nice to see he's apparently changed his mind. <object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/kDnbVr3283o&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/kDnbVr3283o&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
4 billion already spent. 90 billion estimated lifecycle cost. Even if approved now, still a decade away from usability.
agreed. I applaud Obama for going towards nuclear energy since it's one of the most efficient sources of energy however to get the labor and union workers involved the cost of this thing is going to skyrocket. Govt never does anything efficiently except waste.
I love these types of comments since they're never followed by quantitative proof and, accordingly, are meaningless slogans. More to the point, you appear to blame the waste on labor unions yet place the attack on the government. As has become increasingly common among rampant free-marketers, you delusionally associate government with waste, while never applying the same judgment to the private contractors typically hired to perform the work (most of whom, it should be noted, are benefitting from a Reagan-inspired drive to "farm out government jobs" and are not unionized). As someone who has worked in these types of enterprises, I can say in complete honesty that the primary source of waste is the contractor middlemen, not the government (assuming you don't think the entire effort wasteful to begin with). Of course, this fallacy is never brought up by the fervent free-marketing libertarian crowd, who blame the waste part on the government while encouraging even more funneling to private entities - all the while never drawing a connection.
I would like to point out that, to their credit, the conservatives on this board have not attacked Obama for proposing something that they supported when the President was from the GOP. Kudos, all!
Continuing to burn fossil fuels for our energy needs will lead to major environmental problems (in addition to foreign policy problems), correct? From everything I've heard, solar, wind and other alternative energy sources are not yet ready for prime time. At what point does the potential danger from not solving the waste problem completely become less than the danger from not being able to replace fossil fuels as an energy source? (Note: This is an honest question. I'm not trying to argue one way or the other, it's just something I was thinking about recently.)
If something is a good idea its a good idea... I am concervative, but I have been for nuclear power for a long time. I just hope they solve the waste storage issue before they go any further with the process.
