Build More Nuclear Power Plants, Bush Says

CNSNews ^ | 6/22/05 | Susan Jones

[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.

[Freebird Forever]

I'm joining the green party.

I hope you reconsider. You're better than any of those commie scum.

[m1-lightning]

Wind farms have relativley little space efficiency, produce little power, and cost a fortune to contruct in comparison to nuclear power plants. One windmill takes about 40'x40' suare of land and is about 30 feet deep filled with concrete and steel.

[fatnotlazy]

Can we use enviro-weenies as an alternate source of fuel?

***

Nah...they'd probably be found to pollute the atmosphere. *Snicker*

[so_real]

I can see your point of view. In my posts I've even conceded there may be a use for nuclear as a quick fix in the short term. But give this article a peak and tell me if you can see it from my point of view as well :

With further advances, the new plastic "could allow up to 30 percent of the sun's radiant energy to be harnessed, compared to 6 percent in today's best plastic solar cells," said Peter Peumans, a Stanford University electrical engineering professor, who studied the work.

Going from 6 percent to 30 percent efficiency in solar cells would allow a solar roof on your home to provide all the energy you need to live your current lifestyle with your current demand for electricity without an electric bill, dependence on oil, or pollution. No more RV'ing it. Furthermore, the system is decentralized -- no more rolling blackouts or city-wide natural power-outages or easy targets for aggressors. It will probably not, however, have the capability to meet industrial demand.

I'm not advocating the abandonment of all nuclear programs. (I'm more of a realist than idealist.) What I do advocate is not going gung-ho and throwing up another 100 power plants while cutting the funding for alternative programs like solar. Build a few power plants in key areas where we get the biggest bang for the buck. Use them and the threat of building more as leverage to oil prices. And continue putting money into R&D for better long term strategies.

[so_real]

Safe disposal has been all talk and little do for as far back as I can recall. Maybe the "Safe Storage of Radiological Materials Act of 2005" bill will tip the scales in the right direction (to my knowledge it has not passed Congress yet, has it?). Maybe it's just more talk never to become action. The proof will be in the pudding and I hope your optimism is justified.

[kharaku]

The reason there is no plan of safe disposal and that we don't do what every other Nuclear naton does: reprocess spent fuel ad infinitum, is that we are planning to put this spent fuel into Nuclear weapons [some day]. Get it?

[McGavin999]

I think they have more nuclear plants in france than we have in the entire country. I wonder what the percentage of power is produced by nuclear plants over there. The libs seem to think the french are just the thing, maybe this will shut them up.

[m1-lightning]

Maybe the "Safe Storage of Radiological Materials Act of 2005" bill will tip the scales in the right direction

That and much more is outlined in the energy bill (HR 6).

[Tumbleweed_Connection]

I am not going to take the time to explain but nuclear power is our future. If it were not a safe alternative the liberals would not be whining.

[muleskinner]

Go to this site and read about the new generation of reactors being designed. They are far different than 3-Mile and of more variety.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf08.htm

[McGavin999]

Oh, I agree. My comment was about shutting up the lib whiners.

[m1-lightning]

I think they have more nuclear plants in france than we have in the entire country. I wonder what the percentage of power is produced by nuclear plants over there.

Nuclear power makes up 75% of France's electricity. The most powerful nuke plant in the world is in Chooz, France at 1.5 Gigawatts.

[biblewonk]

I hope you reconsider. You're better than any of those commie scum.

OK, I don't really know much about them and that's a much nicer thing to say than what one often hears here. I really really don't want to see us go nuke as our energy policy and there doesn't seem to be much I can do as an individual voter.

[LilDarlin]

Finally!

We're now about 35 years behind the "power curve" so to speak!

Build, build, build!

[LilDarlin]

The most powerful nuke plant in the world is in Chooz, France at 1.5 Gigawatts.

1.5 Gigawatts!!!!!!!!!!!! Back to the future!

[BureaucratusMaximus]

NO WAY!!!!!!!

I'm joining the green party.

Did you leave out a sarcasm tag?

If not...what the hell is going on with this place?

[m1-lightning]

The green party is more proactive about redistribution of wealth than they are about the environment. 'Green' relates to money, not grass.

[biblewonk]

Wind farms have relativley little space efficiency, produce little power, and cost a fortune to contruct in comparison to nuclear power plants. One windmill takes about 40'x40' suare of land and is about 30 feet deep filled with concrete and steel.

That 40 x 40 pays a farmer a lot more than 40 x 40 feet of corn without harming the productivity of the other 100 acres of the farmers land. So where is the problem? The cost per kwhr between wind and nuke is getting closer and closer. Do you have any ideas on how much the two are becasue the term "fortune" is a bit vague?

[biblewonk]

It's stored in mountains though. It's nasty when it's processed, nasty when is transported, nasty when it's used, and nasty when it's transported to the mountain, and nasty for thousands of years within the mountain. Most people are simply not willing to take on faith that it's all safe and OK.

[biblewonk]

If not...what the hell is going on with this place?

You believe all conservatives are pro nuke? What a strange thing to think.