Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Nuclear Power Plans for More Disasters [View all]nationalize the fed
(2,169 posts)18. If the Government is serious about Global Warming what are they doing
allowing new nuclear plants on coastlines? They are only serious about a new tax and exchange scheme to further rip off the useless eaters.

Locations of new reactor cores and nuclear plants
Soon after its passage, The Washington Post critically analyzed the legislation and found that the nuclear industry received serious concessions from the government in the Environmental Policy Act of 2005...
"The bill's biggest winner was probably the nuclear industry, which received billions of dollars in subsidies and tax breaks covering almost every facet of operations. There were subsidies for research into new reactor designs, "fusion energy," small-particle accelerators and reprocessing nuclear waste, which would reverse current U.S. policy. Rep. Ralph Hall (R-Tex.) even inserted a $250,000 provision for research into using radiation to refine oil...The bill also included $2 billion for "risk insurance" in case new nuclear plants run into construction and licensing delays. And nuclear utilities will be eligible for taxpayer-backed loan guarantees of as much as 80 percent the cost of their plants...
...Because of the enormous costs involved, the nuclear industry requested more loan guarantees from the government, totaling $100 billion. In February 2010, President Obama, who ran on a pro-nuclear platform, negotiated with the companies and added $36 billion to the budgeted $18.5 billion, bringing the total of $54.5 billion to the Presidential 2011 Budget for the DOE loans.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_energy_policy_of_the_United_States
"The bill's biggest winner was probably the nuclear industry, which received billions of dollars in subsidies and tax breaks covering almost every facet of operations. There were subsidies for research into new reactor designs, "fusion energy," small-particle accelerators and reprocessing nuclear waste, which would reverse current U.S. policy. Rep. Ralph Hall (R-Tex.) even inserted a $250,000 provision for research into using radiation to refine oil...The bill also included $2 billion for "risk insurance" in case new nuclear plants run into construction and licensing delays. And nuclear utilities will be eligible for taxpayer-backed loan guarantees of as much as 80 percent the cost of their plants...
...Because of the enormous costs involved, the nuclear industry requested more loan guarantees from the government, totaling $100 billion. In February 2010, President Obama, who ran on a pro-nuclear platform, negotiated with the companies and added $36 billion to the budgeted $18.5 billion, bringing the total of $54.5 billion to the Presidential 2011 Budget for the DOE loans.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_energy_policy_of_the_United_States
Using nuclear fission to boil water is one of the most absurd things humans have managed to ever dream up. For Shame.
A Fraction of the nuke dollars invested in Solar/Wind/Hydrogen would actually make huge differences. But Washington DC doesn't want energy independence, they want energy dependence.
More proof that Obama is really an 80's republican, as he states himself.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
40 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Your argument is kind of like saying "the Titanic sank, therefore we shouldn't build more ships"
Spider Jerusalem
Apr 2014
#6
75% of energy in France is nuclear; how many meltdowns and evacuations have they had?
Spider Jerusalem
Apr 2014
#16
Nuclear power was and continues to be the safest form of mass energy production.
Gravitycollapse
Apr 2014
#2
Nuclear power has the lowest deaths/TWh of any mass energy production scheme.
Gravitycollapse
Apr 2014
#7
Energy policy is way more complex than that. Conservation and load shifting are being used.
Kolesar
Apr 2014
#27
If the Government is serious about Global Warming what are they doing
nationalize the fed
Apr 2014
#18
There are several other melted cores that were quietly taken off line in the USA
Kolesar
Apr 2014
#28