Which Obama Promise Will Be Broken First?

[busara]

http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/factsheet_energy_speech_080308.pdf

Page 6 on the bottom

Nuclear Energy

Read your President Elect energy plan

that talked about how we will handle nuclear waste while stating the importance of our current plants. nothing specifically about building new plants.

 

[dilloduck]

What promises' did Bush even make, let alone keep. I forgot.

It's like I just woke up from a nightmare/dream and I forgot all the details.

Great comparsion Bobo----Bush didn't keep any so don't expect Obama to.

 

[del]

that talked about how we will handle nuclear waste while stating the importance of our current plants. nothing specifically about building new plants.

yeah, imagine that. a politician short on specifics.
i'm stunned.

 

[Andrew2382]

It is unlikely that we can meet our aggressive climate goals if we eliminate nuclear power as an option.

The rest is bullshit, we have the tech to reprocess eerything and effectively store everything

80% of France electric comes from Nuclear, I think we can do the same


Bottom line- he won't build one reactor

 

[doeton]

"Which Obama Promise Will Be Broken First?"

i'm not sure which one will be first but there's plenty to choose from:


the one to bankrupt coal companies.

the one take away all our guns.

the one to turn the country into a socialist pinko commie state.

the one to hand the country over to terrorists.

 

[WillowTree]

It is unlikely that we can meet our aggressive climate goals if we eliminate nuclear power as an option.

The rest is bullshit, we have the tech to reprocess eerything and effectively store everything

80% of France electric comes from Nuclear, I think we can do the same


Bottom line- he won't build one reactor

you got that right, this is the no regime just took over.



no oil
no nuclear
no coal


expect yer gas to be ten bucks a gallon soon, very very soon

 

[busara]

It is unlikely that we can meet our aggressive climate goals if we eliminate nuclear power as an option.

The rest is bullshit, we have the tech to reprocess eerything and effectively store everything

80% of France electric comes from Nuclear, I think we can do the same


Bottom line- he won't build one reactor

he didnt say he would though. so youre just complaining cause he hasnt promised to do something you want him to, which is not the subject of this thread.

 

[BlackAsCoal]

no royboy

Most Americans wanted change, but for the sake of BDS, revenge, and the greedy entitlement mentality...

Every US citizen that is not beholden to the far left, like Obama is, should fight to ensure he does not revert to his history and his original stances of Marxist style control... it should not be made easy for him to make these radical changes... the right, the conservatives, the libertarians, all should have due diligence to fight to drag Obama more center... it won't be as good as having a conservative in the White House, but it will be better than if he is given free reign to hurt America

This is the EXACT thinking that will lead the Republican Party into oblivion.

I don't think most republicans are capable of growing up.

Democrats in complete control of government are most likely to undo themselves .. but their undoing doesn't make republicans thinking stuck in 1776 any more attractive.

The democratic congress has approval ratings somewhere near George Bush .. but still they spanked you .. what does that tell you?

 

[auditor0007]

I suppose I am just saying that if he *doesn't* carry through on the help to the middle calss (health care and tax breaks) then he will for sure be out in four years. So he has to keep those promises as a political manouver.

The green jobs is definitely a necessity for the mid term outlook for manufacturing in the country, particularly in the auto industry. I don't know that he'll get on it, but he'd better.

The oil I had heard differently than what you are saying - I had heard that tehre was a ton of oil under approved lands. So if you have a link to a survey site that says otherwise I'd be curious.

I also think education will be far down the list and any promises he made there might be forgotten. but he has to help the middle class if he wants to keep credibility, and if he is really interested in the country he will also work towards those green jobs.

Something the middle class keeps forgetting; we're paying less in taxes than we ever have. 40% of Americans don't pay any taxes at all. You can't just keep giving money to those who don't even pay in the first place. I'm not so much against a small increase on high income earners, but in truth that isn't going to help bring in much more revenue. Cutting taxes certainly won't help.

 

[Andrew2382]

it's on his energy plan!

He promises to find efficent ways to store it etc...for the effort to build more nuclear power plants

He won't do shit

Why you libs are so against the most effiecent power we have is beyond me

Nuclear power is cheaper and produces more then wind and solar combined

 

[Andrew2382]

This is the EXACT thinking that will lead the Republican Party into oblivion.

I don't think most republicans are capable of growing up.

Democrats in complete control of government are most likely to undo themselves .. but their undoing doesn't make republicans thinking stuck in 1776 any more attractive.

The democratic congress has approval ratings somewhere near George Bush .. but still they spanked you .. what does that tell you?

Actually bush approval rating is in the 20 percentile

Congress is around 7% I believe.

So you are wrong again.

And the only reason dems gaine dmore pwoer was because of the campign pinning everything on Bush as if people do not realize that dems have had power in 2 years.

If shit gets worse, in 2010 you will see the pendelum swing back to the right

 

[del]

This is the EXACT thinking that will lead the Republican Party into oblivion.

I don't think most republicans are capable of growing up.

Democrats in complete control of government are most likely to undo themselves .. but their undoing doesn't make republicans thinking stuck in 1776 any more attractive.

The democratic congress has approval ratings somewhere near George Bush .. but still they spanked you .. what does that tell you?

that people think everyone in congress is a complete dolt, except their rep or senator.

 

[Vintij]

I cant believe how many conservative talk radio hosts are now finally willing to understand that its not your party that you should be clinging to. I respect them for that. (except hannity and rush ofcourse) If your party screws up the nation, spend outrageous amounts of money and go away from your true republican fundementals, why would you expect anyone to vote you into office? Many conservatives are saying the same thing, dont blame Palin or Mccain or Democrats or young people....blame the derailed ideology of President Bush and his administration, perverting the true fundementals of conservatives. Look you guys dont have to be mad that Obama got elected, you should be proud that democracy has served this country to the fullest extent. You should be happy that you had a chance to vote for something other than the last 8 years of policy.

Obama has never ever indicated he wants to divide this nation, nor has he ever supported using wedge issues to get elected, and thats why he got elected. He ran the most disciplined campaign in decades, never brought up meaningless wedge issues as the most important of our time, all he did was focus on the big issues that we the people cared about. Not the people in washington.

And guess what else, he owes us. Not oil companies or lobbyst's. He owes us, the people all around the country who donated small amounts of money to his campaign. If you ask me, thats a good debt to be in.

 

[del]

-edit_

And guess what else, he owes us. Not oil companies or lobbyst's. He owes us, the people all around the country who donated small amounts of money to his campaign. If you ask me, thats a good debt to be in.

if you ask me, you're dreaming.

 

[busara]

it's on his energy plan!

He promises to find efficent ways to store it etc...for the effort to build more nuclear power plants

He won't do shit

Why you libs are so against the most effiecent power we have is beyond me

Nuclear power is cheaper and produces more then wind and solar combined

The Obama-Biden Web site says that "nuclear power represents more than 70 percent of our noncarbon generated electricity. 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 is considered, key issues must be addressed including: security of nuclear fuel and waste, wastestorage, and proliferation."
CNN Political Ticker: All politics, all the time Blog Archive - Fact check: Does Obama think nuclear power is unsafe? - Blogs from CNN.com

he does not specifically say he will build more plants, so it isnt a promise he is breaking if he doesnt build any. get it?

the only reason im against nuclear is because of the extremely high capital costs. i dont want the govt to have to front the bill.

 

[doeton]

It is unlikely that we can meet our aggressive climate goals if we eliminate nuclear power as an option.The rest is bullshit, we have the tech to reprocess eerything and effectively store everything
80% of France electric comes from Nuclear, I think we can do the same
Bottom line- he won't build one reactor

It is unlikely that we can meet our aggressive climate goals if we eliminate nuclear power as an option.80% of France electric comes from Nuclear, I think we can do the same. Bottom line- he won't build one reactor

france has health care for its citizens....people there actually trust the government and civil servants are respected.

Thing about nuke plants is they can't safely be run on the same paradigm as coal plants that go 24 / 7. They need to be run with safety as a forefront, not profits. Which is antithetical to investor utilities.

My state just had an investor owned utility reservoir collapse right over camp ground. Luckily it was the off season, had it not been, hundreds of people would be dead.

but to your point Andrew. I'm not so sure Obama, the NRC and congress are really going to hold the plants that are already in the works. There's lots of Money involved.

 

[Andrew2382]

heh, yet a nuclear power plan is cheaper then a windmill or solar plant that would produce the same power output

 

[busara]

heh, yet a nuclear power plan is cheaper then a windmill or solar plant that would produce the same power output

at the moment, thats true. but as tech improves, so will prices.

 

[BlackAsCoal]

it's on his energy plan!

He promises to find efficent ways to store it etc...for the effort to build more nuclear power plants

He won't do shit

Why you libs are so against the most effiecent power we have is beyond me

Nuclear power is cheaper and produces more then wind and solar combined

Chernobyl

Fermi

Three Mile Island

.. and there is this ..

On March 9, 1979, the NRC staff produced a memo for then Commissioner Peter Bradford entitled, "Probabilities That The Next Major Accident Occurs Within Prescribed Intervals." The memorandum states that:

The probability is less than .5 that the next (i.e., the first) major accident occurs within the next 400 reactor years.
The probability is less than .05 that the next major accident occurs within the next 21 reactor years.
The probability is larger than .5 that the next major accident occurs after the next 400 reactor years.

Less than three weeks later, the unit 2 reactor at Three Mile Island suffered a meltdown of the radioactive fuel in the reactor core.

.. and there is this ..

The U.S. nuclear reactors that have experienced partial core melt accidents include:

EBR-1 (Experimental Breeder Reactor) 11/29/55 Idaho Falls, ID
WTR (Westinghouse Testing Reactor) 04/03/60 Waltz Mill, PA
SL-1 (Stationary Low Power Reactor) 01/03/61 Idaho Falls, ID
Fermi-1 10/05/66 Lagoona Beach, MI
Three Mile Island 03/28/79 Harrisburg, PA

.. and there is this ..

In the wake of the 1986 accident at Chernobyl, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission was asked to testify before Congress concerning the potential for severe accident in the U.S. According to NRC Commissioner James K. Asselstine:

...given the present level of safety being achieved by the operating nuclear power plants in this country, we can expect to see a core meltdown accident with in the next 20 years

.. and there is this ..

In 1990, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission was again asked the probability of a severe core melt accident at a U.S. nuclear reactor. However, the NRC refused to provide the National Academy of Science's National Research Council with the number they were seeking. In the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's response to the National Research Council, the agency stated that it "would strongly encourage your committee not to use any number based on assuming an average severe core damage frequency." Rather, the NRC suggested that the National Research Council state that "there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public are adequately protected."

The Probability of a Nuclear Accident | Greenpeace USA

The left doesn't measure everything in dollars.

 

[Andrew2382]

God BAC, you are just fucking stupid

Fermi was 1966
3 mile Island 1979

Chernobyl was Russian

Let me ask you

How many deaths were associated with the PARTIAL meltdowns associated with Fermi and 3MI?

None
thats right
0

Several safety measures exist to protect against any release of radioactive material into the environment. The ceramic uranium fuel pellets resist the negative effects of high temperature and corrosion. Most of the radioactivity remains in the fuel pellets (NEI: Safety, 1998). The concentration of U-235 is kept low so that a nuclear explosion is impossible. Also, the chemical makeup of the fuel provides a natural control. As the reaction heats up, it slows down, since 96% of the fuel does not fission (NEI: The energy plant, 1998). The fuel pellets are placed in zirconium fuel rods, which resist heat, corrosion, and radiation (NEI: Safety, 1998). Water acts as a moderator of the nuclear reaction by slowing down the neutrons and increasing the probability that they will hit and fission a uranium atom. An increased level of steam slows the reaction, and if all water converts to steam, the reaction stops completely (NEI: The energy plant, 1998). The reactor core is located inside a steel pressure vessel with eight-inch thick walls. A huge steel-reinforced concrete containment structure with four-foot thick walls covers everything (NEI: Safety, 1998). Nuclear power plants also have backup systems to protect against almost every imaginable problem, including human error, equipment failure, floods, earthquakes, and tornadoes (NEI: The energy plant, 1998).

Nuclear Power: A Clean, Safe Alternative