Barack on Nuclear Energy

[SEElovEverywhere]

A very big disappointment Presient Obama, 6 billion to promote unsafe dirty and expensive nuclear waste!

[sagafoundation]

Reply to Thebigguns51807: nuclear energy is not the only one, but one among many sources of alternative energy. Many of forget, that the United Sates has over 10,000 nuclear warheads which is enough to destroy our planet 3-4 times, but with disarmament and down blending nuclear warheads to nuclear fuel, the United States can help make the world a safer place and use weapons to produce energy. Every 10th light bulb in the States is lit with fuel from former Soviet nukes

[thebigguns51807]

Tell me about it I live in sunny florida and progress energy opens a new nuke plant you mean to tell me as sunny we are in most states we cant put down solar panels were there are plenty open fields w/no wildlife!?

[sagafoundation]

Many of us forget that nuclear power plants can operate on nuclear fuel downblended from nuclear weapons. The United Sates have enormous amounts of these weapons. Therefore, by addressing energy needs, the country can help promote nuclear disarmament and help prevent an act of nuclear terrorism.

[mjthree45242]

u want to find a solution for global warming, the answer is nuclear energy

[soxfan19702004]

really? did you know that in order to run the nuclear plant you first need to mine uranium and that in order to run the uranium plant you need to use OIL and to get the uranium to the refinery plant you need to use OIL and in order to run the refinery plant you need to use OIL???

What part of that helps global warming or our dependence from foreign oil and foreign governments???

Uranium mines leave one of the largest carbon footprints there is to leave.

[jasbcor]

Each power solution has its best application. Where it's windy, put in wind turbines. Put solar on roofs, especially in sunny areas as it augments power demand. Put natural gas in your stove, not a power plant. Coal is now ready to be converted to liquid fuels as it can now be cost competitive. But when it comes to producing the most amount of power for the least pollution, nuclear power wins, hands down.

[nowellian]

The safety issues aren't really a concern any more? How is that? Nothing has been done the last 30 years to improve safety. Do you mean people just don't care any more if we leave a legacy of death and destruction for future generations?

[MrBummelum]

Obama = Great candidate

[rmharman]

And then on greenhouse issues, the mining and shipping, the emissions from construction, etc, turn out to mean that every dollar spent on building nukes gets you MAYBE a quarter the emissions reduction you'd get spending the dollar on energy efficiency, wind, or solar.

[CIDaily]

Actually, solar has a ton of emissions when you consider all that goes into them and it is only recently that solar actually produced more power than was used to make them.

Wind is nice but if we cover the whole world in wind generating power stations, we would only get about 10% of our power uses covered. Additionally wind farms in CA and MA has become VERY expensive because of the legal costs from environmental lawsuits against the wind farms for killing birds with their wind props.

[rmharman]

Nukes are not particularly useful in terms of cost or in terms of net reduction in greenhouse gases. The MARKET has refused to invest in nukes, because of the liability issues. Once you account for all the gov't subsidies -- explicit payments, implicit insurance and loan guarantees, and taxpayers picking up the tab for waste disposal -- nukes come out more expensive than virtually anything else.

[nucflashevent]

Taxpayers haven't paid a dime for waste disposal.

Nuclear Power operators have been paying a TAX on the eventual decommissioning costs since the first Commercial plant went live in the 50s.

So far, BILLIONS have been PAID IN, and very little has actually been spent by the government.

This idea that, somehow, taxpayers pay for the Nuclear Industry is a lie put forward by so-called environmentalist who care nothing for the environment, and only for their own childish self-satisfaction.

[BeondaPale]

@nucflashevent

"Taxpayers haven't paid a dime for waste disposal."

Will nuclear companies be here in 100 years? The waste will - so will taxpayers who WILL pay for it

Will nuclear companies be here in 1,000 years? The waste will - so will taxpayers who WILL pay for it

Will nuclear companies be here in 10,000 years? The waste will - so will taxpayers who WILL pay for it

Will nuclear companies be here in 100,000 years? The waste will - so will taxpayers who WILL pay for it

[MarquisdeBarrabas]

Sensible and articulate.

[suzybloom]

nuclear energy is never safe and it will never ever be clean!

but it is right that no energy source is 100 % perfect.

[ReliableInsider]

Are you for it or against it?

[ReliableInsider]

Nuclear energy is neither clean nor safe.

Any candidate who is unaware of that is a threat to national security.

[jasenjoseph]

Exelon corporation, who is the operator of the largest fleet of nuclear reactors in the country, is the second largest single source of campaign financing for Obama's campaign. He skirted around the question and claims he is not a nuclear proponent even though he is.

[Indicatif]

that being said he prboably has a better stance then most of the other candidates, it's just I thing we need to get away from the "nuclear=bad" mentality

[Indicatif]

obama's my candidate but I really wish he hadn't have given this kind of answer, nuclear power is the most practical, enviromentally friendly, least wasteful source of energy available and the safety issues aren't really a problem anymore

[wbrutus22]

great question...Nuclear nuclear nuclear...sounds scary the more you say it.

[ReliableInsider]

Obama admits that we have no solution for disposal of nuclear waste. Why in God's name is he in favor of nuclear power?

Is there anything dumber than burning fossil fuels? YES!

[jonbois]

i'm watching the sign language guy in the background. i love how the motion for "radioactive" just looks like, "hey whaddya know?"

[soxfan19702004]

That's the sign for maybe. Radioactive is spelled out.

[Frye461]

Barack Obama claims he is fighting global warming, but he drives a 320-HP Chrysler, the least efficient of all vehicles in that category. Hypocrisy?

[mrlegal111]

Excellent response Mr. President!

[powerofwallis]

Great??? Opens up with nuclear power not being "optimal." 1. Wtf does that even mean??? 2. It IS optimal.. it is by FAR the cleanest/most efficienct source of power available. It is VERY safe in the hands of reponsibility and not greed (government, not private. Just look at the French) He then contradicts himself and talks in circles (not saying ANYTHING) for 3/4 of the video, ending with one big no-fucking-shit of a statement...If coal burning didn't pollute it would be ok..NO SHIT...IT DOES

[xxxtony911xxx]

nice said..!! im venezuelan, but i totally share his oppinion

[veenio]

This man will always answer everyone's question. Why is that Hilary stopped doing this at the end of her speeches in Iowa?

Obama has continually displayed the judgement and foresight necessary to lead a new world in comparison to the other candidates.

The most educated person of the lot with most common sense analysis available.

[RaySquirrel]

Nuclear power is perfectly safe and is the only means to provide sufficient base load electricity. Modern plants are completely safe from meltdown or terrorist attack.

France currently receives 79% of all its electricity from nuclear. Japan receives over 30% nuclear.

[rice920]

go Obama!!!!!!!!!

[Silents30]

Couldn't be any more clear. He clearly stated how he is going to get the money to change to alternative clean energy. That is what I like about him, he never leaves an open end.

[oboy8904life]

why don't we take bush out and swear obama in today!!!!!!!!!

BARACK OBAMA 2008

CHANGE WE CAN BELIVE IN

[EpionFTW]

Boooo Obama!! Nuclear power is 1000000x safer today than it was decades ago. Even the founder of Greenpeace now supports nuclear energy. The navy has been nuclear for a long time and they've never had an accident. Chernobyl was bad for two reasons: there was no containment around the core (unlike all of our reactors) and the commies were poorly trained. Boooo Obama.

[lazerflesh]

I like nuclear energy. You get a LOT of power with putting very little into it. research, obviously... very good. But the people are moving much faster than anything our government has done- you can never trust the governments "research", unless it's military.

[awdbg]

great answer. you got it head on obama. a great speaker!!!!!!

[RaySquirrel]

The nuclear industry has an impeccable safety record and is the only form of energy that can provide base load electricity. Nuclear does not emit greenhouse gases, is always on unlike wind and solar and with new pebble-bed reactors the high level radioactive waste is practically nonexistent.

France receives 79% of its electricity from nuclear, and Japan receives over 30% from nuclear.

[sidewalkpilot]

nuclear energy is cleaner and safer than coal. canada and other countries have led the way in going nearly all nuclear... it's the future

[Hazardous117]

There may be no "perfect" energy source but nuclear energy is by far a better option than bio-fuels.

[barrinmw]

Coal is a failure. Cleaning the coal plant emissions generates a bunch of slag that in non-treated plants is actually recycable, treated slag is not and must be dumped in landfills.

[barrinmw]

Virginia has more nuclear power plants then Illinois, in Norfolk where there is potential to have 26 power plants alone.

1 coal plant puts more radioactive material into the air each year then released by three-mile island.

Nuclear plants are more consolidated then Solar/Wind Facilities so require less razing of the environment.

[YUPchannel]

agree,.. Livewire- :P

[curlyheads]

greatly said!

[Hazardous117]

What was "greatly said"?, that he is concerned about safety?, Do we really need to ask if that is the case, what reasonable person wouldn't be?

[WithMyOwnHands]

lolz!

[danberkeley]

obama should just be a lobbyist... what gives the president the right to choose what power source we ought to use???