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 previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 181-182 next last
To: kharaku
only paranoid weenies

Watermelons. Green on the outside, red on the outside. It isn't about the environment, it's about advancing socialism. If we go nuclear the environment is improved along with the economy, that strengthens capitalism.
21 posted on 06/22/2005 10:47:46 AM PDT by BJClinton ("Maybe his mother loved him, but I've never met anybody who does." - VP Cheney re: Howard Dean)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: so_real

So is that a yes or no?


22 posted on 06/22/2005 10:49:52 AM PDT by kharaku (G3)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: biblewonk

Buh-bye. ;)


23 posted on 06/22/2005 10:51:43 AM PDT by newgeezer (Just my opinion, of course. Your mileage may vary.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: biblewonk; All

Yet you claim to be conservative..


24 posted on 06/22/2005 10:53:50 AM PDT by KevinDavis (the space/future belongs to the eagles, the earth/past to the groundhogs)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection

Does that WHOOPS will re-open and start selling more bonds?


25 posted on 06/22/2005 10:55:28 AM PDT by lilylangtree
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: so_real

Sorry for the rudeness. Solar energy may provide up to 0.02% of this country's energy needs this year (source EIA-906). Note this is not 2% but 0.02%. I had no idea it was even that much. I am not against research for it, but for now it is fairly nonsensical to mock realistic energy production with such idealistic yet fairy-land types of comments.

Coal and nuclear power are needed to provide baseload power, the rest should be left to the free market, plus a little R&D for alternatives. Energy is far too important to be left to non-thinking idealists, my friend. Sorry to tell it to you like it is...and sorry if I insulted you.


26 posted on 06/22/2005 10:57:12 AM PDT by mallardx
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: so_real
We just need the next great evolutionary jump in solar technology.

And what exactly do you suggest that we do in the meantime, while we are waiting for "the next great evolutionary jump in solar technology" that may never happen?

27 posted on 06/22/2005 10:59:29 AM PDT by wyattearp (The best weapon to have in a gunfight is a shotgun - preferably from ambush.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection

Yes, build more nukes.

Also, change the law to let them reprocess spent fuel and reuse it.


28 posted on 06/22/2005 11:01:09 AM PDT by wingnutx (Seabees Can Do!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kharaku

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.

***

And that's why I called them "enviro-weenies."

My brother worked at a now defunct nuclear power plant. The company once had an "open house" of sorts whereby family members could tour the facility. Fascinating...even though I probably didn't understand most of it. But we were all shown the safeguards, and I was convinced then, as I am now, that nuclear energy, if handled right, is safe and should be utilized in place of most fossil fuels. But thanks to Chernobyl and Three Mile Island, the enviro-nuts managed to have this plant and others shut down. Sure the company could have kept the plants open, but the idiot government regulations put into place at the behest of these nutjobs made these plants unprofitable and unrealistic to run. I hope that this President will bring us back to nuclear energy.


29 posted on 06/22/2005 11:04:00 AM PDT by fatnotlazy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: wyattearp

Has anyone ever actually proven that mutations in solar cells lead to evolution?


30 posted on 06/22/2005 11:04:18 AM PDT by kharaku (G3)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: so_real

True it does age but even in Russia where their Nuclear gear is old, and maintanence is often ignored, they haven't had a serious Nuclear problem in a very very long time. In the US where they're far more likely to head such saftey concerns Nuclear is as safe as a NERF football.


31 posted on 06/22/2005 11:06:48 AM PDT by kharaku (G3)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: fatnotlazy

The other problem with Chernobyl however is that it was an intentional, and moronic, test of what would happen during a meltdown, it isn't a valid critisism of saftey concerns since they ignore safety concerns to cause it. People just have to let go of the paranoid 70s and 80s nuclear disaster films and realize that one of the biggest areas the US is operating like we're in the middle ages is energy, Every other first world nation makes signifigant use of Nuclear.


32 posted on 06/22/2005 11:09:12 AM PDT by kharaku (G3)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: kharaku

And for all the commotion over Three Mile Island, it was not the disaster the media portrayed it to be.


33 posted on 06/22/2005 11:20:30 AM PDT by fatnotlazy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: KevinDavis
Yet you claim to be conservative.

Being conservative does not make one pro nuke.

34 posted on 06/22/2005 11:24:01 AM PDT by biblewonk (Yes I think I am a bible worshipper.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection

Bush may or may not be right on this, but I believe government interference has probably played a part in the lack of nuclear plants in America.


35 posted on 06/22/2005 11:26:23 AM PDT by Sam Cree (Democrats are herd animals)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mallardx
A sincere "thank you" for your courtesy. It speaks well of you and is greatly appreciated. I retract my statement as well.

I suspect there is common ground between us on the issue of solar. In it's present form it is not viable - I agree completely. As such I was disappointed when federal funding for its R&D was cut. It has been quite some time since the last major break-through in solar technology; though I hope some are on the horizon. Nuclear is an excellent energy producer, and it is certainly an 'easy' solution in the near term. It might not be a bad thing, if only to rid ourselves of foreign dependencies quickly. I am not as opposed to it, as I am opposed to quitting the search for something better (ie. cleaner, decentralized, safer, cheaper, etc).
36 posted on 06/22/2005 11:26:55 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 26 | View Replies]

To: Petruk2
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.

Absolutely dead wrong. The Price-Anderson Act establishes the legal framework within which private industry has established the privately-funded liability pool. There are no taxpayer funds used to establish or maintain this coverage. It is all privately insured. Wanna buy some? Here you go:

Buy Your Private Nuclear Insurance Here

37 posted on 06/22/2005 11:27:03 AM PDT by chimera
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: so_real

Solor power isn't cost effective. Nuclear is the lowest cost solution to our energy problems.


38 posted on 06/22/2005 11:27:25 AM PDT by FightThePower!
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: kharaku
Has anyone ever actually proven that mutations in solar cells lead to evolution?

LOL!

What happens if the solar cells evolve on a "macro-evolutionary" scale and evolve into lunar cells? Will the entire solar power industry will be devastated? Or will lunar cells allow for 24-hour power generation? Of course, 24-hour power generation would only be possible if only some of the solar cells evolve.

39 posted on 06/22/2005 11:39:16 AM PDT by wyattearp (The best weapon to have in a gunfight is a shotgun - preferably from ambush.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: biblewonk
I'm joining the green party.

Seeya!

It's a good fit. Don't let the door hit you on your luddite ass on the way out.

40 posted on 06/22/2005 11:42:00 AM PDT by Petronski (Be alert! The world needs more lerts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 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