Jophiel wrote:
Just for extra lulz...
Are the lulz that you actually believe that his carefully worded statements really mean he's for nuclear power, or that you know that they don't, but you'll gladly perpetuate the lie that they are? Seems like I've seen this game before. ;)
Quote:
On Feb 21 an Indian Senate committee gave a green light to encourage utilities to build new nuclear reactors and to recover some of the costs while the plant is being built.
In Iowa a Senate committee heard testimony from a utility executive that a small modular reactor design might make sense for the next nuclear plant in the state.
Neither of which actually result in nuclear power plants being built. More talk.
Quote:
These actions come as the Obama Administration introduced a Department of Energy budget for 2012 that calls for an additional $36 billion in federal loan guarantees.
Yes. That's wonderful. We've had this discussion before. Loan guarantees don't mean anything if no one cuts through the 500 layers of red tape and actually uses that money to build a nuclear power plant.
Bloomberg wrote:
President Barack Obama’s 2012 budget almost triples U.S. loan guarantees for nuclear power-plant construction, funds development of a new breed of smaller reactors and spends more on “breakthrough” energy research.
First part is the same as the bit I just responded to, funding "development" doesn't get us anywhere unless said development actually results in a final product, and the latter section can mean anything at all.
The Hill wrote:
President Obama’s fiscal year 2012 budget outlines a plan for reviving the country’s nuclear power industry, calling for $36 billion in government-backed loan guarantees for new nuclear reactors and setting aside more than $800 million for nuclear energy research.
There's the same "loan guarantees" again. What is that? Four repeats of the same thing? What else has he done? Where's the promise to cut through red tape? Where's the promise to build X number of reactors by Y amount of time? He hasn't made such a promise. When politicians use non-committal language, that's code for "I don't really want to do this, but I want to get votes from people who do". Surely you know this by now, right?
Quote:
Obama has said that nuclear power is a key component of the country’s energy future. In his State of the Union speech last month, he outlined a plan to generate 80 percent of the country’s electricity from low-carbon sources including nuclear by 2035.
Except he didn't say that first sentence in the SotU speech. That's editorial from the author of the piece. And the second sentence, once again, includes nuclear in a list of other power sources he wants. Want to guess how much priority nuclear will get? But for the record, here's what he actually said:
Obama, in the state of the union speech wrote:
Now, clean energy breakthroughs will only translate into clean energy jobs if businesses know there will be a market for what they're selling. So tonight, I challenge you to join me in setting a new goal: by 2035, 80% of America's electricity will come from clean energy sources. Some folks want wind and solar. Others want nuclear, clean coal, and natural gas. To meet this goal, we will need them all – and I urge Democrats and Republicans to work together to make it happen.
Notice the incredibly non-committal language. He doesn't say what he wants, or what he'll pursue. He hides the language by talking about what "some people" want and what "other people" want. Um.... What does he want? What does he intend? Could he be a little more of a fence sitter? All he's really saying in this paragraph is "You guys get together and figure out what will work". He doesn't commit to anything.
Kinda not leading much, is it? And absolutely does not give me any confidence at all that he's pro-nuclear power at all. And it's not shocking why. His strongest and most fervent supporters don't come from the middle. They come from the far and even fringe left. The people who hate nuclear power and hate oil and hate coal. That's his base. Everyone else he has to trick into thinking he's not so far left in order to get them to support him.
He managed to do it in 2008. And if he can trick them again in 2012, he'll win again. And at some level, I suspect you know this, which is why you go along with the vague language. It's in your best interest to pretend that he really does intend to follow an agenda that the middle will like, because you know that he really wont and the best way to get him re-elected so he can pursue the agenda you want is to help him lie.
It's the same thing I said back in 2008. If you're looking for a prediction, you should recall that I said we were facing a Jimmy Carter moment with Obama. And guess what? That's exactly what we got.
