atomic_fungus (atomic_fungus) wrote,
atomic_fungus
atomic_fungus

#1335: I might have enjoyed that a little too much.

I voted against Illinois Senator Dick Durbin today. I don't even remember the name of the Republican challenger.

In fact, I voted straight Republican, because I know that pisses off the Democrats.

You see, a Republican is considered "closed-minded" particularly if he never votes for a Democrat. Democrats are always entitled to vote a straight party ticket without having their motives, intellect, or sanity called into question, but a Republican who doesn't vote for at least one Democrat is a fascist.

Yeah. They can kiss my ass.

* * *

Orson Scott Card discusses Barak Hussein Obama's asinine energy policy.

And on the same subject, Rod Adams at Atomic Insights usually has his head screwed on straight, but I think he is forgetting something: there hasn't been a new nuclear reactor built in the US since the early 1970s.

Yes, there are license applications for new reactors grinding their way through the bureaucracy, but a license application doesn't generate electricity. Before construction on those new plants can even begin, there will be a lengthy legal battle as every single eco-nazi and NIMBY organization sues to prevent their construction.

I'm pleased as punch that people want to build new reactors--but opposition to nuclear power is so firmly entrenched that you can't count on anything until the reactors go into operation. Until the reactor is started and begins to generate electricity, anything can stop it--and if you think the right judge wouldn't hesitate to tell someone they can't start up their brand-new $100,000,000 nuclear generating plant since a lawsuit to dismantle it is pending, I would advise you to look up the meaning of "judicial activism".

And in the ObamaNation? What's Barak Hussein Obama's stance on nuclear power? Considering that his stance on everything else is "hard left Democrat Party line", I strongly suspect that he's not exactly a nuclear engineer's best friend. He's not going to help the nuclear power industry by, for example, making it harder for eco-nuts and NIMBY groups to stop the construction of new plants.

Yes, nuclear power is cleaner, cheaper, and safer than coal power--but only if we can build the freaking plants, and we can't build the freaking plants. Even assuming that all the new plant applications get green-lighted posthaste, it won't be less than three years before those plants see first steam--and that's without all the opposition that is certain to impede their progress.

Adams' analysis of the situation is overly simplified; saying that "big coal" has prevented the rise of nuclear power completely ignores the fact that much of the environmental activism that prevented the widespread use of nuclear in the US came from the Left, from the same politics which have given us the ObamaNation. Certainly "Big Coal" has probably seen to it that its own interests have been looked after, but if it had not been for the activists looking after their own interests "Big Coal" would have found itself outmoded as completely as the manufacturers of buggy whips and wagon wheels.

The simple fact is that we need electricity. Our economy depends on it. And right now, that means we have to burn coal. We're not going to be getting many new nuclear plants, and anyone that thinks otherwise is living in a fantasy world.

OSC has it right: Barak Hussein Obama doesn't care if the "little guy" has to freeze in the dark, and his promise that new coal plants will "bankrupt" those who build them does not bode well for any of us.
Subscribe

  • Post a new comment

    Error

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.
  • 3 comments