Going Nuclear

Nuclear the new “green”??

NBC WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama is endorsing nuclear energy like never before, trying to win over Republicans and moderate Democrats on climate and energy legislation.

Obama singled out nuclear power in his State of the Union address, and his spending plan for the next budget year is expected to include billions of more dollars in federal guarantees for new nuclear reactors. This emphasis reflects both the political difficulties of passing a climate bill in an election year and a shift from his once cautious embrace of nuclear energy.

He’s now calling for a new generation of nuclear power plants.

This ought to be a fun show, as no nuclear power planet has been built in this country since 1978!

Why?

Environmentalists.

The same radical fringe that promotes Global Warming.

What strange bedfellows these.

And yet…

His administration has pledged to close Yucca Mountain, the planned multibillion-dollar burial ground in the Nevada desert for high-level radioactive waste. Energy Secretary Steven Chu has been criticized for his slow rollout of $18.5 billion in loan guarantees to spur investment in new nuclear power plants, and the administration killed a Bush-era proposal to reprocess nuclear fuel.

So is this more of the doublethink and two-faced “objectives”??

Like “creating jobs” with tax cuts here, but tax increases over there.

Why the change? Or at least the change in talking points?

Sen-Elect Scott Brown.

What has changed is the outlook for climate and energy legislation, a White House priority. The House passed a bill in June that would limit emissions of heat-trapping gases for the first time. But the legislation led to a Republican revolt in the Senate, where the recent election of Republican Scott Brown from Massachusetts has made the measure even more of a long shot.

White House officials say Obama’s actions reflect his long support of nuclear power. But lawmakers from both parties say the speech reflected a new urgency and willingness to reach out to Republicans who have criticized Obama for not talking more about the role nuclear energy can play in slowing global warming.

The 104 nuclear reactors in operation in 31 states provide only 20 percent of the nation’s electricity. But they are responsible for 70 percent of the power from pollution-free sources, including wind, solar and hydroelectric dams.

Several analyses of the climate bills passed by the House and under consideration in the Senate suggest that the U.S. will have to build many more plants in order to meet the 80 percent reduction in greenhouse gases by 2050 called for in the legislation. One of those studies, by the Environmental Protection Agency, assumed 180 new reactors would come on line by 2050.

“I see an evolving attitude on energy by the president,” said Sen. Lamar Alexander, who has called for 100 plants to be built in the next 20 years. Alexander, R-Tenn., said Obama’s mention of nuclear energy in the address Wednesday night was the most important statement that the president has made on nuclear power.

“Up until now, the administration has been pursuing a national windmill policy instead of a national energy policy, which is the military equivalent of going to war in sailboats,” he said.

Oh, the howling from Environmentalists and their Lawyers is going to be at banshee levels.

And won’t that be an interesting cat-fight.

The plan is actually not a bad one.

But do I think it stands a chance against the Environmentalist lobbies that have crushed it for 32 years?

Unknown.

And there is chatter that it’s just a sneakier way of passing the Capt & Trade Bill.

That I would not discount. Not at all.

Obama’s $787bn economic recovery plan set aside $50bn for the nuclear industry but Democrats in Congress cut out the funds.

What’s unclear is whether Obama’s endorsement will help. It could attract more Republican and moderate Democrats. But nuclear energy and offshore drilling may alienate some liberal Democrats and environmentalists. One environmental group, Friends of the Earth, called it “a kick in the gut.”

UK Guardian (a very “green” newspaper) Headline: US nuclear industry tries to hijack Obama’s climate change bill.

Opponents have complained that the loan guarantees for projects that cannot draw commercial investment amount to “nuclear socialism.” 🙂 (NY Times)

That’s funny on so many levels…

Oh, and on a tangent,  that wacky fun guy in Iran whom Obama just wants to sit down and talk with (while he build nuclear weapons) has said:

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad says the nation will deliver a harsh blow to the “global arrogance” on this year’s anniversary of the Islamic Revolution.

“The Islamic Revolution opened a window to liberty for the human race, which was trapped in the dead ends of materialism,” Ahmadinejad said during a cabinet meeting on Sunday.

“If the Islamic Revolution had not occurred, liberalism and Marxism would have crushed all human dignity in their power-seeking and money-grubbing claws. Nothing would have remained of human and spiritual principles,” he added.

Ahmadinejad said that in the three decades of its history, the Islamic Revolution had inspired some great developments in the world.

The Iranian president made the remarks as the 31st anniversary of the Islamic Revolution approaches.

Iranians are expected to pour into the streets on February 11 to celebrate the occasion in public rallies across the country, as they have done annually over the past three decades. (press tv)

And The president has sent multiple Patriot missle batteries to the area.

But don’t worry, we can just talk them out of it. 🙂

After all, there nuclear power is just for domestic use. <<wink wink>>