"President Obama's announcement that the federal government would guarantee loans for two advanced-design nuclear plants in Georgia was good news.

The commitment jump-starts the U.S. nuclear energy industry at a time when we have begun to understand that nuclear energy has a substantial role to play in combating climate change and supplying power....."

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/...0,988952.story

Looks like President Obama wants to revive the use of Nuclear Power in the US. It would seem to divide Liberals, as easily as separating liberals from conservative.
Nuclear Power is clean as related to carbon emissions. So is it "Green Energy"?

The con view:
Nuclear power -- not a green option

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/...,2178921.story

Originally Posted by Chukpike

"President Obama's announcement that the federal government would guarantee loans for two advanced-design nuclear plants in Georgia was good news.

The commitment jump-starts the U.S. nuclear energy industry at a time when we have begun to understand that nuclear energy has a substantial role to play in combating climate change and supplying power....."

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/...0,988952.story

Looks like President Obama wants to revive the use of Nuclear Power in the US. It would seem to divide Liberals, as easily as separating liberals from conservative.
Nuclear Power is clean as related to carbon emissions. So is it "Green Energy"?

The con view:
Nuclear power -- not a green option

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/...,2178921.story

Is a "green" option all that important after all nuclear power is a cleaner form of energy than coal (assuming is doesn't go Chernobyl), there are only so many dams you can build and neither wind nor solar energy is all that efficient at the moment.

When you add in the employment benefit to the economy I think reviving the nuclear industry is a sound move.

Originally Posted by MontyB

Is a "green" option all that important after all nuclear power is a cleaner form of energy than coal (assuming is doesn't go Chernobyl), there are only so many dams you can build and neither wind nor solar energy is all that efficient at the moment.

When you add in the employment benefit to the economy I think reviving the nuclear industry is a sound move.

Nuclear is immensely cleaner than coal. To see the differences in views would require taking a few minutes to read the two opinions.

The first opinion is by a man that helped found Greenpeace. He may very well represent the establishment or the views of the current administration.

He doesn't necessarily represent Greenpeace any longer.

That is what I meant by this statement in my first post:
"It would seem to divide Liberals, as easily as separating liberals from conservative."quote chukpike

A Chernobyl type incident is not really the concern on either side, and if you consider the current administration as liberal, the two views and links I supplied are opposing debates by liberals.

This being the US we have people opposing wind farms, solar energy, hydroelectric, coal.... if you name it someone opposes it.

Example in California transmission line companies just won a fight to build transmission lines from deep in the desert(where companies want to build solar energy plants) back to where the power could be coupled with the power grid.

That was not even a NIMBY issue.(Not In My Back Yard)

Wind farms are considered unsightly. Yes, in America we have people jousting with windmills

Apparently liberals tend to oppose pretty much any kind of energy. As much as they say they want change it is still NIMBY.

I think in reality people will ***** about anything and everything and it doesn't matter what their political orientation is, lets face it not all conservatives agree either.

In terms of power generation I am supportive of ideas to produce "green" power but only if that power is economically viable, does that make me conservative, liberal or a mix of either?

Originally Posted by MontyB

I think in reality people will ***** about anything and everything and it doesn't matter what their political orientation is, lets face it not all conservatives agree either.

In terms of power generation I am supportive of ideas to produce "green" power but only if that power is economically viable, does that make me conservative, liberal or a mix of either?

I agree that conservatives can disagree with each other, and rarely will two people agree 100% on anything.

I just find extremely funny to see liberals so adamantly oppose each other on an issue like generating electrical power. Let us assume that people want to have electrical power just so they can continue to argue on the INTERNET.

Why can't people concerned with global warming come up with a system of generating power that will satisfy the reduction or effects of global warming? Basically requiring the elimination of using fossil fuels to generate power.

In the US we are currently in the final stages of agreeing on removing some hydroelectric dams that all ready generate clean energy. It is almost certain we will not build more.

Solar energy plants can take up a lot of space, which we have. I think the federal government owns about 90% of Nevada. But environmentalist don't want the desert disturbed. I do agree we need to preserve some of the area, but environmentalists usually want to save it all.

Just a lot of complaints, but liberals with no solutions offered. Basically means we will continue to burn up fossil fuels until they are gone.

Because of restrictions on mining and drilling in the US we will use up the resources of the rest of the world first before being forced to mine and drill the last of US resources. I believe the US has nearly the largest known coal reserves in the world.

Well my belief is that all governments need to do is legislate emissions and let technology determine what type of power plants you end up with, if they can come up with a coal fired power plant that meets those emissions requirements then build as many coal fired power plants as you like.

Originally Posted by MontyB

Well my belief is that all governments need to do is legislate emissions and let technology determine what type of power plants you end up with, if they can come up with a coal fired power plant that meets those emissions requirements then build as many coal fired power plants as you like.

The problem here in the US is we can't get people to agree to a windmill, let alone using coal.

Like the two articles show it is not the technology that determines what type of power planets we use it is people. It is the fact we can't get agreement on what technology to use.

Dams are opposed by enviromentalists because it interferes with fish swimming up stream, they think that's more important. NIMBYs oppose windmills because they are noisy if close by. Nukes should be a good choice except for those who freak @ even hearing the name.

Originally Posted by Chukpike

The problem here in the US is we can't get people to agree to a windmill, let alone using coal.

Like the two articles show it is not the technology that determines what type of power planets we use it is people. It is the fact we can't get agreement on what technology to use.

Hate to break it to you but thats the problem with being a Republic and not a Democracy, we elect our governments to run the country not to interpret a constitution.

Originally Posted by George

Dams are opposed by enviromentalists because it interferes with fish swimming up stream, they think that's more important. NIMBYs oppose windmills because they are noisy if close by. Nukes should be a good choice except for those who freak @ even hearing the name.

Well I would oppose a wind farm in my back yard as well because they are noisy and damned ugly, it amazes me that people want "green" power to help save the environment and then build butt ugly and noisy structures that ruin the environment to do it.

I also question the efficiency of wind and solar, I find it retarded that we would consume vast chunks of land to build a collection system that will generate power at 10 times the cost of a nuclear plant that will require a 10th of the land mass.

I am all for green options but but not at any cost, we can not destroy ourselves economically to save the environment that would be counter productive.

By the way damns are opposed here as well but as long as we provide bypass systems for the wild life there is no problem.

Originally Posted by MontyB

I am all for green options but but not at any cost, we can not destroy ourselves economically to save the environment that would be counter productive.

bingo! can you say cap-n-trade, as an example.