• 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!

Obama Said to Seek $54 Billion in Nuclear-Power Loans

ReverendHellh0und

ReverendHellh0und

I don't respect you.
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 13, 2007
Messages
79,903
Reaction score
20,981
Location
I love your hate.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Obama Said to Seek $54 Billion in Nuclear-Power Loans

Obama Said to Seek $54 Billion in Nuclear-Power Loans (Update1) - Bloomberg.com


Jan. 29 (Bloomberg) -- President Barack Obama, acting on a pledge to support nuclear power, will propose tripling loan guarantees for new reactors to more than $54 billion, two people familiar with the plan said.

The additional loan guarantees in Obama’s budget, which will be released Feb. 1, are part of an effort to bolster nuclear-power production after the president called for doing so in his State of the Union address Jan. 27. Today, the Energy Department plans to announce creation of a panel to find a solution to storing the waste generated by nuclear plants.

“To create more of these clean-energy jobs, we need more production, more efficiency, more incentives,” Obama said in his speech. “That means building a new generation of safe, clean nuclear-power plants in this country.”

For the 2011 budget, the department will add $36 billion to the $18.5 billion already approved for nuclear-power plant loan guarantees, according to the people, who asked not to be identified because the budget hasn’t been released. Congress started the program in 2005 to encourage new plant construction, but the department has yet to issue a loan guarantee.
Click to expand...



I 100% support this. Good Job Obama :thumbs:
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
I 100% support this. Good Job Obama :thumbs:
Click to expand...

Why should the government be (again!) guaranteeing loans for private businesses?

Didn't the failure of FDR's experiment with the FHA tell that socialist anything?

Oh, I watched the Messiah's performance before the GOP this morning.

Does he really think his Blame it on Bush strategy is going to work on that crowd?
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Why should the government be (again!) guaranteeing loans for private businesses?

Didn't the failure of FDR's experiment with the FHA tell that socialist anything?

Oh, I watched the Messiah's performance before the GOP this morning.

Does he really think his Blame it on Bush strategy is going to work on that crowd?
Click to expand...





I'd much rather it invest in loans for nuclear power, than green cars and cap and trade. fact is most all of our power companies are government sanctioned monopolies.
 
While I agree that the Government giving out the money is of concern, nuclear power is worth the investment.
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
I'd much rather it invest in loans for nuclear power, than green cars and cap and trade. fact is most all of our power companies are government sanctioned monopolies.
Click to expand...

The government shouldn't be in the loan business.

That's what banks are for.

No government sponsored loans, not for homes, not for cars, not for college, not for nuclear power plants.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
The government shouldn't be in the loan business.

That's what banks are for.

No government sponsored loans, not for homes, not for cars, not for college, not for nuclear power plants.
Click to expand...

Says the guy who claims we need to set up manufacturing and military bases on the moon:shock:

Wow :rofl
 
What needs to be done is make the environmentalists that file law suits to stop the construction of these plants pay damages if the suits fail... that's what killed the nuclear industry last time.

Good job Barry, he finally is trying to do something right.
 
Goldenboy219 said:
Says the guy who claims we need to set up manufacturing and military bases on the moon:shock:

Wow :rofl
Click to expand...

You really should read the Constitution someday.

Nor did I recall saying the government should loan anyone taxpayer money to run it.
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
I'd much rather it invest in loans for nuclear power, than green cars and cap and trade. fact is most all of our power companies are government sanctioned monopolies.
Click to expand...

I can agree with that. I think that in the end, nuclear power is a great form of energy. People are afraid of it. The main problem is where to put the waste, but that can be solved. But nuclear power really is one of the best forms of power generation we currently have.
 
Ikari said:
I can agree with that. I think that in the end, nuclear power is a great form of energy. People are afraid of it. The main problem is where to put the waste, but that can be solved. But nuclear power really is one of the best forms of power generation we currently have.
Click to expand...




I vote california, san fran..... or berkely :thumbs:
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
You really should read the Constitution someday.

Nor did I recall saying the government should loan anyone taxpayer money to run it.
Click to expand...

The Constitution of the United States said:
(1) The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;


(2) To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
Click to expand...

1) Here, the Constitution explicitly states that Congress has the power to provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States, and to lay taxes in order to do this. It is a broad statement, but clearly, nuclear power plants are covered under this provision, since nuclear power will help provide for the general welfare by helping to wean us off of Mideast Oil.

2) To borrow money, which the US is doing to enable the completion of nuclear power plants. There is a bonus on this one. Instead of giving the money away, they are loaning it, which means it is to be paid back.

I am no fan of Obama, but I am not a partisan hack, who is blinded by nothing but hate. Where Obama does good, I will give him credit where credit is due, just as I did for Bush, when I thought he did good. IMHO, putting hackery ahead of what's good for America is, simply, unAmerican. Obama did good here, and kudos to him.

Finally, to respond directly to your post, it might do you some good to actually read the Constitution yourself sometime. You might learn something.
 
PRO'S

1) There is little pollution given out by these types of plants.

2.) They have more Reliability than other sources of energy.

3.) Safety is both a pro and a con, depending on which way you see it. I see it as both.


Con's

1) Meltdowns'

They are rare enough in this era of tech that this is not a major con. However, the damages it can do to an area is make it radioactive for years, if it blows. I am thinking about the [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster"]Chernobyl disaster[/ame] in this event a nuclear power plant had a meltdown, and it has left the area radioactive for years.


2.) Radiation, can effect the environment in bad ways. However, we get radiation from everyday objects that want effect us the limit is 200 rems. However, wildlife is not effected by this as we have seen how wildlife is effected, if we go back to the Chernobyl disaster as a reference. The wildlife has made a come back after the disaster.

3.) Were to put the Waste
 
Last edited:
RyrineaHaruno said:
1) Meltdowns'

They are rare enough in this era of tech that this is not a major con. However, the damages it can do to an area is make it radioactive for years, if it blows. I am thinking about the Chernobyl disaster in the a nuclear power plant had a meltdown, and it has left it radioactive for year, and it is still radioactive.
Click to expand...

Well Chernobyl happened pretty much because the Russians disabled all the safety interlocks and pulled out all the carbon rods. Apparently they wanted to stress test the reactor or something and maybe didn't quite understand the implications of uncontrolled nuclear fission. Nuclear power plants now are ridiculously safe.

RyrineaHaruno said:
2.) Radiation, can effect the environment in bad ways. However, we get radiation from everyday objects that want effect us the limit is 200 rems.
Click to expand...

As you said, there's lots of things which emit radiation. You probably don't want to know what you get for walking outside (in Colorado where I live it's a lot worse because I'm missing about 1 mile of atmosphere). The increase in background would be negligible at worst.

RyrineaHaruno said:
3.) Were to put the Waste
Click to expand...

This is a big one, I'd say a salt mine somewhere. If you want to get real tricky, you make a breeder reactor in which you recycle the waste. But the problem with that is the end result is weapons grade plutonium.
 
What stipulations will Obama put on the money? Will the Government become a shareholder as they are with GM?
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
The government shouldn't be in the loan business.

That's what banks are for.

No government sponsored loans, not for homes, not for cars, not for college, not for nuclear power plants.
Click to expand...


You are correct,seriously BUT something this large and important can't be financed through private banks. Seriously who will loan 54 billion?

That said I still have mixed feelings about the safety issue with Nuclear power but, if we could be certain we could safely produce, store waste, and upgrade as necessary then yes, lets really fight terrorists by no longer buying their oil.

The difficult issue I see with this is....Its hard to tell a small 3rd world nation that we think is trying to build a weapon yet insists it is only getting energy to stop if we ourselves are building....Are we going to welcome foriegn inspectors to come look at our plants??
 
Last time I read anything about nuclear power I thought that we had come a long way in the reduction of waste generated as well as the recycling and refining of it such that there isn't nearly as much. How much is "not much", I don't know. Anyone with knowledge in the area care to comment?
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
You really should read the Constitution someday.

Nor did I recall saying the government should loan anyone taxpayer money to run it.
Click to expand...

This, unlike the moon base, would fall under the "general welfare" part of the constitution. You should read it, too.
See below....
 
ptif219 said:
What stipulations will Obama put on the money? Will the Government become a shareholder as they are with GM?
Click to expand...

Probably. But the government is already a stakeholder in nearly all power supplies (especially nuclear power), by allowing state-sanctioned monopolies.
 
scourge99 said:
Last time I read anything about nuclear power I thought that we had come a long way in the reduction of waste generated as well as the recycling and refining of it such that there isn't nearly as much. How much is "not much", I don't know. Anyone with knowledge in the area care to comment?
Click to expand...

Those are called breeder reactors. They can use the waste as recycled material for fission once the reaction is started. They do produce relatively low amounts of "waste". The real problem is the end result of a breeder reactor is weapons grade plutonium.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom