Similar Posts

Recent Comments from our Readers

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

10 Comments

  1. You voted for Obama who put Jaczko in authority. This is YOUR fault (to the extent that your vote counts). Now we’ll have another anti-nuke, MacFarlane, because of YOUR vote (again, to the extend that your vote counts).

    Democracy: two wolves and one sheep voting on what’s for dinner.
    Liberty: a well armed sheep contesting the vote.

    1. A little harsh. For me as a european, I’ve not had the feeling that Americans voting one way or the other has counted for much in the USA since at least 9/11. Perhaps earlier. I mean really: aren’t democrats and republicans just two different groups who treat serious issues merely as a tool to attack each other, rather than something to find solutions for? Together if need be? (If I offend anyone, please excuse me) I find the USA certainly the greatest nation the world has ever seen, although it is easy to find fault with it these days. No?

    2. Loannes… What is your obsession on how Rod Voted??? this is the only comment I’ve ever seen you post….

      Here is the thing with the electoral system… Your Allowed To Criticize The Guy You Vote For. Hell the Democrats should be the hardest on Obama to make sure he keeps doing the what the electorate wishes.

      Especially when he gets into the office, and turns out to be nothing like the guy on the campaign trail.

  2. Ioannes: The problem is, most of us feel the presidency is too important to be single-issue voters. Do you think we’d be better off with McCain as president right now? I don’t know. He talked about supporting nuclear power during the campaign, and I’ll give him credit for that, but I’m not convinced he would have actually done much to promote nuclear power. Hard to say, but in any case, getting back to the present election cycle. . .

    Romney doesn’t strike me as anti-nuclear, but not particularly pro-nuclear either. Romney seems like more of a fossil-fuels candidate. Romney represents “Drill, baby, drill’, as far as I can tell – though he might be better with regards to NRC nominees and not letting anti-nukers lard up the nuclear regulations with stuff designed to just regulate the nuclear industry out of existence.

    I suppose as far as Democratic presidents go, Obama has been one of the more nuclear-friendly administrations, Jazcko notwithstanding.

    1. “Nuclear power is a win-win; it’s a domestic energy source with zero greenhouse emissions. Nuclear power poses the single largest opportunity to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions. Without increased nuclear generation, global temperatures cannot achieve the two-degree Celsius goal. So if you’re serious about global warming, you have to say yes to nuclear; and if like me you’re serious about energy security, you get to the same place.”
      – Romney in his 2010 book

      “Expand NRC capabilities for approval of additional nuclear reactor designs.
      Streamline NRC processes to ensure that licensing decisions for reactors on or adjacent to approved sites, using approved designs, are complete within two years”
      – Romney’s campaign site

      Obama:

      “I start off with the premise that nuclear energy is not optimal. I am not a nuclear energy proponent.“ He then went on to say later in the same response that he has ”not ruled out nuclear … but only so far as it is clean and safe.“
      – 2007

      But later in 2008
      ” I’ve called for investments in solar, wind, geothermal. Contrary to what Sen. McCain keeps on saying, I favor nuclear power as one component of our overall energy mix.”

      “He wants to build 45 new nuclear reactors when they don’t have a plan to store the waste anywhere besides right here,”
      – Obama said on June 25. McCain supports going ahead with the Yucca Mountain plan.

      “To meet our growing energy needs and prevent the worst consequences of climate change, we need to increase our supply of nuclear power…”
      – 2010

      Maybe Obama’s position has “evolved” over the years, especially as of late (Ohio mining, new plants). Early on, he comes across as a concern troll who would rather push money into solar and wind while giving lip-service to the promise of “safe” nuclear. You know, since it isn’t safe already.

      So while both candidates will be pro-fossil fuels (especially Romney), Obama is way more likely to keep burning money on “alternatives”.

    2. My concern is to what extent candidate Romney will use the US military as the primary component of our national energy policy. I’d prefer that the US deploy 100,000 troops securing our domestic nuclear fuel cycle instead of foreign oil fields and shipping routes. Heck, just deploying SMRs to Iraq (if they had been operational) could have saved ten percent of US casualties by reducing the number of fuel transported by land.

      1. Agreed. But with respect to the military, are they really that much different? Doesn’t matter. We’ll never know because Romney is going to lose.

        And I still think Obama will do more to stifle nuclear than Romney would.

        1. Romney is going to lose? I think that it’s way too early to call.

          Larry Sabato’s latest figures give 247 EC votes to Obama and 206 EC votes to Romney. The remaining 85 votes are toss ups.

          No president since FDR has won re-election with unemployment over 7.2%. The 7.2% limit was set by Reagan, who won in a landslide in 1984. This election is not going to be a landslide, either way.

          When Reagan won reelection, the unemployment rate had dropped by 3.6% in only two years, and consumer confidence in the economy had been restored. Since it peaked two and a half years ago, unemployment has dropped by only 1.8%. Unemployment must drop by an additional point to reach Reagan’s level with only four months to go until the election. Reagan’s successor G.H.W. Bush lost his bid for reelection with an unemployment rate of only 7.4%. Recent figures for unemployment are at 8.2%

          It’s the economy, stupid. Obama should start praying for a miracle.

  3. Rod: “He was embattled because he was trying to execute marching orders that conflicted with their knowledge of the law and their deep understanding of the technology for which their agency is responsible.”

    Spot on as usual. Sorry but I couldn’t help writing it. I often refrain from it.

    Aside: here in my country, the Netherlands, I am currently being surprised sometimes at the seeming improvement in sentiment concerning nuclear .Based on what I see, thinks are really perhaps starting to improve. I am talking about the nuclear opinion change that I see among run-of-the-mill well-educated people in my surroundings that I talk to about nuclear power, including some people who are fairly high up in positions of power at engineering consultancy firms and real estate development. I think the day that at least small nuclear power plants are going to be very seriously considered may have already arrived, at least from where I’m standing. This is likely also due to your long time effort Rod. (If you didn’t know, your name has even come up in a Dutch popular university technology magazine called “The Engineer” (“De ingenieur”) about general technology.

    All the best, Joris

  4. For those of you who are not paying attention, this is where Obama’s “energy policy” has taken us.

    When it comes to energy policy, watch the hands, not the mouth. I don’t care what Obama says in his lame speeches. The guy is full of it. Anyone claiming that the Obama administration is somehow “pro-nuclear” needs to answer for this, because this is entirely a result of his policies.

    The hard truth is that Chu has been a totally incompetent Secretary of Energy, and the failure of Solyndra will be the the main part of his legacy. He wastes his time talking about painting the roofs of buildings white, while doing nothing to put forward a solid energy policy that is grounded in reality.

    Who wants four more years of this?

Comments are closed.