Politico must see the writing on the way, regarding Democrat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, as the pull out a scary “if Sharron Angle wins” op-ed disguised as a straight story
Opponents of a Nevada nuclear waste dump thought they’d finally managed to kill the Yucca Mountain project. Then came Sharron Angle.
The tea party-backed Republican stands a good chance at ousting Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who has spent much of his career fighting the nuclear repository. And without a senior Nevada lawmaker in position to fend off Yucca’s supporters, the project could have new life.
You mean that location that would be the best possible location in the USA to store spent nuclear fuel rods from energy production nuclear plants? The one that was designated by……yes, that’s right, Democrats in 1987, to be the main US long term nuclear waste repository? The one that Obama refused to fund, in violation of the actual law? In fact, Obama zeroed out all funding for nuclear waste storage, which affects even the short term storage facilities, and is in violation of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982. I remember doing a paper about it back in grad school, and, looking at the three sites proposed (even though Yucca had already been designated), and seeing that Yucca was the best location. Unfortunately, that information is on a 3 1/2 inch floppy disk, something some of you young whippersnappers think of like an 8 track tape. I’m not explaining that one, either :))
A Yucca kick-start would be welcome news to the nuclear industry and pro-nuclear lawmakers who see the lack of a long-term repository as a roadblock for what they foresee as a U.S. nuclear renaissance.
Nuclear power has become a central tenet of congressional Republicans’ energy agenda; senators like John McCain, Lindsey Graham and Lamar Alexander say expanding the power source will help to cut dependence on foreign oil and lower greenhouse gas emissions. Democrats and the Obama administration have shown a willingness to compromise on the issue, and nuclear is posed to be a focal point of energy talks next year on Capitol Hill if Republicans make major electoral gains.
In other words, all you older liberal weenies, if you hate the idea of nuclear power plants providing electricity, and prefer plants power by hope and unicorn flatulence, get out there and vote Reid. And for every Democrat. To hell with the future energy needs of the USA.
“I’ve always voted against making Nevada the nuclear waste dump of the nation,” Angle said at her mid-October debate with Reid, adding, “We need to quit demonizing the nuclear energy industry.”
Damn that crazy Sharron Angle who wants to….wait, what? She’s against it? So is the other Senator, John Ensign (R)? Well, not really shocking, Nevadans do not want the repository, despite it being very safe for them. In a year or two, they would forget it was there. Yet, the main point of the story seems to be that a Senate, which will probably be still Democrat controlled by a few seats, without Reid would put us on a pathway to actually *ERP* debating and even funding Yucca Mt., opening it and putting it too work.
Crossed at Right Wing News and Stop The ACLU. Re-Change 2010!
In North Carolina according to the latest study done by Duke University solar electricity is now cheaper than that generated by nuclear plants. The study also said that solar would be MUCH cheaper than any nuke plants built in the future. http://www.sustainablebusiness.com/index.cfm/go/news.display/id/20683
I like my electricity GREEN solar costs are dropping
Nuclear power is risky, Standard and Poor’s has said that any utilty company planning on building a new nuke plant will have its credit rating dropped.
LOLOL OMG… Stop it John. HAHAHAHA I .hahahah.. I .. can’t breathe. HHAHAHAHA lolLOLOlol1l1o001101
Wow, John, that was a good joke. You got another one? Way to start off a monday. Loved that one.
I bet you your next joke will that a CFL puts out more light than the sun. lololol I almost spewed even thinking of that one.
Here is a question, if the Feds can mandate that states have to give up lands for Grassland Reserves, Wildlife Reserves, or other protected type areas. They can just take the lands away from the state.
Why can’t the Feds do the same with Yucca Mountain?
Oh, but it is not removing lands with expensive and needed energy resources under it. It deals with that nasty nuclear power. Thus, I guess not the same, huh.
Gee “Captain: sounds like you don’t want to have the states to have ANY rights at all. As far as CFLs and the sun, well where I live the Sun doesn’t shine at night, so that is when we use CFLs. Of course nuclear power is the most socialist type of power with the most government subsidies being needed. The capital costs are HUGE on start up
In North Carolina according to the latest study done by Duke University solar electricity is now cheaper than that generated by nuclear plants.
I have a feeling that you did not read the study Ryan.
The study takes into account subsidies for the nuclear plant, but does not take into account tax breaks and rebates for solar, which are as high as the subsidies
It should also be noted that the guy who wrote the study is a proponent of solar power and a spokesperson for the solar industry.
The study in essence does not compare costs on an apple to apple basis, but distorts the figures to make solar appear more economically feasible than it actually is.
Whoa! Nice deflection, John!
Like I’ve said, I’m all for solar. I’d like to see it aimed more at small use, like for individual homes, which would allow for almost no cost for energy usage, and much easier to create storage batteries. But, regardless, we have nuclear plants. The LAW states that there must be a long term repository. Democrats voted to make it Yucca Mountain. It’s THE LAW!
It is a hell of a lot better to secure all the spent fuel in one place, then storing it in lots of little depots, including the plants themselves. The repository will not be for weapons grade material, BTW. There is no chance it will seep into the groundwater, and the site is very remote. Hell, if France thinks nuclear rocks, so should we.
hahahaha Nuclear is Socialist. hahahahah. If so John, then why aren’t all the liberals, communists and tree-huggers all for it? You’d think they would be even if the energy wasn’t Socialist. It produces boundless amounts of energy with very little danger (especially our versions). It produces MUCH, MUCH more energy per area of infrastructure than any other energy production source. Why not utilize such an energy source?
And if it is Socialist energy, then our country should be all for it as we seem to be turning in to France and China.
For the sake of our national security and national energy supplies, I am all for subsidizing nuclear and petroleum products. Yeah, I know, I am against subsidies in general. BUT.. but, for the sake of our security and getting our country back on solid ground, I would be willing to allow this. We need the energy NOW. This will help.
Subsidizing solar and wind projects are like building parks. They look nice, and pacify certain groups of people, but in the end a waste of time, energy and space. Especially in times like these.
Once we get to a stable energy supply level, I would be all for the push for home-solar Teach. But, right now unless it is done in conjunction with a great push for nuclear and coal, I don’t think it will work.
And I have never bought in to the notion that solar adds to the value of a house. When I look at a house with solar, all I can think of are the maintenance expenses, the added time and labor of expense, and added insurance. Can you imagine the cost to replace a LARGE solar panel array system during our last round of storms in OK? Hail the size of cantelope? The only place I can think that home solar would really take off is in the SW including California, Florida, and maybe New England. Elsewhere it is too cloudy, too stormy and way too many hurricanes.
Wow… did I just rant? sorry about that….
The only place I can think that home solar would really take off is in the SW including California, Florida, and maybe New England. Elsewhere it is too cloudy, too stormy and way too many hurricanes.
You may want to take Florida off that list due to hurricanes. We get them here, you know. :)
I was talking to a home inspector the other day and he said that in hurricanes, they have a name for solar panels on houses.
They call them “frisbees.”
Solar will always be an supplemental source of energy. Physics shows that it cannot be a primary source of energy given the way the energy needs of the world are growing.
hahahaha.. yeah, I was debating adding Florida, but as they have many more sunny days, their value may be returned prior to their becoming frisbees.
In Oklahoma, solar really never took off. We only really have 3 months (avg) of sunny days with good sun elevation. The other times are during spring and fall with low solar elevation.
We then also have two seasons for powerful storms to contend with along with a great potential for ice storms and high winds.
This creates too many opportunities for high insurance costs. And that is the only reason I can see your solar-powered house going for a higher price. You need the extra money to help defray those costs you incurred.