Anonymous
Anonymous asked in Politics & GovernmentPolitics · 1 decade ago

Why wont Obama allow America to pursue peaceful nuclear energy, France uses nukes as 75% of their power, so...?

The idiocy of solar & wind seem to be the libs fairytale answers, meanwhile North Korea & Iran are making a fool of the passive Barry & America.

21 Answers

Relevance
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago
    Best Answer

    EnvironMENTAList are our biggest road blocks to building more Nuclear power plants

  • 4 years ago

    Why does a country where gas is 8 cents per gallon need nuclear power? OK, just kidding. It is progressive thinking to adopt nuclear power because oil will eventually run out and Iran has no hydro-electric. The big fear, of course, is weapons. If there's a guarantee that the reactors will only be slow-breeders then no problem, but with Iranian secrecy around the project there is apprehension in the west. When Iran says "peaceful purposes only" and in the same breath announces the obliteration of other nations, then naturally the disparity will be noticed. Decades ago the US and Soviet Union learned a painful lesson regarding nuclear standoffs. Its a very costly game and nobody wins.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Remember "Drill Baby Drill" or "Drill Here Drill Now" everyone said it will take 10 years to reap any benefit from it. Well it has been a year and not one new hole has been drilled. Biden is still saying it will take 10 years to get to the oil but if they has just stepped aside and lt oil companies go after the oil we would be only 9 years away.

    It would take 10 years to build a new Nuclear Power Plant again Demonrats want to go for a long money temporary fix instead of a viable long term solution. This is the short sightedness that this country has had for years. Now we are in the crunch. Green is okay but lets be real you could cover the US with solar panels and still not get the electricity to meet our needs and what do we do when it is dark or raining. Wind mills sound good but NIMBY(not in my back yard) has that covered and again what happens when the wind does not blow. Nuclear power been the answer it was in 1974 and still is today If we had built them as we projected the need for them we could be well ahead of the power game.

    Source(s): Bear
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    This really ought to pizz all the UhBama lemmings off ! here is your great leader giving his blessing to our enemies , Iran & North Korea , to have nuclear energy , while all along denying his own lemmings and the rest of us in the USA , called Americans , to have the same nuclear power , which drives up everyones oil & gas prices here cause this imbilcile UgBama wants "windmills" for America !

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • There are drawbacks to nuclear power (radiation, safety, what to do with spent fuel) that make this problem more nuanced than it seems. Do you want to have more nuclear power plants if people can't agree on what to do with the radioactive waste? And solar and wind power may become more feasible in the future. How can technology become advanced if it isn't allowed to develop?

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    hes scared plain and simple that the far lefts extreme tree huggers will come after him a good number of demos fit in this and it could cause him issues ,our govegovernment has been hostage by these groups for decades or we would have more nuke plants producing power green is fine but it will take decades to do much good and the cost will be many times more than a compartable nuke plant.by the way bad penny your the hottest gal on here period

  • 1 decade ago

    You are absolutely right, president Obama says his administration is going to make decisions based on science but when it comes to an energy policy which could improve our future he falls flat on his face, pandering to anti-nukes..

    PROS

    !. Fission is the most energy for the least fuel with current technology.

    2. Less fuel means less waste, and the waste is all accounted for, not released into the atmosphere to become someone else's problem.

    3. Uranium is readily available, very common in the earth's crust (about the same as tin)

    4. Economical - operating cost about the same as coal, fuel cost is a much smaller percentage of the total, therefore less susceptible to price fluctuations.

    5. Reliable - Nuclear power plants have very high capacity factors.

    6. No combustion, no Co, CO2 or SO2 released.

    7. Creates high paying, skilled jobs.

    8. Reduce dependence on foreign oil/ fuel. Uranium available domestically and in oceans.

    9. High temperature reactors could produce Hydrogen as well as electricity.

    10. Fantastic safety record.

    CONS

    1. Irrational fear of all things nuclear.

    2. High cost to build and license, large initial investment for long term pay back.

    3. Publicly accepted high level storage facility not domestically available.

    4. Reprocessing facility not domestically available.

    4. High cost of personnel.

    5. Security concerns,

    Nuclear power, I believe is the best, safest, most reliable, current technology to provide energy. The plants operating now are safe and the new designs are even safer.

    Building 100's of new nuclear power plants would improve the economy, reduce or eliminate dependence on foreign oil, create jobs, reduce pollution, and provide for future technological advancement.

    I have been working with nuclear power for about 30 years, I would be glad to have a Nuclear power plant or high level waste disposal facility in my backyard. My family and I live in a home within 10 miles of a nuclear power plant. (where I work) I have a great understanding of the risks involved and am completely comfortable with a plant "in my backyard".

    Using Chernobyl as a reason not to build is like saying because of the Hindenburg I will never fly in a commercial airliner.

    Nuclear power has the smallest environmental impact of any current energy production method per unit of energy produced. One fuel pellet about the size of a pencil eraser produces the same energy as about 1 ton of coal, and if reprocessed 2/3 of what’s left can be reclaimed. Nuclear power is our best option for reliable, environmentally friendly, base-load electrical power.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Obama does not know what he is doing

    Building more nuclear plants is exactly what we need to be doing. That is presisely the reason why Obama will not support more nuclear power plants in The

    United States of America,

  • 1 decade ago

    If you'll volunteer to house the spent rods, I'll write my congressman tomorrow. Re France: they thought they had a way to sequester the radioactive waste by combining it with glass and burying it. Unfortunately, they're now finding a lot of leakage (including radioactive leakage into rivers and waterways) and the development of cancer clusters in areas where the processed waste has been stored. (Good thing they have universal health care, eh?)

    (A country unlike an individual can't go around like some thin-skinned gangbanger smacking everyone that insults them .....it's a sign of a poorly developed sense of self and a big lack of self-confidence. Power is more than muscles, sometimes it's brains.)

    Source(s): We grew up during the era of the "peaceful uses of nuclear energy" in the U.S. We were told it was cheap, clean and safe. So a bunch of power plants were built using the best technology and the ultimate in safeguards and we found out it was expensive, generated the worst kind of waste and was not safe.
  • 1 decade ago

    Its because nuclear power plants are associated with a risk or terrorism. Maybe before 9 11 they might have been viable but since then the people are too scared.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.