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 powerâ€.
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 hereâ€
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 hereâ€
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.
No reason to believe anything this guy says.
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?
*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.)
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?
like CORPSE - MAN
Three times with that one?
Ouch.
This guy is worse than you on words. And that's saying something!
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.