Democrats are raping Americans at the pump.

If you did not watch the Democrat debate a few nights ago you may not have heard about the remarks by the big 3, Hillary, Edwards, and Obama, about the Yucca Mountain Repository which is supposed to store up to 77,000 tons of nuclear waste for thousands of years.

Their response to the question posed by the moderator, “would you kill the Yucca Mountain project?”, was a resounding yes.

Obama’s answer:

I will end the notion of Yucca Mountain because it has not been based on the sort of sound science that can assure the people in Nevada that they’re going to be safe.

Not based on sound science aye? Well, you were a elected official of the State of Illinois, one that currently has the Zion nuclear facility in storage, along with thousands of tons of nuclear waste just sitting there waiting for storage. Think this could pose a health risk?

No worries about that but instead he panders to the voters and says he doesn’t believe a site built specifically to store this waste and prevent any health risks to the population is based on sound science.

Hillary is against it also and:

We do have to figure out what to do with nuclear waste.

How about doing what the French are doing? Making themselves much less dependent on oil and the countries that supply that oil by using nuclear power AND reprocessing that used nuclear fuel:

Over the past four decades, America’s reactors have produced about 56,000 tons of used fuel. Jack Spencer, research fellow for nuclear energy policy at the Thomas A. Rowe Institute for Economic Policy Studies, says this “waste” has enough energy to power every U.S. household for a dozen years.

As we’ve noted, France long ago achieved energy independence by relying on nuclear energy for most of its power needs. But it also leads the world in processing this waste to create even more energy.

The French have reprocessed spent nuclear fuel for 30 years without incident. There have been no accidental explosions, no terrorist attacks, no contribution to nuclear proliferation. Their facility in La Hague has safely processed more than 23,000 tons of spent fuel, or enough to power the entire country for 14 years.

Our country pioneered the technology to reprocess it but banned the process in the late 70’s because every time its reprocessed it increases the plutonium content. Our country was scared it could fall into the wrong hands. But France, Russia, and Japan have been reprocessing for decades with no problems which alleviates the problem of what to do with the waste.

Why not offer this up, with increased security measures to ensure the safety of the reprocessed fuel rather then banning nuclear power altogether as Edwards suggested here:

I am against building more nuclear power plants, because I do not think we have a safe way to dispose of the waste. I think they’re dangerous, they’re great terrorist targets and they’re extraordinarily expensive.

They are not, in my judgment, the way to green this — to get us off our dependence on oil.

Amazing. The only technology with the ability to replace fossil fuels known to man, that does not emit CO2, and Democrats are against it.

__________________
Drill offshore now

I thought they didn't like blue-collar workers, police, the troops and Strawberry Shortcake? Whoops, no one has posted in this thread yet. In that case, your words are wonderfully written and you have a clear and concise air about you sir. If you are ever in the mood for a night cap I would be glad to top you off and "top you off" if you know what I mean. wink wink eh? you know what I mean?!?! eh?!?!? EH?!?!?!?






















































Let's make gay babies (aka colon critters).

__________________
----------------------------------------------

Jesus Loves Cock!!

Magenta means you are gay

Nuclear Energy Institute - May 6, 2008

__________________
Aye, fight and you may die, run, and you'll live... at least for a while. And dying in your beds, many years from now, would you be willin' to trade ALL the days, from this day to that, for one chance, just one chance, to come back here and tell our enemies that they may take our lives, but they'll never take... OUR FREEDOM!

Why are there more nuke plants in blue states than in red states?

__________________
"All the problems we face in the United States today can be traced to an unenlightened immigration policy on the part of the American Indian."

Pat Paulsen for President

Dems don't hate nuclear power, they are simply terrified of anything new. Dems are modern day Luddites, afraid of their own shadow when it comes to new technology.

__________________
Its better to have fussed and crabbed then never to have fussed at all - Lucy

Who is proposing anything new????

Everything that Bush and his corporate buddies are talking about is old technology, in fact ancient technology. They are proposing to go back to 1968 and start up where they left off. With all the same nuclear scientists and engineers and technicians and processing plants and reactor designs and welders and steel mills and foundries and construction workers.

In case you hadn't noticed, that was 40 year ago, and in the past four decades, especially with people like Reagan-Bush-Clinton-Bush-McCain providing leadership, when it came to

- nuclear engineering schools

the response was "those jobs are gone and aren't coming back so move on."

- nuclear scientists and engineers

the response was "those jobs are gone and aren't coming back so move on."

- steel mills and foundries for really big projects

the response was "those jobs are gone and aren't coming back so move on."

Of course, we could outsource the construction to the Chinese. They are working in new nuclear reactor designs and they have the scientists and engineering schools to supply the scientists and engineers. And China have from the commanding heights said that having big steel mills and foundries is a matter of national honor so they can fabricate the reactors without problems.


It is the Republicans that want to keep thing the way they were, and not do anything different than in 1968. Yep, Bush is trying to return the US to 1968 with a US installed dictator in Iran, the US selling nuclear reactors based on the most up to date 1958 reactor design, the cold war raging, a Vietnam, massively expensive government subsidized nuclear power plants being constructed, Bush and Cheney dodging the draft, tied dyed hippies protesting the war and environmental disaster.

Bush is proposing nothing new, but only a return to the past.

mulp,
This is happening 50 miles from my home.
Why does Hillary and Obama want an annual $10 Billion energy trust fund?

The two reactors at the South Texas nuclear power plant, an hour southwest of Houston, last year churned out 21.37 billion kilowatt-hours. By 2015, its majority owner, New Jersey-based NRG Energy, hopes to at least double that capacity if it gets permission to build two more reactors on the site. The company filed the first application on Monday for a new nuclear power plant—two advanced boiling-water reactors—in more than 30 years.

"It is a new day for energy in America," David Crane, NRG president and chief executive officer, said after making the application. "Advanced nuclear technology is the only currently viable large-scale alternative to traditional coal-fueled generation to produce none of the traditional air emissions," including the greenhouse gases responsible for climate change.

Armed with the backing of the White House and congressional leaders—and subsidies, such as $500 million in risk insurance from the U.S. Department of Energy— the nuclear industry is experiencing a revival in the U.S. As many as 29 new reactors may be added to the current U.S. fleet of 104, according to Bill Borchardt, director of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) office of new reactors. "It is going to be significantly different than it was in the 1970s," he says.

The South Texas project is the first entirely new reactor out of the gate, though it simply fulfills the original planning for four reactors at the site. The NRC says such upgrades of existing facilities are likely to comprise the majority of new nuclear power plants, all but one—a plant near Syracuse in central New York State— are in the Southeast or Texas. "At the majority of these sites, there's strong support for nuclear power," says Loren Plisco, NRC's deputy regional administrator for construction in the southeastern region.

The inactive reactor at Browns Ferry in northern Alabama was restarted in May after being shuttered for 22 years due to maintenance issues its owner, the Tennessee Valley Authority, decided would be too costly to fix. Completion of construction of a second reactor at TVA's Watts Bar power plant near Chattanooga in Tennessee has begun as well. The TVA expects to finish construction in 2013 at a cost of $2.49 billion. Its older twin at Watts Bar required 23 years to build at a total cost of nearly $7 billion, according to the TVA.

Such long delays and ballooning costs—paired with improvements in U.S. energy efficiency and reactor accidents at Three Mile Island in 1979 and Chernobyl in 1986—helped kill the first wave of nuclear power plant construction in the U.S. And the rebirth is not without controversy: Some environmentalists oppose the new construction, noting that all of the potential risks linked to nuclear power remain. "The flaws of nuclear power—excessive cost, security threats and long-lived radioactive waste—have not been solved," says Tyson Slocum, director of Public Citizen's energy program. "More nuclear reactors will only exacerbate these problems."

__________________
Drill offshore now

But Obama, Hillery, Pelosi, Reid, et al, are proposing absolutely nothing. Not new refineries, not new steel mills, not new reactors. Just this unexplained "Change". Just like the "We have a plan" CRAP before the 06 elections. Undoubtedly with the exact same results; WORSE CONDITIONS than before.

__________________
If you want change stop electing "liberal: democrats and "radical" Republicans. Find and support true Conservatives; those who believe in fiscal responsibilities, individual accountability, and a smaller government, with less control of your daily life.

Just wondering what the Search engines come up with
Your search for CLINTON, HILLARY RODHAM in Atomic Energy returned 12 articles

All about some stupid evactuation pland

Search Obama Nuke plants:

Nuclear plants become a factor in elections | Dallas Morning News | News for Dallas, Texas | National Politics

Search Obam Nuke plants

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/03/us...exelon.html?hp

__________________
Aye, fight and you may die, run, and you'll live... at least for a while. And dying in your beds, many years from now, would you be willin' to trade ALL the days, from this day to that, for one chance, just one chance, to come back here and tell our enemies that they may take our lives, but they'll never take... OUR FREEDOM!

Saw this too:

All 3 U.S. presidential candidates back nuclear power - International Herald Tribune

So what I can figure:

1. McCain wants new Nuke plants

2. Obama want's to drown it in red tape to address it's flaws.

3. Hillary is just a dumbshit

__________________
Aye, fight and you may die, run, and you'll live... at least for a while. And dying in your beds, many years from now, would you be willin' to trade ALL the days, from this day to that, for one chance, just one chance, to come back here and tell our enemies that they may take our lives, but they'll never take... OUR FREEDOM!