Randy Cunningham

I wouldn't be surprised.  Anything to delay, delay, delay.

If the new Integrated Fast Reactors were implemented, then the fuel would be predominately domestic as those reactors will mostly run on nuclear waste, eating up the stockpiles that have been left by other reactors and the nuclear weapons industry. See http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/07/01/brave-new-power-for-the-world/

What is with the Republicans. It seems that the dirtier, the most polluting, the most harm to the average person, the better they like it. It's like they want working people to suffer and die as much as possible, as young as possible. 

It also seems they think they are immune themselves, as though they are a different species.

Splashy,

The attraction to nuclear power is this: we must have baseload power.  There are 2 ways to get tremendous and steady amounts of power, coal and nukes.  Wind is too intermittent, and solar only works during the day.  Storage of electricity is not yet viable either.  Coal is the number one climate threat, nuclear is not.  It's no plot against humanity, it's Energy 101.

Energy 102, which neither the republicans nor the democrats seem to get yet is this: the fastest, cheapest and greenest way to address our energy needs is energy efficiency.  One of the slowest, dirtiest, and astronomically expensive ways to do so is with nuclear. 

Come hell or high water we are going to get this bill passed and it will include obscene nuclear provisions which the climate community as a whole prefers over catastrophic climate change.

"Spent LWR fuel “burned” in IFRs, it’s claimed, could meet all humanity’s energy needs for centuries. But renewables and efficiency can do that forever at far lower cost, with no proliferation, nuclear wastes, or major risks.10 Moreover, any new type of reactor would probably cost even more than today’s models: even if the nuclear part of a new plant were free, the rest—two-thirds of its capital cost—would still be grossly uncompetitive with any efficiency and most renewables, sending out a kilowatt-hour for ~9–13¢/kWh instead of new LWRs’ ~12–18+¢. In contrast, the average U.S. windfarm completed in 2007 sold its power (net of a 1¢/ kWh subsidy that’s a small fraction of nuclear subsidies) for 4.5¢/kWh. Add ~0.4¢ to make it dispatchable whether the wind is blowing or not and you get under a nickel delivered to the grid."

"In short, the notion that different or smaller reactors plus wholly new fuel cycles (and, usually, new competitive conditions and political systems) could overcome nuclear energy’s inherent problems is not just decades too late, but fundamentally a fantasy. Fantasies are all right, but people should pay for their own. Investors in and advocates of small-reactor innovations will be disappointed. But in due course, the aging advocates of the half-century-old reactor concepts that never made it to market will retire and die, their credulous young devotees will relearn painful lessons lately forgotten, and the whole nuclear business will complete its slow death of an incurable attack of market forces. Meanwhile, the rest of us shouldn’t be distracted from getting on with the winning investments that make sense, make money, and really do solve the energy, climate, and proliferation problems, led by business for profit."

I had hoped that solar and wind would preferentially be built in places where they have less or mininal impact. But that does not seem to be the case. The companies that build them seem to be just as bloody minded about the way they make their business decissions as others.

"Wind, water and sun beat other energy alternatives, study finds

BY LOUIS BERGERONLM Glasfiberhttp://news.stanford.edu/news/2009/january7/gifs/windfarm_hz.jpg

Wind power is the most promising alternative source of energy, according to Mark Jacobson.

The best ways to improve energy security, mitigate global warming and reduce the number of deaths caused by air pollution are blowing in the wind and rippling in the water, not growing on prairies or glowing inside nuclear power plants, says Mark Z. Jacobson, a professor of civil and environmental engineering at Stanford.

And "clean coal," which involves capturing carbon emissions and sequestering them in the earth, is not clean at all, he asserts.

Jacobson has conducted the first quantitative, scientific evaluation of the proposed, major, energy-related solutions by assessing not only their potential for delivering energy for electricity and vehicles, but also their impacts on global warming, human health, energy security, water supply, space requirements, wildlife, water pollution, reliability and sustainability. His findings indicate that the options that are getting the most attention are between 25 to 1,000 times more polluting than the best available options. The paper with his findings will be published in the next issue of Energy and Environmental Science but is available online now. Jacobson is also director of the Atmosphere/Energy Program at Stanford."

of uranium, its easy to mine, and a mill is already here, I own alot

myself as do other miners here, we just need the government to stop

regulating it to the point that makes it un-mineable, its as though the 

government and enviro's want us to buy it from countries that don't like

us as we do our oil. If obama really wanted to create jobs and energy

independence he would work with us instead of against us. 

Of course some of the regulations have to do with where it goes and who gets it--Homeland Security has it tough.