If Obama wants to ease our dependence on Fossil Fuels, then why dont he allow the building of Nuclear power?

Maybe you didn't get the memo. Obama is pushing for some new nuke plants via loan guarantees for them.

Nuclear power plants are fossil fuel free. So that doesn't make sense. But I agree that we should have been building nuke plants all along. If you need more power, just pull the rods out a little further. Thank you eco terrorists!

I'm not against nuclear power but there are very limited uranium reserves. It the whole world went nuclear tomorrow there would only be enough uranium to last 7-8 years. When coupled with the fact that reactors take years to build and are incredibly expensive nuclear energy doesn't seem like the most viable option.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/02/16/obama.nucle...

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2010/02/obama-anno...

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/02/ob...

He's been pushing for nuclear power since February and has authorized loans for more plants. What's getting in his way are the mindless lobbyists who complain about waste, etc. What's also odd is that you don't seem to recognize that there hasn't been a reactor built in 30 years - what happened to the support from other Presidents? Don't the Republicans just *love* nuclear power?

@Marie: Thousands of miles. This is because prevailing global winds carried radioactive material all across the continent. However, that was several decades ago - today's reactors are equipped with pluralities of safety features and shut-off devices, and we now know to not do stupid things like the Chernobyl scientists, such as removing rods just to see what would happen.

I agree 100%. The problem is, where do you put them? With Chernobyl, radiation spread to areas within a hundred mile radius ( I made that number up. It could be much higher or much lower. But it's a lot.) My point is, I don't want it in my area and I'm sure many feel the same.

First, I'm a fierce defender of free-market capitalism and abhor any govt market manipulation (laws apply to business and people, alike. But freebies screw up everything and everybody). Now then...

Nukes are one option and, yes, Oboe has encouraged them. But advances in other alternatives have made them much more competitive than nuclear.

In fact, amortized over a 15-yr period, both wind and solar (in optimal locations, of course) are cheaper than new coal-fired plants.

What blows my mind is that these ultra-deepwater rigs start at 2 miles underwater and drill up to 7.5 more miles down! How is that better than geothermal?

...

It seems like an important source of energy that slipped his mind during tonight's speech

or should I say, slipped his speech writers minds during the last few days/weeks of work on this speech.

(I don't think he forgot...they didn't mention it for a reason...)

@Modest Proposal

I think you missed the last 30 years, which included quite a bit of opposition to Nuclear power plants. After 3-mile Island there was a bunch of resistance, then after Chernobyl in 1986, there was even MORE resistance. Only in the last decade have American activists starting to lose their voice in favor of the reality that modern nuke plants are incredibly safe and a much cleaner alternative to many other options.

I don't see why we don't. It is one of those words that sounds ugly to the liberal. I don't believe that all too many of them know what nuclear energy is.

We should also implement conscription like that of France.

Plus, Uranium can be recycled to be reused in a reactor. You'd think this would make liberals happy.

Last I heard he was pushing for more Nuclear Power, it's just the oil lobby is standing in his way.

he authorized loans for the first new nuclear plant in 20 years ,where do you get your factswww.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2010/02/obama_going_nuclear_8_billion.html