Friday, January 29, 2010

Obama and I actually agree on something!

I never thought it would happen, but it seems even the most deluded have their moments of sanity--Dear Leader wants to subsidize nuclear power plants.

He's actually advocating something that will create, not destroy, American prosperity.

I'd ask if hell had frozen over, but I'm afraid to find out.


  1. When I opened your blog and saw this post, all I first saw was you agreeing with Obama---my first thought was, hell must have frozen over---I page down and I read: "I'd ask if hell had frozen over, but I'm afraid to find out."

    Nuclear power is a good solution.

    However, I have done some reading about Chernobyl & that is scary (still).

    And I am still not sure if they have done enough with solar power.

    ...and I further wonder how many alternative energy sources are bought and hidden by the oil companies!

  2. The interesting thing, my friend, is that nuclear technology has gotten more and more safe to use. There are even types of plants where a meltdown a la 3 Mile Island or Chernobyl would be impossible: look up "pebble bed reactors" and see for yourself.

    Honestly, if I could, I'd buy up enough land and build one around here. And no, I wouldn't mind living next door to it.

  3. Oh no! We have to disagree here, and not just because Obama supports it. (In fact, I don't think he really does, they are just words that he's using to attract people.)

    There are two reasons why I cannot support nuclear energy. First, if the government supports it, then I don't. I think it's usually a pretty good rule.

    Second, they want to promote it as clean energy which of course, it is not. It creates waste, and not just some innocuous waste that can be burned or reused. This highly toxic waste remains dangerous for hundreds if not thousands of years. Now, how can this be clean? Environmentally speaking (which I hate to do) we have to dig up the earth to bury this waste. In the meantime, nothing can be done with this land.

    Until we can find a way to use this waste, I cannot support such an idea. I know that the power plants are safer now, and that Europe uses a lot of nuclear energy. But aren't they the same dolts who like socialized medicine?

    Not for me. If we're going to be digging, might as well be digging for oil or coal. CO2 is not a pollutant.

  4. Again, look at MPBRs, Darrin. The waste can easily be reused--and that's the waste that is left over. This particular method makes far less waste than the older power plants.

    And, if the govt. gets involved, it's far easier to get all of the red tape cut through than it is for a private enterprise--especially with the EPA being a government agency run by environmentalista anti-Americans.

    I'm not saying I'm pro-government intervention, but sometimes (specifically, with infrastructure) it is within the government's constitutional function and responsibility.

  5. Carbon Dioxide:

    Good, bad and indifferent.

  6. If it can be used, then why is it such a big issue to store the waste? I may not be quite up to speed on all of it, but I do know that 11,000 tons of it was looking for a home near to us, and is now going to be buried in part of Texas. Nothing can be truly clean if it produces waste. However, if you can prove to me that the waste is safely re-usable, I'll consider not arguing with you!

  7. The old stuff, no. However, Darrin, the fuel for the MPBRs is a bit different--lasts longer, and can be re-used.

    The United States does not use MPBRs. We haven't built a new plant with the new technology--haven't built a new plant, period, since 1996, about four years before the pebble bed reactor tech was invented--because there's too many NIMBY idiots that don't understand that it's actually *safer* and less radioactive than coal-powered plants.

  8. Hmmm...

    I am not a nuclear physicist!

    Lots of good reading on nuclear

  9. Okay, then. Since you obviously know WAY more about this than I do, honestly, I can no longer argue with you!
    If it's safer, then let's do it. However, I still don't believe that Obama meant a word of what he said during the State of the Union, except that he and Biden were going to Florida the next day.

  10. NUCLEAR POWER sort of reminds me of the CLIMATE CHANGE issue.

    There are scientific minds that
    agree to the issue(s) and those who do not.

    Let's flip a voin!

  11. I don't believe him, either, Darrin. Doesn't mean I don't agree with what he said about building nuclear power plants.

    Oldcatman...what's a "voin?" ^_^

  12. I figured, but couldn't resist picking on you.

    (The more I like someone, the more I pick on them.)

  13. Ditto.....

    What's also scary is that my hell froze over and I totally agreed when HE announced the NASA decision to 'stop' for awhile and let the 'private' sector play in space!


Sorry, folks. A hundred plus spam comments in an hour equals moderation, so until further're gonna have to wait for your comments to be approved before they show up.