Irish Discussion Forum: Sports, Travel, Politics, Genealogy, Arts & Entertainment, Employment, Romance, Business, Cooking, Health & Home & Gaeilge

DISCUSSIONS MENU

DISCUSSIONS

NOTE: By becoming a member of IrishAbroad.com and taking part in the discussions boards, you agree to the membership terms and terms of service.

Discussions

Should Economic Stimulus Bill Include Billions for Nuclear Power?

Page 1 of 2 1 | 2 | LAST

chuckejone	Posted: 06 Feb 09 02:30:19
	A coalition of environmental groups are calling on senators to remove a controversial provision from the $900 billion stimulus bill that could lead to the construction of a new generation of nuclear power plants. We host a debate between independent journalist and longtime anti-nuclear activist Harvey Wasserman and Patrick Moore, a Greenpeace co-founder and member of the pro-nuclear Clean and Safe Energy Coalition. LISTEN/WATCH Real Video Stream/Real Audio Stream http://www.democracynow.org/2009/2/5/should_economic_stimulus_bill_include_billions

sue176	Posted: 06 Feb 09 03:17:07
	NO

johnjquinn	Posted: 06 Feb 09 14:52:14
	only if it means paying off the Shoreham plant that was never allowed to open, but us LIers are still paying for. otherwise, start installing solar panels everywhere instead.

rpc	Posted: 06 Feb 09 14:58:45
	I find the Environmental Lobby's views on nuclear power quite contradictory. Either climate change IS a massively serious problem and we need to reduce as much carbon emissions as we can NOW, or it isn't. On the basis that we CAN massivly reduce our carbon emissions with nuclear power, for me it is a no brainer. Lets do it! Solar power, wind and wave power just can't yet produce enough power. There is a climate change scientist, can't remember his name, I think its Lovelock? He is also of the same view.

mr_mustard	Posted: 06 Feb 09 15:06:56
	I have no problem with the Federal government providing incentives such as deferred fees or tax allowances to energy producers to help make nuclear power plant construction more attractive. I wouldn't even have a problem with the federal government giving land incentives for the construction of nuclear plants. The real problem is getting federal permits to build the damn things in the first place. And that's where the 'environmentalists' bottle up the procedure. Building a dozen or so of the new generation 'super' reactor power plants on what is now Federal scrub land could go a long way towards our reaching energy independence.

sue176	Posted: 06 Feb 09 17:39:20
	But, should it be in the stimulus package?

mr_mustard	Posted: 06 Feb 09 19:56:54
	Aboslutely not. This is not a stimulus package, and it is a damned lie to call it one. A stimulus package is supposed to be 3 things: 1. Temporary, 2. Timely, and, 3. Targeted. Temporary in the sense that it does not create projects or entitlements that are going to have to be funded year after year. This porkulus bill will put additional strain on the budget for years and years down the road. Timely in the sense that it offers fast assistance where needed. More than half of this piece of shit doesn't kick in for a couple years at best! Targeted in the sense that it is like a rifle shot. Pinpointed to a select area. This thing is more like grape shot coming out of 16 inch guns than it is a rifle shot! But allow enough Senators to add their paltry little 3-5 billion dollar pet projects to this garbage and it will pass. And two years from now right after the off year elections, they'll be asking for a 5 Trillion dollar stimulus bill and saying this one wasn't effective enough. I'm still waiting for one, ONE single liberal who has been screaming that Bush was killing us with these deficits, explain to me how adding another 1.4 Trillion dollars to the debt is now all of a sudden, a good thing. Know what I've got so far ??? Complete silence.......

mr_mustard	Posted: 07 Feb 09 00:59:50
	Looks like the silence continues. (Like THAT'S a big surprise....LOFL)

mooslim	Posted: 07 Feb 09 03:17:48
	SCREW NUCLEAR POWER....too dangerous....look to Germany.

deepwater	Posted: 07 Feb 09 03:48:07
	I was a part of the inspection authority for nuclear power plants in the UK, back in the early 70s. At that time the UK had a fast breeder reactor up in Doonrae Scotland whose main job was to reprocess spent fuel. It was expensive to build a plant that ran only for short periods of time. On the other hand there was little storage capacity in the UK for spent fuel. The US navy has been running nuclear power plants for years without serious incidents. France gets at least 30% of its power from nuclear sources. It's time to take a second look at our priorities.

deepwater	Posted: 07 Feb 09 03:55:25
	s/b spelled Dounreay

ohionow	Posted: 07 Feb 09 13:00:08
	Why do the nuclear power plants have to be big mega-zillion-watt facilities? Small reactors, like the US Navy has been using, have been safe and reliable. Should the financing for the plants, big or small, be in the stimulus packages? Now that is a tough question. Probably not at this time. The financing for energy should remain outside of direct government control. This is where a clear and long range national energy plan has to be formulated, outside of political influence. We in the USA can't do as we have in the past where any new administration can cut off a plan that is getting started.

missellen	Posted: 07 Feb 09 16:52:36
	Chernobyl and Three Mile Island so easily forgot? France has a very high cancer rate and many are looking at their nuclear power plants as part of the source. Aside from the fugly designs of the facilities have they solved the nuclear waste issue?

mr_mustard	Posted: 07 Feb 09 17:20:54
	Ellen wrote : 'Chernobyl and Three Mile Island so easily forgot?' Please, will you ?? The technology has advanced so far past Chernobyl, (and three mile island didn't kill a soul, btw), that it isn't funny. Sailors live around nuclear reactors for years at a time, missellen. As many as 5-6 thousands of them, all living within a couple hundred feet of a nuclear reactor. (And, just between us? They don't glow in the dark once they get their discharge....) The EU is now in the planning stage for 10 or so Super reactors which will provide safe and reasonably cost effective electrical power all over Europe for decades to come. In the meantime, you want to continue to bury your head and then whine when the cost of fuel oil of gas goes up a dime. You simply can not have it both ways.

bandit	Posted: 07 Feb 09 18:35:13
	I don't think financing the construction of nuclear power plants is a particularly good idea for economic stimulus. It will create a few jobs in the specialized construction trades needed for that work. But for the most part it won't do much to stimulate the economy. At best, they'll replace current coal fired plants as what ratepayers pay for, and they may put a lot of coal miners out of work. I don't see much potential for stimulating the economy there. It would be better to invest the money in local infrastructure improvement projects that will employ local, unspecialized construction workers. That offers a more likely general stimulus for the economy as the workers start spending their money and the improved infrastructure facilitates business expansion and development. Mr. Mustard, you don't hear liberals praising the deficit as a good thing because nobody thinks it's a good thing. We just recognize it's the only option at this point in time. The Republican ideological dogma of trickle down economics, tax cuts for the rich coupled with the deregulation of commerce, has failed miserably. We teeter on the edge of a Depression and we need a radical solution to correct for decades of misquided economic management.

Page 1 of 2 1 | 2 | LAST