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.
Oh yeah? Tell me what the strawman is? But, first, let me say this: If you are ignorant of 1970s/80's energy policy and discussion, then do yourself a favor and exit the thread. We don't need you pontificating about something you know nothing about.
It is a strawman argument because you blame liberalism for the lack of nuclear power plants, yet I bet there wouldn't be many conservatives that would want a nuclear power plant in their backyard either.
Let me know when you have educated yourself on nuclear energy and the effects of nuclear waste.
Yes, I have worked on nuclear plant siting. But that has absolutely NOTHING to do with the last 40 years and the de facto moratorium on nuclear infrastructure development. So what's your point? You have none.
Why were you so concerned about the alleged plants being planned in 2009 that you felt the need to give cryptic warnings? Might it have something to do with the new liberal in the White House? If McCain had won, the same planning would take place and you probably wouldn't have said a word. That makes you a pathetic hypocrite that nobody should take seriously and should exit this thread.
There were several nuclear reactors planned for the US. In fact Westinghouse underwent a major expansion of staff to accommodate the new orders. However two things happened to put the brakes on these new reactors:
1) Fukushima
2) Cheap natural gas
Wow. Just wow. The link I provided is to illustrate the change of direction liberals have taken on nuclear power. You can't have a change in thinking if there wasn't a contrarian point of view to begin with.
So you're happy that liberals have changed their thinking to agree more with yours, opening for a useful compromise, right?
Quote:
In essence, no one should listen to any liberal anywhere when it comes time to have a thoughtful discussion on energy policy.
Oh. Appears not.
But hey, if the US wakes up and gets more in line with French energy policy, this liberal wouldn't be altogether unhappy.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,330 posts, read 54,419,437 times
Reputation: 40736
Quote:
Originally Posted by AeroGuyDC
Just like the title of the thread states: If it weren't for liberals and liberalism, America would have a vast and expansive nuclear power infrastructure, renewable for infinity, more efficient than fossil fuels, less damaging to the environment than scavenging for coal, oil and natural gas, and more economically efficient than high-cost wind and solar farms.
For the past 40 years, America could have been building upon a tried and true energy infrastucture. But, no. We can't have that here in America. Liberals just won't allow it. And because of that, America missed the boat.
In essence, no one should listen to any liberal anywhere when it comes time to have a thoughtful discussion on energy policy. They screwed America royally on the nuclear power issue. And now they have the gall to tell us how bad coal, fracking, and oil is?
I wholeheartedly believe that nothing is by happenstance or chance....that fate rules the day....that there is a plan in place for this world for everything as a matter of destiny.
Give up on destiny so quickly did ya?
Or do you only "wholeheartedly believe" when it suits your agenda?
So you're happy that liberals have changed their thinking to agree more with yours, opening for a useful compromise, right?
Oh. Appears not.
But hey, if the US wakes up and gets more in line with French energy policy, this liberal wouldn't be altogether unhappy.
Yes, it's a good thing that liberals have finally seen the light. Unfortunately, they caused the USA to be 40 years behind due to their Nuclear Boogeyman scaremongering.
There were several nuclear reactors planned for the US. In fact Westinghouse underwent a major expansion of staff to accommodate the new orders. However two things happened to put the brakes on these new reactors:
1) Fukushima
2) Cheap natural gas
Didn't realize either one of those were liberal.
Uh, no. Fukishima is a few years old. And so is the natural gas boom. This does nothing to erase the 40 years of liberals' intransigence towards nuclear energy policy.
Try again.
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.
Nuclear power is dirty
