It is unsettling to see how the Obama administration has treated nuclear energy in the United States, particularly with the decision to pull the plug on the Yucca Mountain storage facility.
Regardless of the overtures the President may have made about looking into nuclear power as one part of our energy regime (in December of 2007, then-Senator Obama said, "I have not ruled out nuclear...but only so far as it is clean and safe."), effectively terminating Yucca sends a powerful signal to the nuclear industry about the uncertain future of nuclear power.
Earlier this week it got worse. In the wake of the administration's devastating decision on Yucca, and as the House Natural Resources Committee considers a bill to increase the cost of mining uranium, President Obama proudly proclaimed that nations hostile to the United States should have nuclear power.
During his speech in Cairo on June 4th, President Obama declared that "any nation -- including Iran -- should have the right to access peaceful nuclear power if it complies with its responsibilities under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty." He went on to say that he was "hopeful that all countries in the region can share in this goal."
Why not give the same message to Americans? Our nuclear industry is subject to strict oversight by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to guarantee the highest levels of safety, and we use world-renowned technology to guarantee efficient energy production.
Instead, President Obama tries to play both sides when it comes to Americans using nuclear power, ignoring a proven safety record and claiming that more research is needed.
Rather than encouraging unstable leaders to develop nuclear technology, or promoting destructive new energy taxes, Mr. Obama (and the Congress) should abandon the decades-long misguided nuclear policy and encourage Americans through incentives and prizes to expand the safe and reliable nuclear industry here in the United States.
I cannot believe this man!! It seems that whatever the people want, he does NOT!! Finally, the American people see the benefits of clean, renewable, efficient, and, yes, safe, nuclear power. Does he even know about the passive plants slated to be built?? If its good enough for other countries, its good enough for us. But, no, he's trying to kill it, just like he's killing our own homegrown oil fields. Face it, folks, he hates us and our country, and destroy it, he will, if we let him. How much longer will we just let it happen??
I have always believed that economic philosophy rules political philosophy. That being said; the democrats just don't get it. The democrat answer to everything is tax it and regulate it until it stops moving then subsidize it.
The comprehensive solution to a sustainable energy policy is to use all technologies currently available while investing in businesses that are building the renewable energy sector.
We are not at a point where we place complete reliance on renewable energy, it is not feasible.
There is real beauty in free market capitalism; let the market propel the next technology.
It is when the socialist minded ilk of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid and their cronies in congress try to force mandates and punitive regulation on free markets that our economy dives. Businesses have gone into bunker mode, all they hear is tax and regulate. The Reid/Pelosi train wreck needs to end!
Adrian Bruneau
CEO
Phoenix Environmental Group
Ardent Green Conservative!
I've heard two comments, one each from a Democrat and a Republican, speculating Obama won't outlive his term. This topic could push someone too far. For us sane people, our best hope is to work on the next election to make sure we get someone much better.
The first question is how do we find a candidate that will be much better and the second is how do we get him/her elected over the incumbent? The field appears limited to Governors and Senators. It's looking like the Constitutional age limit of 35 for president may be a little too young as they haven't learned to outgrow whacky mistakes by then as shown by Obama on this and JFK on the Bay of Pigs.
Let's say Reagan was the age limit for oldest as he just finished before Altzhiemer's took him. The limit for youngest might better be slightly older than Clinton was because he had whacky mistakes Waco and Ruby ridge balanced by his balance of the economy. So let's say add another 4 years to Clinton's age as president.
These constraints would indicate 50 years old is a more practical minimum age for president and 70 a more practical maximum. Take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Presidents_by_age for more precise figures. Observing these limits would have saved the Republicans the embarrassment of McCain.
Now who is a sitting Governor or Senator that will be in the age bracket 50 to 70 during the 2012 election?
Don't forget to read http://usaFounders.org for a superior party platform.
Nancy, I have to agree with you. Obama clearly says what he hopes will get him elected. And it certainly did. I'm a registered Democrat, albeit a very conservative one. His election rhetoric about NAFTA was enough to make me vote for McCain. Again, Obama made statements about renegotiating NAFTA without realizing that NAFTA has been pretty successful albeit it does have some problems, principally with Mexico, not Canada. However, Obama saw a way to appeal to misguided union memebers in the hard hit N.E. rust belt who blame all their woes on NAFTA.
With respect to nuclear energy, here we again see his allegiance to the leftists, he just can't say the "N" word (and I mean nuclear). God only those those horrible French who he is now trying to appease have long ago recognized that nuclear power is a necessary component of a workable energy policy. Now France produces +70 or 80% of their electricity from nuclear plants and their home grown companies have left us in the dust when it comes to nuclear energy. We need a real energy policy that promotes all kinds of energy including nuclear and drilling for oil and gas at home in addition to solar (should be great for my home state of Arizona) and wind. I wish T. Boone with his Pickens Plan would have run for President. At least his plan, as self serving as it was, made sense. He would have had my vote!!
I don't agree with all of Newt's American Solutions, but they are on the right track on most of the points and I'm glad to support them.
Nancy, I have to agree with you. Obama clearly says what he hopes will get him elected. And it certainly did. I'm a registered Democrat, albeit a very conservative one. His election rhetoric about NAFTA was enough to make me vote for McCain. Again, Obama made statements about renegotiating NAFTA without realizing that NAFTA has been pretty successful albeit it does have some problems, principally with Mexico, not Canada. However, Obama saw a way to appeal to misguided union memebers in the hard hit N.E. rust belt who blame all their woes on NAFTA.
With respect to nuclear energy, here we again see his allegiance to the leftists, he just can't say the "N" word (and I mean nuclear). God only those those horrible French who he is now trying to appease have long ago recognized that nuclear power is a necessary component of a workable energy policy. Now France produces +70 or 80% of their electricity from nuclear plants and their home grown companies have left us in the dust when it comes to nuclear energy. We need a real energy policy that promotes all kinds of energy including nuclear and drilling for oil and gas at home in addition to solar (should be great for my home state of Arizona) and wind. I wish T. Boone with his Pickens Plan would have run for President. At least his plan, as self serving as it was, made sense. He would have had my vote!!
I don't agree with all of Newt's American Solutions, but they are on the right track on most of the points and I'm glad to support them.
Sorry!! I pushed the button twice