Obama announces $8B in loan guarantees to build first U.S. nuclear plant in three decades, CNBC reports.

[Marzy 1]

meanwhile, obama's green supporters pull their hair out.

Hair is important too.

[Pooky 3,876]

Hair is important too.

Hair today, gone tomorrow

[alienlovechild 75]

Attitudes toward nuclear power certainly have changed. Not a single poster decrying this decision as a potential disaster a la Chernobyl.

30 years ago there was endless parade of scientists and environmentalist warning the public about how there so many problems with nuke power that it simply wasn't worth the trouble.

[scandal 951]

IS this trying to appear more centrist or has he matured in his views on Energy since the Campaign?

This is entirely consistent with his campaign positions. He has not changed his views. Witness this piece from May 2008:

http://neinuclearnotes.blogspot.com/2008/0...ear-energy.html

Sunday, May 04, 2008

Barack Obama on Nuclear Energy

In an interview on "Meet the Press," Sen. Barack Obama (D) was asked by host Tim Russert to discuss his position on Nuclear Energy.

Russert: In terms of climate change, global warming, you've talked about wind and solar and biofuels. What about nuclear? All—in all realistic assessment, don't we need more nuclear power in order to wean ourselves off of those same fuels that are contaminating the world?

Obama: I think we do have to look at nuclear, and what we've got to figure out is can we store the material properly? Can we make sure that they're secure? Can we deal with the expense? Because the problem is, is that a lot of our nuclear industry, it reinvents the wheel. Each nuclear power plant that is proposed has a new design, has—it, it has all kinds of changes, there are all sorts of cost overruns. So it has not been an effective option. That doesn't mean that it can't be an effective option, but we're going to have to figure out storage and safety issues. And my attitude when it comes to energy is there's no silver bullet. We've got to be—we've, we've got to look at every possible option.

[alienlovechild 75]

I think we do have to look at nuclear, and what we've got to figure out is can we store the material properly? Can we make sure that they're secure? Can we deal with the expense? Because the problem is, is that a lot of our nuclear industry, it reinvents the wheel. Each nuclear power plant that is proposed has a new design, has—it, it has all kinds of changes, there are all sorts of cost overruns. So it has not been an effective option. That doesn't mean that it can't be an effective option, but we're going to have to figure out storage and safety issues. And my attitude when it comes to energy is there's no silver bullet. We've got to be—we've, we've got to look at every possible option.

That's not ringing endorsement of nuclear power and he repeats all the negatives. He was open to it as an energy source but he puts on par with any our power source. Since that 2008 interview, cost is no longer a big deal to Obama. Just put it on the tab along with everything else.

He's solved all the safety and storage issues without any major debate on the issue?

[justashooter 430]

even a blind hog finds an acorn once in awhile.

[scandal 951]

That's not ringing endorsement of nuclear power and he repeats all the negatives. He was open to it as an energy source but he puts on par with any our power source. Since that 2008 interview, cost is no longer a big deal to Obama. Just put it on the tab along with everything else.

He's solved all the safety and storage issues without any major debate on the issue?

No, he has not. What he has done though (through is Energy Secretary Chu) is to make clear what everyone has recognized for decades now, that Yucca Mountain is not going to be the final resting place of our radioactive waste.

In 2009 the Obama Administration stated that the site [Yucca Mountain Repository] was no longer an option and proposed to eliminate all funding in the 2009 United States Federal Budget, prompting inquiries from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. On March 5, 2009, Energy Secretary Steven Chu told a Senate hearing "the Yucca Mountain site was no longer viewed as an option for storing reactor waste,"[1] in contradiction to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, amended in 1987, which designated Yucca Mountain as the national repository for high level nuclear waste. In July 2009 the United States House of Representatives voted 388 to 30 to not defund the Yucca Mountain repository in the fiscal year 2010 budget.

I think he's got approx. the correct stance. Cautiously embrace the technology, since we have much better control of uranium supplies than petroleum, and it's "clean" in terms of emissions. But we must have a permanent solution for this waste. Permanent means just that:

Plutonium-239, which is in irradiated fuel, has a half-life of 24,400 years. It is dangerous for a quarter million years, or 12,000 human generations. As it decays, uranium-235 is generated; half-life: 710,000 years. Thus, the hazard of irradiated fuel will continue for millions of years.

Whatever we do, we better do it right and tread cautiously.

[alienlovechild 75]

No, he has not. What he has done though (through is Energy Secretary Chu) is to make clear what everyone has recognized for decades now, that Yucca Mountain is not going to be the final resting place of our radioactive waste.

Wait til the alternative nuclear waste sites named. Gutless members of Congress will not be able to handle an already restive public

Sen. Reid is behind this one I'm guessing.