This is an OUTRAGE!!!

--the riiiiiight

The only thing outrageous about it is that it's two, and not a hundred and two.

Still, broken clock and all that.

Nuclear power is progress. This is good.

Nukes and electric trains; Sometimes the French get it right. Now get busy on the fusion-fission hybrid breeders, fools.

Nukes and electric trains

Would a national electric train line be feasible? Electric makes sense for urban areas, It seems that the distance of power line runs would be a big hinderence.

Great job by the President. I hope its not just a one time thing, and he signs on to building many more.

Would a national electric train line be feasible?

I'd like to see something like that connecting the major north east cities... Or something like what Japan has between DC, Philly, NYC, Boston.

Great news!

Well, it's about time. Good move. Now, if he can keep the environuts at bay.

I'd like to see something like that connecting the major north east cities... Or something like what Japan has between DC, Philly, NYC, Boston.

#6 | Posted by Rob_The_A_Hole

This article is from last April when it was announced. Stimulus money is being used to begin construction in several areas:

I don't know how you can continue to pile up sh_t (i.e. nuclear waste) with no place to put it. One of the conditions for getting a permit to build a nuclear plant should be that the state in which it is sited must set aside a safe place to store the nuclear waste for the next few THOUSAND years. Once they figure that out, build baby build.

A "Manhattan Project" to develop cold fusion would solve the problem of nuclear waste.

Don't worry, the radical environmental left and their army of enviro-lawyers will stop these projects dead in their tracks.

As much as I like the idea of generating electricity from solar and wind technologies, these technologies are secondary and should be community based. Primary sources of energy such as nuclear and fossil fuels that are independent of weather conditions must be built.

We also need a "Manattan Project" to help us produce clean coal. I understand that we have a lot of natural gas in the US. Why aren't we using that to generate electricity? If we need a "Manattan Project" to deal with the CO2 produced by burning fossil fuels, lets stop talking about it and get busy and start doing it!

But But But what about our windmills and solar panels? Waaaaahhhhhh!!!

Pants pissing lefties

@Andyuhenet

It is very feasible, because the power is fed at lots of locations along the line.

The Trans-Siberian is fully electrified (though the lines were only finished post-Soviet-era). There are unfortunately changes-of-gauge along the way, but you can ride trains "under the wire" (electrified) from Scotland to Vladivostok or Hong Kong.

Meanwhile, in the US, you lose electrification anywhere more than 50 miles from the Boston-Washington corridor. Sad, that.

Count me among the pro-nuke left. Do I want one in my 'backyard'? No, but I'm more than willing to be the first house outside the gate, and I'd apply for a job. The only hesitation is the worry that the plants will be managed by the ol' Enron "cowboy culture".

This doesn't make any sense - what about China Syndrome?

Be Well.

This is an OUTRAGE!!!

--the riiiiiight

#1 | Posted by NoGov4Me at 2010-02-13 12:09 PM | Reply | Flag:Check your history dickhead. The left shut it down.

Nukes and electric trains

Would a national electric train line be feasible? Electric makes sense for urban areas, It seems that the distance of power line runs would be a big hinderence.

#5 | Posted by andyuhenet at 2010-02-13 02:01 PM |

Zat's busy looking for the best, quickest, 50 or 60 links to provide you out of the 287,386 he'd like to send you that he found by google.

He's impressive.

Just ask him.

What's taking him so long?

Why hasn't he responded to your question yet?

Where are you, Zat?

Lmao

By the way, we'll still need rivers of oil and mountains of coal for the next 100 years.

This doesn't make any sense - what about China Syndrome?
Be Well.
#16 | Posted by skip_wellington - FLAG; world views formed at the movies w/popcorn/jr mints

Now if he could make about 50 of them would be a good start. You know he and his gang in congress won't go forward with it. Sounds good though

"But But But what about our windmills and solar panels? Waaaaahhhhhh!!!"

Why should nukes be the whole answer? Nukes have their place, and I'm all for them. But so do other ways of producing power, especially those that do not have as many unresolved problems with waste disposal, like windmills.

Solar I find particularly attractive, because it's a tech that is owned by the enduser. Prices on solar have come way down, and if that trend continues, we may yet see the day when electric power companies have to cut their outrageous rates if consumers gain the ability to produce their own juice cheaper than they can buy it.

I have no poblem with Nuclear Plans being built. I know they're a vital piece of our nations eventual oil independence someday.

I do however have a big problem with the corporations running these plants who often forego maintenance for the sake of profit.

I also have a big problem with the politicians who will vote for less regulation so that these plants can bend/break the rules without any real punishment.

Two nuclear power plants....a good start. Obama gets one thing right.

I understand that we have a lot of natural gas in the US. Why aren't we using that to generate electricity?

#13 | Posted by FedUpWithPols at 2010-02-13 05:50 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

It's comming. As soon as we can level the prices out so companies aren't dealing with a fuel increase of 50-300% increases on a daily basis Power generators will begin to use a lot more of it.

Nat. gas is clean and unlike coal gasification it needs no processing.

I work in Nat. Gas but really like the idea of Nuclear power...

As soon as we can level the prices out so companies aren't dealing with a fuel increase of 50-300% increases on a daily basis Power generators will begin to use a lot more of it.

Why should it be so much more expensive? Doesn't the law of supply and demand work when it comes to natural gas? I can understand a temporary increase due to start up costs (i.e. land acquisition, extraction and distribution, etc.). I understand that there is still a CO2 issue with natural gas but nearly as bad as coal or oil.

electric trains; Sometimes the French get it right.

#4 | Posted by Zatoichi

Jusr exactly would we put one of thoes electric trains? How bout we run it from DFW to El Paso? Lots of worthless land there for the government to grab.

I understand that we have a lot of natural gas in the US. Why aren't we using that to generate electricity?

We already do just that.

We already do just that.

#28 | Posted by snoofy

It will be a few weeks before that new one that blew up the other day will go on-line.

I assume that they fixed the issues with national security and waste desposal because Obama wouldn't support nuclear energy otherwise.

I'm actually glad for this and we need a lot more. We should use all sources of energy we have available to us and continue to develop new forms.

I think any person elected would have done something like this, I just wish it would have started last year as it takes several years to get a plant online.

I'd like to see the fine print of "said" guaranties
probably to Gores Hedge Fund,something smells here

My money is on the Lefty Lawyers who will kill this before a shovel of dirt gets turned.

Most of the 14 Bil will be spent on legal wrangling because Lawyers run (and are ruining) this county.

Like Arnold's character in Red Heat, Ivan Danko, when told how the lawyers will get a "dead to rights" criminal off..."Shoot them first."

I'll be setting up a "Neutron Offset" program shortly, so that you can buy "neutron indulgences" the same way you can with Gore's "carbon indulgences."

I though about starting up a "guilt offset" program, but then I ran into a Jewish mother and well, I don't think there is enough cash out there to offset the guilt that can be created by just two of them!

I also like the idea of nukes, but I have a slightly different approach.

The one thing the military has more experience with than almost anyone is running nuclear plants. From all the subs and carriers and such.

Why not built the plants on federal land, and sell the excess not used by the bases to the local power grid.

Help off-set the cost of the military, provide a large guard force (to prevent terrorist), and use skills that they military already has.

Nukes have their place, and I'm all for them. But so do other ways of producing power, especially those that do not have as many unresolved problems with waste disposal, like windmills.

#22 | Posted by MaryTylerWhore at 2010-02-14 01:09 AM

The nuclear option will NEVER happen -- AND Obama knows it!(which is why he can pretend he wants us to be energy independent by proposing such)-- because the Enviro-Facsists (who will do the left's dirty work of obstruction) will litigate, study, delay and push politicians to regulate until its a dead issue.

If the radical left has its way, we will all end up sitting in our dark, freezing houses, huddled under blankets in the winter and sweltering with the heat in the summer.

Its Back to the Dark Ages with the so-called "Progressives"

(BTW, the Communists in Russia called themselves Progressives" too).