• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

EPA: Power plants main global warming culprits

And what if the power plants were nuclear, wind, solar, hydro, and geo-thermal? Then you wouldn't be giving your money to Saudi Arabia, who fund terrorism and support militant Imams who are advocate that you (and every other American) be exterminated. And you'd be living in a cleaner environment in a country that owes nothing to any foreign government. I really dislike the idea of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan carrying American balls around in their purse, don't you?

Then you should talk to your liberal buddies in the far left environmental groups. THEY are the ones not only preventing the construction of coal plants, but also nuclear, solar, and wind. You can forget hydro. I'm sure they can find a convenient snail darter or some other inconsequential creature to stop construction of any new major dams.
 
Then you should talk to your liberal buddies in the far left environmental groups. THEY are the ones not only preventing the construction of coal plants, but also nuclear, solar, and wind. You can forget hydro. I'm sure they can find a convenient snail darter or some other inconsequential creature to stop construction of any new major dams.

Cost is by far the main reason that nuclear isn't more prevalent in this country -- not far left groups. In fact, if you really want more nuke plants the best way to go about it would be to implement a carbon tax or cap and trade plan that would make nuclear more competitive. In that sense it is the far right that is road block.
 
Cost is by far the main reason that nuclear isn't more prevalent in this country -- not far left groups. In fact, if you really want more nuke plants the best way to go about it would be to implement a carbon tax or cap and trade plan that would make nuclear more competitive. In that sense it is the far right that is road block.

Not true, and I'm surprised you would debate this obvious point. There are dozens of nuclear projects, as well as hydro, solar, and wind, throughout the country that have been cancelled or held up due to prolonged lawsuits and other legal obstructionism.
 
Not true, and I'm surprised you would debate this obvious point. There are dozens of nuclear projects, as well as hydro, solar, and wind, throughout the country that have been cancelled or held up due to prolonged lawsuits and other legal obstructionism.

I didn't say that safety and environmental concerns aren't A factor, but they aren't close to the most important factor. The most important factor is that nuclear has huge start up costs and is generally more expensive than coal.

The Future of Nuclear Power
 
I didn't say that safety and environmental concerns aren't A factor, but they aren't close to the most important factor. The most important factor is that nuclear has huge start up costs and is generally more expensive than coal.

The Future of Nuclear Power

Then why did you reply to my post, which was about the obstruction by liberal groups that are preventing the construction of ALL types of power plants, including their darlings, solar and wind.

Of course nuclear is expensive, primarily due to safety concerns and redundancies required. That has nothing to do with the point I was making.

All power plant projects are expensive.
 
Then you should talk to your liberal buddies in the far left environmental groups.


Why is science now associated with the far-left?

Why is consumer protection and public safety now only associated with the Dems?
 
Why is science now associated with the far-left?

Why is consumer protection and public safety now only associated with the Dems?

Science, consumer protection, and public safety is not the topic. Obstructionism at all cost to prevent any projects from going forward is.

Here in Louisville, they've been trying to build a new bridge over the Ohio River for over 20 years. Environmental groups have held it up.

Environmental groups will do anything to stop power projects and have stopped many, including your favored wind and solar. Do you deny that 99% of activist environmental groups are comprised of liberals ??
 
Science, consumer protection, and public safety is not the topic. Obstructionism at all cost to prevent any projects from going forward is.

Spin... Now you're trying to make polluters sound 'progressive'.... as if they want to move forward. Forward like a train powered by coal. That would be their wet dream, if transport still relied on coal...

Here in Louisville, they've been trying to build a new bridge over the Ohio River for over 20 years. Environmental groups have held it up.

Links, proof...???

Environmental groups will do anything to stop power projects and have stopped many, including your favored wind and solar.

Links, proof...???
 
Spin... Now you're trying to make polluters sound 'progressive'.... as if they want to move forward. Forward like a train powered by coal. That would be their wet dream, if transport still relied on coal...

Talking about spin........where did I even mention coal ????

Links, proof...???

Move here and try crossing the bridge into Louisville any afternoon. jeez....... What a moronic response.

Links, proof...???

How many you want ??
 
Then why did you reply to my post, which was about the obstruction by liberal groups that are preventing the construction of ALL types of power plants, including their darlings, solar and wind.

I replied because your premise is wrong. Environmentalists aren't the main reason that nuclear isn't more prevalent.

For example, the area in which I live is serviced by a nuclear power plant. The plant submitted plans to add two additional reactors in 2002. In 2009 they temporarily halted their expansion plans, not because of protests, but because state officials would not allow them to raise rates as much as they wanted to raise them in order to finance the project. The plan is back on now and slated to begin construction this year. There have been protests -- both from people with safety concerns and from business groups who oppose the new power lines that will be required. Those protests have had no effect on the expansion plans, but the cost issue temporarily stopped the project in its tracks.
 
I replied because your premise is wrong. Environmentalists aren't the main reason that nuclear isn't more prevalent.

For example, the area in which I live is serviced by a nuclear power plant. The plant submitted plans to add two additional reactors in 2002. In 2009 they temporarily halted their expansion plans, not because of protests, but because state officials would not allow them to raise rates as much as they wanted to raise them in order to finance the project. The plan is back on now and slated to begin construction this year. There have been protests -- both from people with safety concerns and from business groups who oppose the new power lines that will be required. Those protests have had no effect on the expansion plans, but the cost issue temporarily stopped the project in its tracks.

Besides your personal beliefs regarding the reactor in your area, do you have any proof of how many are stopped due to money vs environmental pressure ??

Give me the name of the nuclear plant and I'll look it up myself.
 
Besides your personal beliefs regarding the reactor in your area, do you have any proof of how many are stopped due to money vs environmental pressure ??

Give me the name of the nuclear plant and I'll look it up myself.

They aren't my "beliefs" about a nuclear plant, they are the facts about the Turkey Point nuclear power plant.

The cost factor is generally a bar to starting nuclear projects from the start. It's not often that a company fails to take costs into consideration before construction begins, though changing economic conditions can push borderline projects into the red, e.g. Work on Newport News nuclear manufacturing plant halted | HamptonRoads.com | PilotOnline.com

(692-93.5970) Dr. Mark Cooper - These three major developments in the nuclear power industry in late June underscore the key findings of the study "The Economics of Nuclear Reactors, Renaissance or Relapse?", released on June 18 by economist Dr. Mark Cooper, a senior fellow for economic analysis at the Institute for Energy and the Environment at Vermont Law School. The analysis of over three dozen cost estimates for proposed new nuclear reactors shows that the projected price tags for the plants have quadrupled since the start of the industry's so-called "nuclear renaissance" at the beginning of this decade - a striking parallel to the eventually seven-fold increase in reactor costs estimates that doomed the "Great Bandwagon Market" of the 1960s and 1970s, when in the U.S.A. half of planned nuclear reactors had to be abandoned or cancelled due to massive cost overruns.

http://www.nirs.org/mononline/nm692_3.pdf

Much as I hate to inject facts into your ideological ranting....
 
Last edited:
They aren't my "beliefs" about a nuclear plant, they are the facts about the Turkey Point nuclear power plant.

The cost factor is generally a bar to starting nuclear projects from the start. It's not often that a company fails to take costs into consideration before construction begins, though changing economic conditions can push borderline projects into the red, e.g. Work on Newport News nuclear manufacturing plant halted | HamptonRoads.com | PilotOnline.com

From your link:

Areva Newport News says it is shelving the project due to unfavorable market conditions and uncertainty over U.S. energy policy.

Uncertainty over U.S. energy policy ??? Hmmm, wonder why any company would be uncertain under Obama's rock solid leadership ??

Don't see anything about cost overruns though.
 
From your link:



Uncertainty over U.S. energy policy ??? Hmmm, wonder why any company would be uncertain under Obama's rock solid leadership ??

Don't see anything about cost overruns though.

You didn't see where they said that the halt was due in large part to "market conditions"? What do you suppose that means? It means that it's not cost effective to build the nuclear power plant.

As far as energy policy, there is always uncertainty. Certainly the Obama administration has never been anything but supportive of nuclear power. Obama Administration Stands Behind Nuclear Power - WSJ.com
 
You didn't see where they said that the halt was due in large part to "market conditions"? What do you suppose that means? It means that it's not cost effective to build the nuclear power plant.

As far as energy policy, there is always uncertainty. Certainly the Obama administration has never been anything but supportive of nuclear power. Obama Administration Stands Behind Nuclear Power - WSJ.com

Evidently the people at your nuclear plant disagree. They clearly said "uncertainty over U.S. energy policy". I think they made it clear what they think of Obama's "supportive nuclear power policy". But you feel free to drink the kool-aid from the administration.
 
Evidently the people at your nuclear plant disagree. They clearly said "uncertainty over U.S. energy policy". I think they made it clear what they think of Obama's "supportive nuclear power policy". But you feel free to drink the kool-aid from the administration.

Right, I'm relying on the Obama administration's multiple statements and actions that are all supportive of nuclear power, and you deny the statements and actions out of hand with no basis in fact and you accuse ME of being a Koolaid drinker. You can't make this **** up! :2rofll:
 
Right, I'm relying on the Obama administration's multiple statements and actions that are all supportive of nuclear power, and you deny the statements and actions out of hand with no basis in fact and you accuse ME of being a Koolaid drinker. You can't make this **** up! :2rofll:

My basis in fact is the link YOU posted.
 
Ok. So what would you like to see done about it? Are you the one who's going to turn their power off so we can shut down these plants?

False dilemma.
 
My basis in fact is the link YOU posted.

The one where Obama stated that he categorically supported the construction of more nuclear plants?
 
I'm all for a combination of nuclear power and personal/small-scale energy production being offered major incentives to grow.

I do think we need to work on what to do with nuclear waste and better ways to handle it, but from working with nuclear power, it seems that the biggest problem with that really isn't time, but money. People aren't willing to spend the money necessary to properly dispose or recycle contaminated items. Contaminated equipment can be used again if it is still in working (meeting the necessary requirements) condition. Even fuel can be recovered to a point, if we actually put in the money and effort to do so.

Another issue will be getting enough properly trained and qualified workers to actually work in the nuclear plants.

As for the small-scale energy production, I want to see builders and homeowners and even business owners given incentives to add natural power-producing equipment (solar panels, windmills, even waterwheels) where people are able in order to produce their own energy to run their homes and businesses. This could certainly reduce some of our reliance on those "dirtier" energy forms.
 
Cost is by far the main reason that nuclear isn't more prevalent in this country -- not far left groups. In fact, if you really want more nuke plants the best way to go about it would be to implement a carbon tax or cap and trade plan that would make nuclear more competitive. In that sense it is the far right that is road block.

It seems that a good defining trait of the most idiotic manifestation of American liberalism is the knee-jerk tendency to advocate more taxes and/or more government regulations as the solution to any problem.
 
It seems that a good defining trait of the most idiotic manifestation of American liberalism is the knee-jerk tendency to advocate more taxes and/or more government regulations as the solution to any problem.

Equally idiotic is this notion that simply gutting regulations and lowering taxes will solve everything as well.
 
As far as energy policy, there is always uncertainty. Certainly the Obama administration has never been anything but supportive of nuclear power. Obama Administration Stands Behind Nuclear Power - WSJ.com

The one where Obama stated that he categorically supported the construction of more nuclear plants?


The Obama administration has paid plenty empty lip service it many things, while implementing policies that have had completely the opposite effect.

Aside from the meaningless claims that Obama is so fond of making, what has his administration actually done to promote the construction of nuclear power plants?
 
It seems that a good defining trait of the most idiotic manifestation of American liberalism is the knee-jerk tendency to advocate more taxes and/or more government regulations as the solution to any problem.

So why were there so many new regs under Bush?

It's been proven time and time again that left to their own devices, corps (not really being human) can potentially destroy more than they create.

A chemical company responsible for say 500 cases of cancer and/or birth defects has destroyed more than they can ever create. Whoever destroys a soul, it is considered as if he destroyed an entire world. The cancer/birth defects can not be blamed in a single person, but on the impersonal non-human entity that allowed a long series of bad immoral decisions, including covering up decades of bad behavior.
 
The Obama administration has paid plenty empty lip service it many things, while implementing policies that have had completely the opposite effect.

Aside from the meaningless claims that Obama is so fond of making, what has his administration actually done to promote the construction of nuclear power plants?

Must be nothing, right? I mean you seem so utterly convinced that he's done nothing, obviously based on no research at all.

So, for example:

WASHINGTON—Touting nuclear energy as a critical component of the effort to confront climate change and meet the U.S.'s energy needs, President Barack Obama announced Tuesday roughly $8 billion in government-loan guarantees for Southern Co. to break ground on a new nuclear-power plant in Georgia.

...

The U.S. Department of Energy has the authority for $18.5 billion in loan guarantees. The administration's fiscal-2011 budget request seeks to triple that amount to more than $54 billion.

Obama Unveils Loan Guarantees for Georgia Nuclear Plant - WSJ.com
 
Back
Top Bottom