Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Build More Nuclear Power Plants, Bush Says
CNSNews ^ | 6/22/05 | Susan Jones

Posted on 06/22/2005 9:56:33 AM PDT by Tumbleweed_Connection

"There is a growing consensus that more nuclear power will lead to a cleaner and safer nation," President Bush said on Wednesday during a trip to a nuclear power plant in Maryland.

"It is time for this country to start building nuclear power plants again," he said to applause at the Calvert Cliffs plant.

"We're taking practical steps to encourage construction of new plants, Bush said, as he pressed Congress to send him an energy bill by August.

President Bush joked that he didn't understand all the buttons and dials in the control room of the Calvert Cliffs plant -- but he said he does know that when the people of Maryland flip a switch and see their lights come on, they need to thank the people working at the nuclear plant.

He said nuclear power is the one energy source that is "completely domestic, plentiful in quantity, environmentally friendly, and able to generate massive amounts of electricity."

The 103 nuclear power plants currently operating in America produce about 20 percent of the nation's electricity, Bush noted, without producing a single pound of air pollution or greenhouse gases.

In terms of safety, times have changed since the 1970s, Bush said. Advances in technology have made nuclear plants far safer than they were before. Yet no new plants have been built in the U.S. since the 1970s.

In his speech, President Bush noted that Americans are using energy faster they they're producing it. "We really haven't confronted this problem," he said, noting that he's been asking Congress to send him an energy bill for the past four years. All he's gotten is debate and politics but no results, he said. "So now's the time...for Cognress to stop the debate, stop the inaction, and pass an energy bill."

The House has passed an energy bill and the Senate needs to do so, the president said -- before the Senate's August recess.

President Bush said gasoline prices will not drop when he signs a bill. But making the nation less dependent on foreign oil will make life better for future generations, he said.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Culture/Society; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: bush43; dumbidea; energy; fission; fusion; news; nuclear; nuclearplant; powerplants; term2
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 181-182 next last
More ideas to destroy
1 posted on 06/22/2005 9:56:37 AM PDT by Tumbleweed_Connection
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection

Gasp!

The enviro-weenies probably have their shorts in a knot over this.


2 posted on 06/22/2005 9:58:14 AM PDT by fatnotlazy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection

I REALLY hope they can get this going.


3 posted on 06/22/2005 9:59:30 AM PDT by kharaku (G3)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fatnotlazy

Actually there is no responsible environmentalist who could have a problem with Nuke plants, it's only morons without a scrap of scientific understanding who go willy over the notion of nuclear power. Nuclear is a perfect environmentally sensative form of power generation, and I've never met anyone R or D who knew what they were talking about and opposed it, only paranoid weenies.


4 posted on 06/22/2005 10:08:06 AM PDT by kharaku (G3)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection

Hmmm ... cut back funding for "safe" alternative energies like solar and encourage spending more money on "dangerous" alternative energies like nuclear. Ridding ourselves of dependence on foreign oil is a *top* priority ... huge ... especially as China enters the competition for demand. But is this the "best" way to go about doing it? Three Mile Island? Chernobyl? I'd take a "solar disaster" over a "nuclear disaster" any day. We just need the next great evolutionary jump in solar technology.


5 posted on 06/22/2005 10:11:12 AM PDT by so_real ("The Congress of the United States recommends and approves the Holy Bible for use in all schools.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection
He do?

Damned If I Know

6 posted on 06/22/2005 10:11:54 AM PDT by sharktrager (My life is like a box of chocolates, but someone took all the good ones.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: so_real

Chernobyl was caused by an intentional melt down, 3 mile island was only a partial meltdown, and modern Nuclear plants, you know ones built between the last one we built more than 30 years ago and now, are scads safer. It is a safe highly efficient source of energy. You haven't even named a nuclear disaster most people born after Reagan was elected would recall. That should tell you about the incidence of catastophy.


7 posted on 06/22/2005 10:18:45 AM PDT by kharaku (G3)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: so_real

What solar power? What are you talking about? How many MWh are produced by solar generators? Are you one of those misinformed dopes that thinks solar power is viable? Maybe you should build a power plant that runs on harmonious feeelings, or from moonbeams. Dar.


8 posted on 06/22/2005 10:21:07 AM PDT by mallardx
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: kharaku; All

Plus the fact that French (even they get it right once awhile) uses nuclear power..


9 posted on 06/22/2005 10:24:30 AM PDT by KevinDavis (the space/future belongs to the eagles, the earth/past to the groundhogs)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: kharaku

My only objection to nuclear power is that taxpayers are expected to subsidize them. Private insurance companies will not insure them against catastrophic events, and if they did, they would charge premiums so high as to make Nuclear power more expensive than coal, oil, etc... Which is why nuclear power companies are insured by govt. bodies backed up by our tax dollars against meltdown.
Nuclear power, in a free market, is not economically viable yet.


10 posted on 06/22/2005 10:26:37 AM PDT by Petruk2 (petruk)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection
Pebble bed reactors look like they might be very safe, as well as far less expensive to build (because they are scalable, and can be built from mass-produced parts). Here's a link to a Wired Magazine article about the Chinese program to build pebble bed reactors: http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.09/china.html
11 posted on 06/22/2005 10:31:35 AM PDT by USFRIENDINVICTORIA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kharaku

How true.


12 posted on 06/22/2005 10:32:58 AM PDT by Tumbleweed_Connection (http://hour9.blogspot.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection

I like the idea of nuclear/desalination plants off the coasts.
You solve the problems of both electricity & water with one plant.


13 posted on 06/22/2005 10:34:02 AM PDT by kellynla (U.S.M.C. 1st Battalion,5th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Div. Viet Nam 69&70 Semper Fi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection
"It is time for this country to start building nuclear power plants again," he said to applause at the Calvert Cliffs plant.

I agree with him. Nuclear power is one method to reduce the reliance on Middle Eastern and OPEC oil.

14 posted on 06/22/2005 10:35:43 AM PDT by af_vet_1981
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection

We tax payers have paid for power generation for eon's yet availability goes down and prices come up. One think to look at near/at our military bases is the nuclear ships the enter port. Insteand of turning off the reactors, leave them on and power the local cities.

One carrier in San Diego could almost power the entire city and since we have paid for the construction of this mobil nuclear plant, we can use it at home.


15 posted on 06/22/2005 10:36:31 AM PDT by edcoil (Reality doesn't say much - doesn't need too)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: mallardx
It's pointless trying to please the "environmentalists" regarding power generation. They oppose everything.

Want to put up a wind farm. You can't, because they're ugly and might hurt birds.

How about solar? Only small scale, like on the roof of your house.
Forget about going for efficiency with huge solar farms in the desert. They're ugly, and will undoubtedly harm some endangered species.

Nukes? Are you kidding?

Coal? Nope.

Hydro? Nope. No more dams.

If I've left out anything, it doesn't matter because they oppose it too.

16 posted on 06/22/2005 10:39:43 AM PDT by skip_intro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: USFRIENDINVICTORIA
Alternative Nuclear Power
17 posted on 06/22/2005 10:42:54 AM PDT by gubamyster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: kharaku
modern Nuclear plants, you know ones built between the last one we built more than 30 years ago and now, are scads safer.

Of that I have no doubt. But Uranium-238 still has a half-life of 4+ billion years (4.5, I believe) making "safe" a relative term -- all equipment eventually ages, and where people are involved accidents do happen.
18 posted on 06/22/2005 10:43:34 AM PDT by so_real ("The Congress of the United States recommends and approves the Holy Bible for use in all schools.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: newgeezer
NO WAY!!!!!!!

I'm joining the green party.

19 posted on 06/22/2005 10:44:27 AM PDT by biblewonk (Yes I think I am a bible worshipper.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mallardx
Are you one of those misinformed dopes that thinks solar power is viable? Maybe you should build a power plant that runs on harmonious feeelings, or from moonbeams. Dar.

Are you always so rude when you first-post someone? Feel free to address me when you've grown up and know how to speak like an adult. Until then, children should be seen and not heard.
20 posted on 06/22/2005 10:44:45 AM PDT by so_real ("The Congress of the United States recommends and approves the Holy Bible for use in all schools.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 181-182 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson