Commentary By Ron Beasley
This has received very little attention today:
Obama's latest bipartisan outreach: nuclear energy
WASHINGTON �
President Barack Obama said Tuesday that expanding nuclear power
production will add jobs and help with the goal of relying more on
clean energy sources.In announcing
government approval of an $8.3 billion loan guarantee to help Southern
Co. build a nuclear power plant in Georgia, Obama said the United
States �can't keep on being mired in the same old debates� over nuclear
power because energy production affects the nation's economy and
security,
Nuclear power is the least efficient and most expensive way to boil water ever invented. Obama has demonstrated that his willingness to sell out has no bounds. He is a corporatist Democrat in the mold of William Jefferson Clinton if not worse.
Nuclear Power is such a risky proposition that can't happen without loans guaranteed by the Federal government. They say nuclear power is safe but they can't get insurance - instead they get a "public option". That's right, Americans with a preexisting condition don't have a public option but nuclear power plants do.
Price�Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act
The Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act (commonly called the Price-Anderson Act) is a United States federal law, first passed in 1957 and since renewed several times, which governs liability-related issues for all non-military nuclear facilities constructed in the United States before 2026. The main purpose of the Act is to partially indemnify the nuclear industry against liability claims arising from nuclear incidents while still ensuring compensation coverage for the general public. The Act establishes a no fault insurance-type system in which the first $10 billion is industry-funded as described in the Act (any claims above the $10 billion would be covered by the federal government). At the time of the Act's passing, it was considered necessary as an incentive for the private production of nuclear power � this was because investors were unwilling to accept the then-unquantified risks of nuclear energy without some limitation on their liability.
Without government subsidies there would be no nuclear plants. So why are nukes still on the table? Corporate welfare - privatize the profits, socialize the risks. That's what you get when when the American experiment in Democracy becomes a corporatocracy.
A public option for people not nukes!
I don't know if it's bipartisan but it's the course of least resistance and now a pivotal characteristic of the Obama regime & seemingly a unique indicator of the current POTUS's real personality.
ReplyDeleteI noted Glenn Greenwald's writing this morning & copied it down as it struck me as what I'd felt for sometime with Mr. Obama, aka no fire in the belly guy. Glenn was writing about the extremely pliable nature of the constitutional lawyer sitting in or about 1600 Pennsylvania Ave in regard to eliminating individuals basic rights ( fun that the Clinton woman was lecturing ME individuals on the goodness & light emanating from the NA continent about the same time):
"This is the behaviour of politicians who are completely unmoored from any fixed beliefs or convictions. They flail wildly from one position to its polar opposite, all within a matter of months or even weeks, and even on matters of core, fundamental principle. There's no conviction to any of it, and thus no coherent way to justify it and persuade others of its merit."
Not exactly related to nuclear reactors but has, I think some broad application to maybe most of what comes spewing out of the Obama WH.
What happened to this guy?
My friend geoff, feel free to wax philosophically any time. Your input is always welcome.
ReplyDelete