his backyard and that dishonest fuck known as Nancy Pelosi don't want no goddamned solar panels in her desert,, and you cannot run an airplane on a far. now start from there.. and we'll go on with this discussion

I never asserted there wasn't political opposition to nuclear, wind, and any other environmentally fragile debate. There have been over a hundred nuclear power plants built since Three Mile Island and it isn't a matter of just slapping them together to solve all our energy problems. There were 69 commercial reactors in the U.S. 30 years ago, and today there are 104. Nuclear power now produces about 20% of the nation's electricity. Nuclear energy is NOT going to be scrapped.

Your rant is simply an OPINION, drawn from like minded people who never, EVER look at the big picture. If you did, in this case, you would know damned well that as I said, we already drill all over this country--not just in Texas and Alaska--and natural gas pipelines are constantly being built and/or upgraded. When they are not, it almost always has to do with private ownership of mineral rights, licensing requirements, etc., not Nancy Pelosi or Ted Kennedy.

Have we SHUT DOWN any oil wells or gas pipelines? If so, then you'd have something to bitch about. In the meantime, you're just bitching for the sake of bitching. End of discussion.

Where did you get your information on the construction of nuclear facilities from? Whenever I looked it up on the EIA website, that's not what I found:

Opinions vary regarding the future of nuclear power, but it is a fact that existing U.S. plants are performing well. Nuclear power plants now operate at a 90 percent capacity factor, compared to 56 percent in 1980. Additionally and in contrast to oil and gas, nuclear fuel costs are low and relatively stable. Fuel costs now average less than one half cent per kilowatthour. This is well below the costs of major competing fossil fuels. Production costs for nuclear power, operation and maintenance plus fuel costs, are also low, averaging 1.8 cents per kilowatt-hour. This cost roughly matches coal and is significantly below the costs of operating a natural gas plant.

Despite all of this relatively attractive news regarding nuclear power, there has been no new order for a nuclear power plant since the 1970s. The last nuclear plant to be completed went on line in 1996. A few, perhaps four, construction licenses are still valid or are being renewed for half-completed reactors, but there are no active plans to finish these reactors.

They may not have finished until the 90's because it takes over 20 years to complete one.

Yes,, that's what I read too.

 

[del]

Oh how you people LOOOOOOOVE to cherry pick and present it as gospel.

"Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama favors the continued use of nuclear power and sees it as an integral and inevitable part of any effective U.S. energy policy, especially in light of growing concerns about global warming.

"Nevertheless, Obama believes the United States must not increase its reliance on nuclear energy until other critical issues, such as national security and nuclear waste disposal, have been adequately addressed. Obama has said, “I don’t think that nuclear power is a panacea” for America’s energy problems.

“Nuclear power represents more than 70 percent of our non-carbon generated electricity,” Obama says in his energy plan. “It is unlikely that we can meet our aggressive climate goals if we eliminate nuclear power as an option. However, before an expansion of nuclear power can be considered, key issues must be addressed including: security of nuclear fuel and waste, waste storage, and proliferation.”

Obama on Nuclear Energy - Election 2008 - Barack Obama on Nuclear Energy

It's been Obama's position all along.

yeah, silly me. i should have known better than to quote the entire statement from his web site.
i'm sorry i couldn't keep up with his relentless spin; i've got inner ear problems.

Look, O clueless one, just Google Obama on Nuclear Energy and you'll see all sorts of articles where he is quoted. Soooooooooooooooooooooooooo sorry, I picked one from <gasp> his OWN website, where one would THINK those were HIS actual words. Duh...

and yet i pick one from his own web site and there's nary a mention of nukes.
go figure, huh?
truly, a man for all seasons.

 

[MaggieMae]

I suppose the next step is to offer to give the Iranians the nuclear materials needed to complete their weaponization like the Clintons did to North Korea.

Explain to me again why they need nuclear energy when they sit on top some of the largest oil reserves in the world and yet why we arent allowed to develop nuclear energy for power uses because of environmental concerns.

Am I the only one who sees the insanity in this?

It may be insane, but the debate is over whether or not a country like the United States has the right to force Iran to end development of nuclear energy. We do not.

 

[WillowTree]

2003 anything changed since 2003??


The U.S. nuclear power industry, while currently generating about 20% of the nation's electricity, faces an uncertain long-term future. No nuclear plants have been ordered since 1978 and more than 100 reactors have been canceled, including all ordered after 1973. No units are currently under active construction; the Tennessee Valley Authority's Watts Bar 1 reactor, ordered in 1970 and licensed to operate in 1996, was the most recent U.S. nuclear unit to be completed. The nuclear power industry's troubles include high nuclear power plant construction costs, public concern about nuclear safety and waste disposal, and regulatory compliance costs.

High construction costs are perhaps the most serious obstacle to nuclear power expansion. Construction costs for reactors completed since the mid-1980s have ranged from $2-$6 billion, averaging more than $3,000 per kilowatt of electric generating capacity (in 1997 dollars). The nuclear industry predicts that new plant designs could be built for less than half that amount if many identical plants were built in a series, but such economies of scale have yet to be demonstrated.









Nuclear Energy in the United States