On Feb 16, 11:16*am, "HeyBub" wrote:
wrote:

That solution's already he nuclear.

I agree nukes would be a quickly available source of new energy.

Not quickly. Takes about ten years to build one - or longer, depending on
the litigation.


Well I guess we'll soon find out how long it takes to build one based
on this breaking news:

"President Obama traveled to Lanham, Md., today, to the headquarters
of the IBEW Local 26, to announce that his administration plans to
offer $8 billion in loan guarantees to build a new nuclear power
facility. And more loan guarantees for clean energy are on the way.

In his remarks, Obama addressed safety and environmental concerns
about nuclear energy:

Now, I know it has long been assumed that those who champion the
environment are opposed to nuclear power. But the fact is, even though
we have not broken ground on a new nuclear plant in nearly thirty
years, nuclear energy remains our largest source of fuel that produces
no carbon emissions. To meet our growing energy needs and prevent the
worst consequences of climate change, we'll need to increase our
supply of nuclear power. It's that simple. This one plant, for
example, will cut carbon pollution by 16 million tons each year when
compared to a similar coal plant. That's like taking 3.5 million cars
off the road.
"On an issue which affects our economy, our security, and the future
of our planet, we cannot continue to be mired in the same old debates
between left and right; between environmentalists and entrepreneurs,"
he said. "



I'm actually quite surprised that he's finally backing up his prior
statements about new nukes with some positive action. The real test
will come when we see if there is any action to stop endless court and
political challenges from the usual environmental extremists.