Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
First of all, I don't really think he needed to mention nuclear power, when the topic should be about how we will clean up the oil and stop the leak.
However, the president decided to dedicate a quarter of his speech to clean energy jobs, wind power and solar power, but he completely left out natural gas and nuclear power.
It was only a short while ago that natural gas was considered a clean energy. We will always need oil and natural gas, even if we run all our cars on hope & change and rainbows, we will need to drill for oil, and natural gas.
Why no mention of nuclear power? We cannot have an electric power grid in this country without a reliable, sustainable, dependable and affordable base power generation, and will not get there with just wind and solar.
First of all, I don't really think he needed to mention nuclear power, when the topic should be about how we will clean up the oil and stop the leak.
However, the president decided to dedicate a quarter of his speech to clean energy jobs, wind power and solar power, but he completely left out natural gas and nuclear power.
It was only a short while ago that natural gas was considered a clean energy. We will always need oil and natural gas, even if we run all our cars on hope & change and rainbows, we will need to drill for oil, and natural gas.
Why no mention of nuclear power? We cannot have an electric power grid in this country without a reliable, sustainable, dependable and affordable base power generation, and will not get there with just wind and solar.
simple answer. Because he is a wacked out leftist ideologue who cannot understand something as simple as "cheep energy drives the economy"
we are begin led by WeHiI
Well Educated Highly Intelligent Idiot
First of all, I don't really think he needed to mention nuclear power, when the topic should be about how we will clean up the oil and stop the leak.
However, the president decided to dedicate a quarter of his speech to clean energy jobs, wind power and solar power, but he completely left out natural gas and nuclear power.
It was only a short while ago that natural gas was considered a clean energy. We will always need oil and natural gas, even if we run all our cars on hope & change and rainbows, we will need to drill for oil, and natural gas.
Why no mention of nuclear power? We cannot have an electric power grid in this country without a reliable, sustainable, dependable and affordable base power generation, and will not get there with just wind and solar.
Because like you said, he didn't need to mention it. It's off topic. Besides, he's already pledged $8 billion for new nuclear reactors. Would you prefer he pledge more? What's the issue?
Because like you said, he didn't need to mention it. It's off topic. Besides, he's already pledged $8 billion for new nuclear reactors. Would you prefer he pledge more? What's the issue?
Yes, he should pledge more. That's PRECISELY the issue.
Because like you said, he didn't need to mention it. It's off topic. Besides, he's already pledged $8 billion for new nuclear reactors. Would you prefer he pledge more? What's the issue?
I may be wrong but I believe that the 8 billion was for research into alternative energy, including nuclear. Obama throws in nuclear power even though (or because) he knows that as long as the environmental wackos control the permitting process there is no way a new reactor will be built. What private investors will put their money at risk for the 20 years it takes to get a reactor approved for building? It's never going to happen and Obama knows it. Once again he's lying through his teeth.
Because like you said, he didn't need to mention it. It's off topic. Besides, he's already pledged $8 billion for new nuclear reactors. Would you prefer he pledge more? What's the issue?
The issue is that he was being political by bringing up clean energy jobs, during a speech on a national emergency.
Wind and solar are only supplemental energy sources, and a special interest group topic, they had no business being inserted into this speech.
If the topic was clean energy for our nation's electrical grid, then all we have is natural gas and nuclear power, but he did not mention them. Wind and solar are only sources of supplemental energy, very unreliable and not cost effective. To exclude the base-load clean energy sources and only mentioning supplemental energy sources tells me it was just for special interest groups and just for political reasons, and it had no place in a speech about this oil disaster. Not to mention, wind and solar cannot replace oil-based fuels or the products made from petroleum.
Environmental "wackos" are right about nuclear energy. A typical nuclear bomb detonated over a city renders it uninhabitable (radioactive) for a month or so. A nuclear reactor accident renders an area uninhabitable for thousands of years. Do we really think, as someone above wrote, that this is "cheep" energy?
We have built ourselves into a corner and have created a culture that will require significant change to bring about the use of clean energy. Rejecting these changes and opting for continued use of dangerous and environmentally destructive sources of energy is a huge misstep.
I may be wrong but I believe that the 8 billion was for research into alternative energy, including nuclear. Obama throws in nuclear power even though (or because) he knows that as long as the environmental wackos control the permitting process there is no way a new reactor will be built. What private investors will put their money at risk for the 20 years it takes to get a reactor approved for building? It's never going to happen and Obama knows it. Once again he's lying through his teeth.
Environmental "wackos" are right about nuclear energy. A typical nuclear bomb detonated over a city renders it uninhabitable (radioactive) for a month or so. A nuclear reactor accident renders an area uninhabitable for thousands of years. Do we really think, as someone above wrote, that this is "cheep" energy?
We have built ourselves into a corner and have created a culture that will require significant change to bring about the use of clean energy. Rejecting these changes and opting for continued use of dangerous and environmentally destructive sources of energy is a huge misstep.
I agree, I'm not crazy about nuclear power, but if we are not allowed to use coal or, natural gas then where do get our power? Even spending $10 trillion dollars, wind and solar will not do the job.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
