But the reality is that they'll never get passed on their own.
They stand a better chance on their own than part of a historical omnibus spending package that will cost more than all the spending that Regan and H.W. Bush did while they were in office, or just over what half of W. Bush did in the eight years he was in office. $3.5 TRILLION dollars. Easier sell as even a $100 billion ask than a multi TRILLION dollar ask.
They stand a better chance on their own than part of a historical omnibus spending package that will cost more than all the spending that Regan and H.W. Bush did while they were in office, or just over what half of W. Bush did in the eight years he was in office. $3.5 TRILLION dollars. Easier sell as even a $100 billion ask than a multi TRILLION dollar ask.
It's $3.5T over 10 years and, as I said, it's mostly paid for. These goons had no issues with the $3T Trump tax cuts.
Any green energy bill without some serious investment in nuclear power (and improving the regulatory nightmare) is a non-starter IMO.
Europe is pushing back into nuclear.
US is going to be left behind if they don't make changes.
I agree. Nuclear is a big part of the future, but not the breeder reactors we have right now. We need to shift to safer nuclear. Salt based reactors seems to be the future. Ironically, that is actually going back in time. Molten salt reactors were the choice of the eggheads, because they were so safe, but they didn't create plutonium for bomb manufacturing so the military said shelve that idea. Small salt based reactors could be built quickly and placed directly in the middle of communities. Could be the game changer we need and the tech to support solar, wind, tidal, geothermal, etc.
Is the nuclear power the US would build right now unsafe?
The US would have to build a reactor to determine that. The US hasn't built a new reactor site since Clinton was in office. 1996 saw the last new site for a reactor to be built and go online, at Watt's Bar, Tennessee. The last expansion of a site to add a reactor was also at Watt's Bar, and the 2nd reactor went on line in 2016. Twenty years between reactors. That says a lot.
Whether their safe is open to interpretation. I personally don't think any reactor that has potential to go into meltdown as a safe system. If the core cannot be dumped and immediately halt the reaction, I don't think the system is safe. The design of our current reactors are such that a meltdown is a possible state, and we've seen the threat of them happen around the globe, including in the United States. I would prefer a better, safer design that could eliminate the meltdown risk. Molten salt reactors provide for that safeguard. They invest in this, and I would say they would be safe.
It was quite enjoyable watching Jamie Raskin completely embarrass Jim Jordan and Matt Gaetz today at the Jan 6 hearings. Jordan wouldn't even look him in the eye while he stuttered through his responses.
Sinema takes a big hit in a long rumored exodus of her advisors. Five of her advisors, all ex-military, quit in unison and did so with a scathing resignation letter, claiming she only cares about her donors and less about the Arizonans she represents. A leg has been cut out from beneath her milking stool.
The Following User Says Thank You to Lanny_McDonald For This Useful Post:
