Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Subscribe to Comments:

37 Comments

  1. Mr. Chairman, may the record commemorate Rep Doyle’s heroic effort to keep a straight face whilst requesting Rep Kinzinger kindly rename his bill so as to provide a marginally more appropriate acronym. Let the record further indicate that Rep Doyle utterly failed in this effort.

    In contrast, it should be noted that NRDC’s Mr. Fettus provided exemplary example of how such facial musculature may be decorously controlled as he objected that advanced nuclear technologies would serve as distraction from proven, established, and economical renewable sources such as wind and solar (1:07:36), whilst in the next breath (1:07:57) objecting to the recommendation in Section II of HR 4979 that part of NRC’s funding for advanced nuclear licensing efforts might be shifted to us taxpayers via Congressional appropriation from the General Fund.

    Seriously. Mr. Fettus’ performance is to be commended.

    [/irony]

  2. I suspect that the chief concern of these so called pro- nuclear democrats [a oxymornon if there ever was one] is simply to advance the climate hoax and nothing else. They know that alot of the american population rejects both the hoax and it’s absurd renewable solutions. They are buying time for the enviromentalist extremists in the party to continue to promote their deindustrialation of America, They have no intention of any serious development of nuclear power. When will the nuclear community wake up and reject the climate lie and promote the true benifits of nuclear power and other applications of nuclear energy.

    1. Do you see something wrong with taking this position?

      IF the increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere are causing problems & will cause more problems in the future, nuclear power will eliminate CO2 emissions to the extent that it is used. However, even if CO2 emissions are harmless there are lots of good reasons to switch to nuclear like no SO2, no mountain top removal, no pipeline explosions etc. & nuclear is more reliable than any other energy source.

    2. Donald…

      Whats the saying about a “gift horse”?

      It amazes me how ignorantly partisan some folks can be. They’ll run headfirst into a wall, right next to an open door.

    3. I suspect that the chief concern of these so called pro- nuclear democrats [a oxymornon if there ever was one] is simply to advance the climate hoax and nothing else.

      Still pushing the George C. Marshall Institute PR line, I see.

      They know that alot of the american population rejects both the hoax and it’s absurd renewable solutions.

      The “solutions” have been around since forever, in search of a problem.  Hooking the climate-change issue to them as an attempt to discredit the latter was a stroke of genius on the part of the propagandists.

      Meanwhile, the public is getting an increasingly accessible understanding of the underlying issues that they can appreciate quite personally.

      When will the nuclear community wake up and reject the climate lie and promote the true benifits of nuclear power and other applications of nuclear energy.

      We know how this propaganda works.  If you claim that there is no problem with adding CO2 to the atmosphere, you might as well burn natural gas instead.  Heck, even well-scrubbed coal isn’t all that bad (supposedly).  It’s just another line of propaganda that winds up handing everything to the fossil-fuel interests.  It’s clever, I’ll admit, but it’s not all that hard to see through.

      1. My intenion was not to promote fossil fuels over nuclear, I understand the role the fossil fuel industry plays in undermining nuclear.development but It’s not a choice between fossil- fuels or nuclear power however.High temp gas cooled reastors can provide heat and power for enhanced oil recovery, oil refineries, steel making, and conversion of coal to more flexiable fuels.If we are ever going to return to the high growth rates of mid to late 20th century these resources will be needed. Nuclear power allows those resources to be optimized as well as opening up a new level of energy density to the human population in general through fission, fusion -fission hybrids and pure fusion.

  3. Gosh, Rod, you must be making a mistake. You mention three democrats that are supportive. Heck, anyone that has followed the comments here for any length of time knows that democrats are all greenies, fuddistas, and anti NP leftist treehuggers.

      1. @poa

        Yeah, it’s a bummer to have to be civilized and polite at times, but it often makes living a more pleasant and social experience.

        1. Oh? You find Donald’s comment “civil”? Deserving of civility?

          I mean hey, doesn’t extreme ignorance deserve recognition in the same manner with which it was presented?

          1. @poa

            Especially since Donald is new here, it would be best to discuss the reasons his comment is wrong and perhaps even offensive without applying any derogatory label to the commenter.

            Of course, if he persists in making similar comments over a period of time there MIGHT be grounds for aiming at the archer instead of the arrows.

          2. “…….it would be best to discuss the reasons his comment is wrong..”

            Such an approach may bear fruit if directed towards intelligence. When the target of that approach has already established that no such asset exists, that approach is unlikely to advance a constructive debate. But sarcasm may in fact close the conversation, halting the frustration of trying to teach an amoeba how to think.

          3. @ poa
            Could you perhaps define “intelligence” and give a local example? Last I checked, us amoeba receive the same number of votes as the next guy. All we gotta do is show up at the polls and cast.

    1. Not all, add Jim Webb and Evan Bayh to the pro-nuke Dem side. The anti-nuke Dems often receive more publicity, and that’s because they’re often the loudest.

      1. The anti-nuke Dems often receive more publicity, and that’s because they’re often the loudest.

        They’re also the leadership of the party. Jim Webb is no longer a US senator, and he is no longer a presidential candidate. Has anyone heard from him since last fall?

        Far from being “pro-nuke” — i.e., promoting a greater share of future electricity generation from nuclear power — the two people battling to be the leader of the Democratic Party (one now viable, one not) are spending their time arguing over whether or not to close Indian Point.

        1. Adversity begets adversity. Keeping us divided benefits the agenda of the leaders of BOTH parties. When you take stances such as Donald’s, (and often your own), you are merely playing into the hands of those that could care less about actually representing the interests of the people. Your constant depiction of the left as “anti-nuke” is a self fullfilling dynamic. The so called “leaders” celebrate the successful sowing of division along party lines, and only work harder to implant that division when they note the success of their efforts. This division allows them to avoid the inconvenience of a true people’s united front and concensus. As long as Donald, yourself, and people like you nurture this division with willfull participation, this nation will continue its downward slide. Partisan ignorance is the problem, not the solution.

          1. poa – You forget yourself. You are the belligerent, divisive one in this forum. You set a standard that nobody here could even hope to match.

            Political leaders, celebrities, your host, random people on the internet, old girlfriends, etc. … they’re all fair game for your mallet-like wit.

          2. read your comment, Brian. Do you ever reflect inwards?

            You double the comment count of this post all by your lonesome, including a reply to yourself, with heaps of negative emoting but no content to speak of… and then write this?!

            Irony, thy screen name is POA.

          3. I made a comment about the important role that partisan division plays in serving the interests of a self serving political structure. I note that my detractors have turned that comment into an excuse for personal attack. I also note that they are content to allow Donald’s partisan divisive prattle to go unchallenged.

            Did they address my contention that this partisan ignorance is a nurtured affliction imposed by our so called “leaders”? Of course not, because by doing so, they admit to complicity.

          4. poa – Oh … so that was a “comment,” was it?

            I could have sworn it was a personal attack against me and other people here. You were the first one to start naming names, after all.

            I note that my detractors have turned that comment into an excuse for personal attack.

            See … that’s the difference between them and you. They need an excuse, you don’t. You’re such a p–k that you just start launching into attacks for no reason whatsoever. You bring no value to this site, only hatred and vitriol.

  4. Well, they’re talking the talk. I guess we’ll see if they you-know-what. Reid will likely threaten a filibuster in the Senate on any kind of pro-nuclear legislation, but I’m not sure if a majority of his caucus will think it (filibuster) worthwhile to support.

  5. I doubt if every Democrat is anti- nuclear but I would say the vast majority are and while I don’t know what goes on in the heads of these Democrats mentioned I have a strong motive to speculate what I do having opposed the anti-nuclear movement Democrats [ and Republicans by the way ] since the 1970’s. To this end I selected to begin my first post. with the words I suspect. Is the definition of political speculation based on well known policy positions of the Democratic party now considered insulting? Mabe they think so but it wont stop me from pointing out what I feel are possible motives. .

    1. Well Donald, regardless of your opinion of the “majority” of democrats. ( Which is actually based on a very small group of so called “leaders” whose positions are dictated by special interest groups that DO NOT represent the opinions, or interests, of their constituency.)

      Your use of the term “climate hoax” is indicative of you holding a politically biased stance that defies the concensus of the “majority” of scientists concerning themselves about our environment. I am a democrat, and you certainly have misjudged my opinion, and the opinion of many other democrats I know. Negative opinions about NE are pretty much based on a political and media narrative that misinforms the holders of those negative opinions. It escapes me why you think attacking the constituency on the left is going to replace misinformation with truth. When presented with political leaders on the left who can be very instrumental in implanting truths about NE, you respond with insult and derision, calling them liars and frauds. How is that helpful? And, as EP points out, your marketing of this premise called the “climate hoax” plays right into the hands of those pushing renewables and fossil fuels, (if, as Rod proposes, there is a collusion between these two entities). Even if no such collusion exists, your peddling of the “climate hoax” narrative surely puts a smile on the face of any and every oilman that wants to keep the crude flowing into the energy marketplace at its current scale.

      Wouldn’t the NE industry be better served by welcoming the contributions of Democrats such as the three mentioned here, than it is by the kind of insulting accusation you leveled at them and their constituency? What purpose is served by slamming shut a door that is open to a bipartisan energy concensus that serves the interest of NE? My anger, exhibited on this thread, and EP’s biting sarcasm,which he provided in response to your initial comment, is the best you can hope for when come at this issue as you did.

      And caring about what kind of environment we leave our descendents is not a “hoax”. Its a responsiblity.

        1. Then don’t blink, because its a fleeting endeavor. It ain’t as much fun as yanking chains.

          1. @poa

            Aren’t you the guy who’s often found counseling others that their equivalent of “yanking chains” isn’t a very effective method of changing minds?

            You might consider taking that advice.

          2. “Aren’t you the guy who’s often found counseling others that their equivalent of “yanking chains” isn’t a very effective method of changing minds?”

            Yeah…thats me. But nobody said I was perfect, or very convincing.

            “You might consider taking that advice.”

            Ok. I considered it. Now what?

            1. @poa

              But nobody said I was perfect, or very convincing.

              Perfection is overrated. Continuous improvement is a worthwhile and achievable goal. If you have strong opinions and believe they are more correct than those held by others, why wouldn’t you want to become more convincing?

              “You might consider taking that advice.”

              Ok. I considered it. Now what?

              I apologize for not fully implementing my training as a nuclear technology procedure developer. I should never ASSUME that the next steps in a given procedure is obvious to the operator.

              After considering the advice, take the necessary steps to implement it.

              Monitor the results.

              Continue adjusting to improve results to the desired consistency.

            1. @poa

              You ain’t still in the navy.

              You’re right. However, leadership training is kind of sticky stuff. It stays with a person.

              Also, discussing nuclear energy and its value to society might be a lark for you. For me it is an enjoyable, but serious calling.

          3. Rod…you read me wrong. I do recognize the seriousness of the issue. In spades. The lark, in my opinion, is the manner in which it is sometimes discussed and debated here. One expects science and logic, while often finding the exact opposite. I realize separating the politics from the science paints an incomplete picture. But otherwise intelligent and logical commentors morph into blathering idiots when partisan politics enter the discussion. The lark is in trying to respond to comments like Donald’s original contribution with anything other than light hearted sarcasm. Yes, he has walked it back considerably. But in doing so, he cannot erase the existence of the underlying sentiments he exposed with his comment. So, I’m to have faith in the “science” advanced by such a “deep thinker”? Why should I assume his assertions and opinions about NE are any less shallow and unfounded than his political bigotry? I only use Donald as an immediate example, because it convenient to our discussion. But surely you recognize that he’s not a loner here. I’ve been here long enough to determine that on many outside issues, many of your “logical” and “science” peddling commentors are ill informed about issues that are easily researched and validated. Their opinions are formed with prejudices as their foundation. Yet when NE is the topic, we are to assume they are perfectly honest, forthright, and informed? There lies the lark for me. Trying to wade through the BS to get to the facts. Pretty tall order here.

      1. You are correct in pointing out that it is indeed the leadership of the Democratic party that is by and large anti-nuclear.I doubt the rank in file gives it much thought. I stand by my statement that I SUSPECT their support of advanced nuclear power is false, I can’t read minds to know for sure.The anti-nuclear left’s issue with nuclear power IMO never was safety or the real preservation of the envrioment but anti-technological socialism, in Europe they openly call themselves degrowthers.If you regard my comments as a attack on you please don’t, I in no way ment to insult you, I hope Iam wrong about the Demcrats mentioned, time will tell.

Recent Comments from our Readers

  1. Avatar
  2. Avatar
  3. Avatar
  4. Avatar
  5. Avatar

Similar Posts