Comments about ‘Obama's nuclear renaissance’

what future do we have
left for your childrens children~

If Obama is angering both the far left and the far right, he must be doing something right.

Although I've been very supportive of the president's renewable energy development and energy efficiency initiatives, I'm not supportive of his nuclear push. I believe he may see it as a path to bring more GOP onto his overall energy agenda of putting a price/cap on carbon emissions.

The problems with nuclear are two-fold. One, it requires massive subsidies -- far more than fossil fuels or renewable energy to maintain. It needs subsidies for the insurance to cover risk of disaster (federal government will take responsibility if a disaster occurs -- so a nuclear bailout is not out of the realm of possibility). It needs subisides for waste disposal. Again, the Fed is responsible for securing waste for time and eternity. If a waste disposal company goes backrupt, Uncle Sam steps in to maintain the waste (think of the Moab tailings as a model example).

Two, it needs significant water. In 2008, nuclear power almost got such down in Georgia due to drought. Here in the West, climatologists suggest that water will continue to decline due to quicker evaporation associated with climate change. With a booming population, water budgets will be at risk for agriculture and power generation.

For one Obama has done something right if he follows through. He has ahistory of saying one thing and doing quite another. Did he not promise many, many times during his campaign anyone making less than 200,000.00 would not see their taxes go up? He has broken his promise. I'm very skeptical.

Nuclear power is the only viable long term clean solution for are power needs. People need to wake up and learn more about nuclear power. Modern technology is much safer than the older older reactors. Having plentiful clean energy will change the world.

I was reading you comment with an open mind considering your detailed concerns against nuclear energy. Then you finished off with the argument saying "...water will continue to decline due to quicker evaporation associated with climate change." When I saw that...you completely invalidated everything else you put because of your foolish continued belief in the sham that is "climate change" aka "global warming". Wow, have you not read the reports recently about manipulated data and political agendas behind the scientists and politicians promoting climate change??

If Republicans are serious when they talk about "energy indepdence" and reducing our reliance on foreign oil producers, they will get behind the President's plan 100%.

What taxes have gone up for those making less than $200,000?

I'm a liberal, I support Nuclear-energy...

And how are President Obama's actions connected to Glen Beck's actions? Or how are his supporters the same as Beck's. I really want to know because I want to stay as far away from looking like a Glen beck supporter as I can.

England has been utilizing nuclear power for 25 years. Their plants are wearing- out. After debate they are proceeding to build new bigger nuclear plants. After 25 years of use they are convinced nuclear is the way to go.

will miracles never cease? BO finally made the correct call.

Nukes are the answer. If it wasn't for all of the knee-jerk anti nuclear garbage they would be cheaper to build.

The Republicans are not serious about anything except their own political power. Certainly not in building America.

In the broad sense, when water flows through Utah and doesn't get used, it goes on to Nevada and California, who are more than willing to use it.

Why not use it here? Irrigation companies get nervous when they see large blocks of water for industrial use, but if they can't use this water, (which theyu can't because they don't have the rights) someone else should be allowed to.

Let's quit using limited water as an excuse to do something. There are some large allotments of river water that could be dedicated to industrial uses. Let's get on with the business of a nuclear power plant in our state.

We have been served very comfortably with coal-fired and gas-fired power plants. They will carry us well into the future.

If you listen to Mr. Obama's speech at Denver, then you will hear his pro-nuclear position stated. This is no change of policy.

there are so many reasons nuclear power is the wrong answer.
solar, wind and geothermal have no downside. and if they can be built with limited or no government investment, why is it ok for us in utah to pay for billions of dollars of nuclear development in georgia? 8.3 billion in loan guarantees?

I wish our country would get off its dead but and decide where the spent fuel will be stored??? We have been wasting billions of dollars in a sink hole called Yucca mountain. Spent fuel is much less hazardous than the chemicals we transport over the road. People, read, understand the issue and get on with it. ...

i dont know why its ok for utah to pay for something in georgia i i live in arizona and i mean im sick andtired of paying federal taxes that go to subsidize education in utah

What are the downsides of nuclear power? Solar and Wind, and Geothermal all have MAJOR downsides.

Solar:
If it's cloudy it's power output can be reduced by 90%!
It's extremely inefficient cost wise.
Wind:
Also unpredictable. Also inefficient cost wise
GeoThermal:
Not enough locations. When in Utah can you build a geo-thermal plant?

Nuclear Power can create much more energy. One kg of uranium 235 can create two million times the amount of energy as one kg coal.