It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

SCI/TECH: Bush Calls for More U.S. Nuclear Plants

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 22 2005 @ 02:15 PM
link   
President Bush called for more nuclear power plants to be built in the U.S. as part a new energy strategy that would help reduce dependence of the country on imported petroleum. He made the statement while touring a nuclear plant south of Washington, the first presidential visit to a nuclear plant since Jimmy Carter went to the Three Mile Island plant shortly after its near disasterous accident in the 1979. No new nuclear plants have been built in the U.S. for over 30 years due to safety concerns.
 



www.voanews.com
President Bush wants to build more nuclear power plants in the United States. It is part of the president's push to reduce America's dependence on foreign oil.

It has been more than 30 years since anyone has placed an order for a new reactor in the United States, largely because of public concerns over nuclear safety following the partial meltdown of the Three Mile Island plant in Pennsylvania in 1979 and the explosion at Ukraine's Chernobyl facility in 1986.

But with oil pushing $60 a barrel, President Bush says it is time to re-energize America's nuclear power industry. "Nuclear power is one of America's safest sources of energy," he said.


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


I definitely agree that the U.S. begin building new nuclear power plants. France, Japan and other countries have continued to invest in nuclear power technology and have had no accidents. Even environmentalist groups seem to changing their minds on nuclear power, since it produces no greenhouse gas emissions that could contribute to global warming.




posted on Jun, 22 2005 @ 02:56 PM
link   
Hmmm. Where does he stand on the alternatives? Ie.,
www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Jun, 22 2005 @ 02:59 PM
link   
Here you go soficrow: SCI/TECH: Bush Praises Biodiesel



posted on Jun, 22 2005 @ 03:20 PM
link   
More nuclear plants would be great. It's just, how do you get people over Chernobyl and 3 mile Island?



posted on Jun, 22 2005 @ 03:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
More nuclear plants would be great. It's just, how do you get people over Chernobyl and 3 mile Island?


That is easy...just show them pictures of Chernobyl.

Guys, this is the coolest website in the world.

kiddofspeed.com...



posted on Jun, 22 2005 @ 03:38 PM
link   
Nuclear power is the only real way to go. Enviromentalist are now supporting nuclear power.



posted on Jun, 22 2005 @ 03:40 PM
link   
I wonder if the President is volenteering Crawford , Texas as the site to dump all the spent radioactive fuel rods? Nuclear waste is still a huge problem. I would support nuclear energy if and when the waste problem is cleared and cleaned up.



posted on Jun, 22 2005 @ 03:50 PM
link   
One thing is for sure, Coal fired power plants have got to go and quick!

cough.. cough..



posted on Jun, 22 2005 @ 04:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by syntaxer
One thing is for sure, Coal fired power plants have got to go and quick!

cough.. cough..


Clean coal technology is actually something else we need to look into, but nuclear is the best if they could ever get Yucca Mountain sorted out.



posted on Jun, 22 2005 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by GottCompton

That is easy...just show them pictures of Chernobyl.

Guys, this is the coolest website in the world.

kiddofspeed.com...



Excellent link. Wow. Thanks.




posted on Jun, 22 2005 @ 04:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by djohnsto77
Even environmentalist groups seem to changing their minds on nuclear power, since it produces no greenhouse gas emissions that could contribute to global warming.


There have been accidents in every country using nuclear power plants- France and Japan not excepted. There is a place for nuclear technology, but not as a prop for pop culture that is trashing the planet for the entertainment and comfort industries. Name the environmental groups and quote their positions for us- then please post pictures of Chernobyl and talk with the survivors. Environmentalists said NO to nuclear power and that is still the position of Greens today.



posted on Jun, 22 2005 @ 05:41 PM
link   
isn't there plenty of "green" sources out there instead of nuclear. wind / waves / sun.

and yes France gets like 70% of its power from Nuclear...but as I recall there plan within the next 20 years is to move away from nuclear and towards greenier methods.

Yucca mountain wont be able to hold all that much spent nuclear waste...so wheres it going to be stored...at the plant itself...which is how most is done these days, however its no very safe...from terrorist that is.

I read a long report on Nuclear power several months ago...and I recall that in around 2 decades they will have nuclear power plants that will have hydrogen as a bi-product...which would vastly help in the conversion from gasoline vehicles, to hydrogen fuel cells.



posted on Jun, 22 2005 @ 06:59 PM
link   
I was dimly aware that 30 years had elapsed since the last plant construction.
How in the post Arab-Oil Boycott world did we allow such an interval to happen? It's idiotic.
Initially just a drop in the bucket, but a mandatory step that should proceed.



posted on Jun, 22 2005 @ 07:36 PM
link   
i think nuclear power is the way forward. you get so much for so little waste. with the way the oil is going it cuts back on using lots of that. as for other power e.g solar, wind, hydro they are good but dont produce the power on a big enough scale to really cut into the oil.



posted on Jun, 22 2005 @ 09:08 PM
link   
Sounds good to me, Australia will hopefully sell more uranium then



posted on Jun, 22 2005 @ 10:57 PM
link   
A better plan to me is using alternative energy sources at the home. If you have some power of your own, you won't experience the blackouts that knock everything out. Using perhaps fuel cells at the home or in the local community and/or using solar energy roof shingles or other solar technology I believe would be better than building another nuclear plant.

Homes could also be built more energy efficient with proper federal funding to educate builders and provide resources for those who want to save money over time and help the environment as well. All of these homes could be connected to the grid and provide electricity to others when you have surplus as well as some extra cash to homeowners when you have surplus electricity if the laws are established to support this. I believe the system would be more reliable as well.



posted on Jun, 22 2005 @ 11:15 PM
link   
RE all the way. To use Nuclear power is a time bomb waiting to happen and there is still no reason to have a central power distribution system. It is an outdated concept based on business profits and not efficiency or public good. Use the elctrical grid as the gaint battery, use small RE systems in a distributed power model and you could cut out all those big power big wigs...

ofcourse, that isn't going to happen because of the same reason it was never designed as such in the first place.



posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 01:27 AM
link   
I'm all for RE (Renewable Energy), but on a larger scale...not the individual house 2 house setup...the average person does not want to have there own mini powerplant, like the solar shingles, shingles that look like normal shingles, but they are all conected and fed into your house to batteries and whatnot, and then theres maintainence...the average person would rather just pay a monthly bill and "Let there be Light".

wind farms and wave farms are good, as well as solar cells, if scientist can improve the efficiency of solar cells, and makes them more durable...then they could play a large roll in the future.

*day dreaming*
Maybe in a few decades our houses windows will all help in harnessing the suns power and yet still be see through, our cars will be all electric and have several light weight batteries in them that get there power either a outlet or when your on the road it has a mini turine in the front that when spins generates electricity, so the faster you go...the more power you use...but also the more power you generate, So could drive all the way across country and never even think about getting low on power. Photovoltaic cells could be in the roof of your car as well, to help generate power to the vehicles main batteries.
*end of day dream*
ya never know...it could happen.

What would you more de worried about...A terrorist flying a plane into a nuclear reactor OR a terrorist flying a plane into a wind turbine.



posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 03:20 AM
link   
We don't need the Grid any longer. This is absolutely ridicules - the risk is just not worth it.

The technology is already here for all of us to get off the Grid & produce our own power via hydrogen generators with hydrogen we make ourselves. Or even solar or wind power. The only reason they’re not taking people off the grid is because they can't give up the revenue stream - both government & the energy Baron's.



posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 04:10 AM
link   
when i read story it made think to myself is mr. bush asking for a another 9/11. i mean yeah we haven't had a terror attack against a nuclear plant so far. but its sorta asking for trouble. but on the other hand it would make new jobs, give us more power. only time will tell. hope something good comes from this



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join