Lars Larson: Let’s Build Nukes

The President talks a good game about nuclear power, so let’s get busy. Let’s build some nuclear power plants. What’s holding us up?

There were a lot of things in the President’s State of the Union message that I didn’t like, but one of them I did like was when he said “let’s build some nuclear power”.

Now every time he uses that term “clean and safe nuclear power” it sounds to me he’s trying to figure a way out of building those plants. Why don’t we get busy?

Do you know there are already designs that have been perfected in this country that are far safer than anything that was built 30 or 40 years ago. There are plants right now, in fact two of them designed in my own back yard, that are being built in China. They are going to be done in about four years. Yet our best estimate for doing the same thing here is going to take us eight year.

Now there is something wrong with the picture that has the Commies building plants designed in the United States and getting done twice as fast as American capitalism can do it. I have the feeling the reason is government.

“For more Lars click here“

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook Post to LinkedIn Post to Reddit

Posted by at 07:00 | Posted in Measure 37 | 19 Comments |Email This Post Email This Post |Print This Post Print This Post
  • Rupert in Springfield

    The reason why we are not building these plants is because when a guy like BO saying he wants to make nuclear power clean and safe, its about the same thing as if he says he wants to make abortion safe legal and rare.

    Everyone knows its a platitude, everyone knows he doesn’t mean a word of it. We pretend we don’t know its BS, the speaker pretends as if he has said something of substance.

  • dartagnan

    Hallelujah! Lars and I agree about something.

  • Jerry

    But this oh so wise man cut the funding for the nuclear waste storage, so he can not possibly do anything even remotely like what he mentioned. Just the teleprompter talking. Don’t give this guy credit for a sham speech.
    No reason to believe anything this guy says.

    • Rupert in Springfield

      I heard the teleprompter is going to appear in the official presidential portrait of BO in the White House. Any truth to that?

  • valley p

    Where to start? Nukes are not being built because private utilities are not financing them because they cost too much. The same folks, like Lars and Rupert, upset about subsidizing wind turbines and solar seem to have no problem with subsidizing nuclear power plants.

    There is no such thing as a “perfect” design, whether we are talking nuclear or any other industrial facility. Every engineering design is optimized. It can’t be “perfect” because it trades something for something else. In this case, can a nuclear plant…ANY nuclear plant achieve perfect safety? No. Because it uses inherently risky fuels and produces unsafe waste. Should we build them anyway? Yes if you believe global warming is a greater threat than radiation or stolen uranium getting into the hands of terrorists risks. Does Lars now accept global warming is a risk? Does Rupert?

    I didn’t think so. So why support nukes? We have enough coal and natural gas to last a few hundred years and it is far cheaper than nukes will ever be. So why this support for nukes?

    Jerry complains that Obama cut funding for nuclear waste storage. Jerry complained abut cutting government funding. Imagine that for a moment. Archive it. Its the first time Jerry has ever complained about cutting funding for something. Mazeltov Jerry!

    On the teleprompter cracks. Rupert or Jerry, did you watch any of the give and take between Obama and the House Republicans? I know they cut it on Fox so you may have missed it. But where was the teleprompter when he was kicking their collective butts all over the floor?

    • jim karlock

      *Dean:* The same folks, like Lars and Rupert, upset about subsidizing wind turbines and solar seem to have no problem with subsidizing nuclear power plants.
      *JK*That is because Nuclear power actually works on a utility scale and solar and wind don’t.

      When will you greenies learn that?

      But as they say, some people will do anything to save teh Earth EXCEPT take a few science classes. (Real science not envoro pseudo-scienvce.)

      • valley p

        “That is because Nuclear power actually works on a utility scale and solar and wind don’t.”

        Two points. First, that is an interesting reason to justify provision of subsidies. Read the front page of the Oregonian today on wind energy development in Harney County. If that isn’t utility scale then what is? Second, why subsidize at all if global warming is not a problem? Why not just leave energy development or lack thereof entirely to the market?

    • Jerry

      Yes I saw how gracious he was in addressing these folks. A real winner!

    • Rupert in Springfield

      Well, on the up side, without the teleprompter BO doesn’t stumble over tough words

      like CORPSE – MAN

      Three times with that one?

      Ouch.

      This guy is worse than you on words. And that’s saying something!

  • Anonymous

    Oh let’s get back to the real world.
    There isn’t even the slightest chance of any step towards adding more nuclear power in this country.
    Consider this local demonstration.
    The left wing v loons here in Oregon have obstructed the LNG terminals, pipeline, Pelican Butte ski resort, Smith Rock resort, Mt Hood Meadows destination ski resort, 1000s of M37 homes, residential and industrial development of all kinds, the Mettolius resorts and countless other low impacting and job creating ventures, These loons have decimated our logging communities and even blocked salvage logging in burned out forests. Leaving billions of board feet to rot and insects.
    Everywhere one turns the left wing progressive democrats have hurt Oregon by blocking progress.
    Now the idea that this regime would or could be moved to add nuclear power is ludicrous.
    These same people can’t even recognize the benefits in virtual charter schools, or the need for more local control of anything.
    Get a grip.
    If in our current depression-like recession a Timberline Lodge and ski resort were proposed it would never get built.
    The left wing enviro-global warming-fanatics would mount a campaign of lies casting the idea as a permanent scarring of the pristine Mountain. Claims of our drinking water being at risk, massive erosion would occur. Watershed, hydrology and headwaters would be harmed.
    The road up the side of the Mountain would be cast as an idea from the most vial and anti-earthers alive. And it can’t even be seen today.
    We have a complete loon running or Governor who thinks Portland airport and downtown will be under water if we don’t adopt the grotesque cap and trade/carbon tax policies.

    These loons long ago infiltrated and expanded government at all levels causing widespread dysfunction beyond repair. It can’t even be funded let alone work.

    The punch line of this reality is the government of mass dysfunction we now have would make any process towards additional nuclear power so costly that it would be a net loser inflicting tremendous fiscal and energy pains on top of our current mess.

    Talk of adding more nuclear power is an exercise in ultimate futility.

    Actually moving towards it with the behemoth process the loons would impose would be insane.

    Other than that, bud, it’s a good idea.

    • valley p

      “If in our current depression-like recession a Timberline Lodge and ski resort were proposed it would never get built.”

      On this we agree. The right wing would complain that such a project, entirely financed by the socialist Roosevelt government back in the day, would be government pork, would result in deficits, and if such a lodge were practical it would be built by private capital.

  • retired UO science prof

    Some of you seem to want to turn lemonade into lemons. The guy is promoting nuclear power. Run with it! Encourage him! Support him! In this at least.

    Some good things about focusing less permanent waste disposal. The spent fuel should be reprocessed. (Some people call it recycling.)

    Call him on it, and raise!

    • Jerry

      We would if he would listen.

  • Anonymous

    v loon,

    What nonsense. You’re too stupid. What a ridiculous comparison.

    There were no private entitites during that time developeing resorts like that and it’s all goverment land up there. YET in fact it may very well have been proposed today with only private dollars. Face reality fool, you loons would obstruct it.
    Just like today with the Mt. Hood Meadows expansion resort which your loon pals are blocking.

    Conservatives aren’t blocking any of the progress Oregon needs. YOU ARE.

    Conservatives have and are opposing the heavily subsidized Urban Renewal schemes, light rail, TOD’s and other boondoggles. NONE of you loony pals object at all.

    What a pack of morons.

  • retired UO science prof

    Off-topic, but an EXCELLENT editorial from the Oregonian on PERS.

    http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2010/02/oregon_leaders_shrug_as_pensio.html

    Of the three ideas presented for reducing PERS costs, I didn’t know the 8% “guaranteed return” is in principle a flexible rate.

    Ending the 6% “pickup” is dubious as a way to save a lot of money, but it might be legally allowed in some cases.

    The “buyout” idea (third idea) is something I know a little about. I took a little-known “buyout” option that was offered to Oregon University System professors in 1997. The “optional retirement plan” (ORP). It probably saves the state some money, it certainly reduces the states obligations to people who take this option.

    • Rupert in Springfield

      >I didn’t know the 8% “guaranteed return” is in principle a flexible rate.

      I didn’t know that either and frankly I am somewhat dubious of this claim. If that is in fact true, then I think there should be some very serious consequences for those who have held us to this 8% rate when it was not necessary.

  • OI

    Lars, one reason to be cautious is that if you do a bad job of planning a nuclear plant, you can end up costing taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars. Also, I am sure that you do not favor unsafe nuclear plants, do you?

  • Dan Meek

    The utilities and Wall Street will not invest their own money in nuclear power, without 100% loan guarantee from the U.S. Government. That means, if the project fails, the developers and their lenders get paid back from the U.S. Treasury. That is the opposite of free enterprise. Lars claims to be an advocate for free enterprise, but his ideological adherehce to “nuclear power” apparently trumps his commitment to free enterprise.

  • Christa Waterman

    I am all for building nuclear power plants as long as Lars volunteers to have all the waste dumped at his private home. And no cheating Lars. You stay there with that safe stuff, everybody else gets to relocate as far away as possible at your cost of course.

Stay Tuned...

Stay up to date with the latest political news and commentary from Oregon Catalyst through daily email updates:

Prefer another subscription option? Subscribe to our RSS Feed, become a fan on Facebook, or follow us on Twitter.

Twitter Facebook

No Thanks (close this box)