What is Digg?Sponsored by Best Buy
The camera starts rolling on Best Buy holiday campaign. view!
www.youtube.com/bestbuy - A behind the scenes look at one employee's singing debut.
210 Comments
- KMye, on 07/03/2009, -5/+93Of course Obama canceled it. He's already indefinitely suspended Yucca Mountain. Despite all his lip service to nuclear power during the campaign, it's pretty apparent he's methodically taking all the steps necessary to more or less shut down the entire nuclear power industry here, as an influential segment of his backers desire...
- NMRgentleman, on 07/03/2009, -6/+92It's stuff like the widespread opposition to nuclear power that makes me think that Steve Milloy may be right in "Green Hell" when he says the green movement has decided that the only ultimate solution to every environmental problem under the sun is a reduced standard of living for us all. While they may fight for "clean" sources of electricity, it is actually more important that electricity be expensive, so that we use less of it. Because even if our electricity generation is "clean," we will use that electricity to use up natural resources, expand our civilization, and generally live a better life in a myriad of ways that affect the planet.
So nuclear power must be opposed even though it is actually quite clean, especially compared to what it could replace, because it also has the potential to be quite cheap.
(And I know green leaders rarely say "we must reduce everyone's standard of living," because they know that would turn off many of their own foot-soldiers, not to mention the general public. But you can read Milloy's book if you want to read his case that that is actually the intention of many of them. This is but one example.) - fasda, on 07/04/2009, -4/+66Nuclear is the least worst option for clean energy wind and solar are sporadic we already tapped the rivers for hydro geothermal isn't wide spread, Biomass still puts out CO2. Nuclear on the other hand puts out no CO2 puts out a steady power as for the waste recycling drastically cuts down the waste and lets be honest the lots of the west is a desert with no inhabitants and owned by the federal government. This makes no sense if we actually want a power grid that works and work to cut down global warming we need this.
- BigManOnCampus, on 07/03/2009, -19/+76***** Obama. This is *****. I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt for a long time, but this plus his absurdly religious stance on AGW demonstrates him as little other than a ***** socialist gone mad.
- SirBruce, on 07/04/2009, -2/+58Another bad move by Obama. I was concerned that he didn't make enough pro-nuclear statements during his campaign (though he avoided anti-nuclear comments), and his actions since then have only served to undermine the prospect of nuclear power in this country.
- pathouston22, on 07/04/2009, -11/+54Want to raise my electric bill with this cap and trade ***** and then keep the nuclear option off the table?
This guy really is out of touch with reality. Honduras is another recent example. - falltime, on 07/04/2009, -2/+35It makes NO sense to oppose nuclear. It is safe clean and domestic. I Like to believe that Obama is the "thinking mans" president. But this seriously makes me doubt it. It is almost insane to be "anti carbon" and yet oppose nuclear!
- Mushroomer25, on 07/04/2009, -2/+31Ugh. Seriously, why? Nuclear energy is clean, (at least cleaner than all other realistic options), efficient, and safe.
That being said, the page isn't loading. - inactive, on 07/04/2009, -4/+33This is retarded. Nuclear energy is clean and safe.
- benroy, on 07/04/2009, -6/+34I voted for the man, but Obama is starting to piss me off. Where's this "Change" that we were all promised? So far NOTHING has changed. It seems as if the same puppeteers that controlled Bush just transferred the marionettes over to Obama.
- inactive, on 07/04/2009, -6/+34Obama said during the campaign that his Cap and Trade program would dramatically increase energy prices. So, don't be surprised when that's what he is trying to do. This is just more proof. People need to wake up and see the kind of wholesale damage this administration is doing to the long term economy.
- rizzo2008, on 07/04/2009, -1/+26wait France reprocesses most of their nuclear fuel and as such vastly decreases the amount of nuclear waste. Why can't we do this? If we reprocessed the vast majority of the fuel we used we would not need such huge storage sites like Yucca Mountain (we could literally use it till it decays to nothing).
- KentuckyBoy2, on 07/04/2009, -10/+32No Coal, No Oil, and now No Nuclear. Congratulations we are solving the "greenhouse gas problem" all by ourselves at the cost of our economy. I wonder if he will turn up the heat in the oval office again this winter? I guess America is getting what they asked for. Let Carter, I mean Obama run his course and maybe we will have another Reagan in three years to clean up his mess. This guy is a one term wonder that we will be paying for long into the future.
Has anyone else noticed that under Bush the economy was going gang busters until the dems took congress and then things went in the crapper. I think they helped things along so that they could run this guy into office. Well three more years to go and at this rate the dems will run themselves out of office. The republicans look beat now but they did after Nixon as well. The crap is hitting the fan and they can't blame Bush forever. Americans have a short memory and they will not put up with "it is all Bush's fault" forever. When they are paying $6/gallon for gas and $10/gallon for milk, it will be Obama and the democrats that they blame. So enjoy the ride while you can, you are paying for it. And by the way so are your grandkids. - endgame, on 07/04/2009, -5/+26I'm usually pretty neutral on politics but I have to say this Obama guy is making one mistake after another.
- inactive, on 07/04/2009, -10/+30He's a liar. He lied over and over to get elected and now he's ***** everybody and the Obama worshiping media isn't calling him on it. Even gays are pissed at him and they are the most hard core kool-aid drinking group in the demo-communist party.
- pathouston22, on 07/04/2009, -1/+20"i don't want nuclear around and there are very legit safety concerns"
Ignorant much? - stuffradio, on 07/04/2009, -6/+25Fellow Democrats, unless you never made fun of George Bush's name while he was or after he was a president, stop calling others stupid or unintelligent (same thing) when they do the same for Obama. Words speak loudly when I see the same guys making fun of Bush's name and then cry racist or stupid when someone does the same to Obama.
Shutup and just get along. Digg me down now because I will anyways, that's just how it is on Digg. *le sigh* - norman619, on 07/04/2009, -4/+21The ultimate goal seems to be forcing everyone to live like the Amish.
- norman619, on 07/04/2009, -5/+22The supression of the EPA report which found CO2 does not drive climate change is proof enough that we are all screwed. Somehow I don't think the poor dopes fooled into voting for Obama had the kind of change was have been seeing in mind when they voted for him.
- LeftsideChaos, on 07/04/2009, -1/+17I don't think you realize how much power we actually use. Besides, nuclear power plants can actively regulate their output.
- nextekcarl, on 07/04/2009, -1/+17No, you reprocess it which renders far safer to store, and generates more energy. It is the ultimate recycling project and it is a win-win. Half of the things Obama is doing just don't make sense without ulterior motives. But I expect nothing less from what is basically a one party system.
- piieerrrree, on 07/04/2009, -1/+16Yes, nuclear power is very dangerous, that's why France gets 80% of its energy from nuclear power plants! /s
- norman619, on 07/04/2009, -2/+17What legit "safety concerns?" Do some friggen research. Nuclear power has beenin use for decades now. The onl nuclear plant that ever went though a meltdown was one that was known to be very poorly designed. The meltdown of Chernobyl was expected. No nuclear plant here in the US or in Europe has ever melted down. They newer designs for these plants are even safer. Metldown is virtually impossible in the new designs. The total amount of neclear waste produced by these plants since day one can't even fill a high school gymnasium. Nuclear power is the cleanest and safest way to produce large amounts of power there is right now.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZP2oG0n4NLc
Oh! What kind of lights do you use in your home? My lights do not hum. - justbrilliant, on 07/04/2009, -0/+12Becaue cap and trade will benefit the investment bankers......er, ugh, cap and trade will benefit the people.
- Howitzer86, on 07/04/2009, -0/+11It is my sincere hope, that we as a people would embark on organized and decisive action against the federal government should it intentionally force us into living in squalid conditions.
"Hope" was part of Obama campaign slogan... but it appears as though he is really planning on making us all utterly hopeless.
Nuclear energy was supposed to be our savior, but after Chernobyl and Three Mile Island... we were turned away from it by the NIMBY group's propaganda. Now we're focused on 'green' this and 'green' that... we're being forced to depend on weak and unreliable wind turbines and the lie of 'clean coal'... things that will never be fully realized for most of the country. Obama's plan is that of intentional limiting of resources. Make everything more expensive... force us to ride the bus, force us to deal with rolling blackouts, force us into VA style government health care, and take from us the majority of our hard earned money to pay for it all.
Obama's plan involves intentionally disenfranchising the population... to make it seem as though their only chance at survival is with government assistance. When things become scarce due to the 'green' initiatives, those of us who don't know better will be too afraid to vote for anything other than socialism. And now with the 22nd amendment under attack, it is possible that Obama could become our very own Fidel Castro. - inactive, on 07/04/2009, -5/+15i dont even particularly like obama and can see how stupid your comment is.
sure he doesnt want your economy to grow, why would he....
moron - dafragsta, on 07/04/2009, -1/+11He's headed in the wrong direction. He's really no better at Bush at keeping promises or transparency. I think he's just taken it as a given that as broken as the Republican party is, that he's automatically going to get two terms. Obama needs to hold true to his promises. I think the rose colored glasses are going to get smashed against the wall. After that "We don't want to get made fun of by Jon Stewart" remark, I'm positive he's just a shill politician like all the rest.
- JoeHague, on 07/04/2009, -1/+11I think you may have watched "The China Syndrome" one too many times/
- detcade, on 07/04/2009, -3/+12With these kind of moves, Obama is causing doubt among democrats and a redoubling opposition from republicans... this is why I don't get into politics :|
- j0en, on 07/04/2009, -1/+10http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain_Reposi ...
Better then spewing out Co2 emissions that are ***** up our climate. - sulthernao, on 07/04/2009, -4/+13You realize that using "Odumbo" is like an automatic tag for me to disregard everything you say. No? Well carry on then.
- JoeHague, on 07/04/2009, -1/+10Maybe he's going to outsource all the Nuclear Reprocessing to North Korea/
- anonymousmedic, on 07/04/2009, -0/+9You reprocess it and reuse it .
- apickle, on 07/04/2009, -0/+9Solar and wind also don't begin to generate as much energy as nuclear power.
- JoeHague, on 07/04/2009, -0/+9That isn't a very educated comment/
- NMRgentleman, on 07/04/2009, -0/+8All the nuclear waste American power plants have ever generated could fit in a high school gymnasium. Yucca has been a crazy trip because of a government determined to stand in the way of nuclear power - waste disposal needn't be so difficult.
- TheDougem, on 07/04/2009, -0/+8Don't forget Obama's promise to have a transparent government! Who's holding his feet to the fire for blatently breaking that promise in this case? Media? hellloooo?
- snapcase, on 07/04/2009, -0/+8It's funny that this is a point that Bush actually understood better than Obama. Nuclear is the right move for us right now. Why Obama wouldn't want to get with the program and make it happen is beyond me. Help the environment while other technologies are being refined for practical commercial use.... or keep ***** up the environment with the dirtiest fuel sources we can... god damn that's a hard decision to make.
The reprocessing program would have been an essential way to keep money invested in OUR economy rather than having to import our fuels and letting the spent fuel sit in above-ground dry storage casks. But ***** that would make too much sense to keep our money circulating in a reliable fashion... especially in a time of economic crisis! We sure as hell wouldn't want to introduce any stability into the market, no sir we'll just dig our hole deeper. - apickle, on 07/04/2009, -0/+8Yeah, what about that $9 billion Yucca Mountain spent nuclear fuel facility? The one that no nuclear facility can actually use, no thanks to pressure from environmental groups that have successfully lobbied Congress to prohibit the transportation of nuclear material off-site?
Just look at what countries like France are doing. Oh, and that 20% of the power generated in the United States is done so by nuclear plants. Oh, and the fact that the first nuclear plant ever constructed is still in operation.
Nuclear, stupid? No. It's a constant, lucrative method of generating power. Wind fails if there is no wind, solar fails if there is no sun, and so what is to take up the slack on a cloudy, windless day? Or a calm night?
Reducing our standards of living, a fact which you conveniently neglected to mention. Again. - j0en, on 07/04/2009, -1/+8"i don't want nuclear around and there are very legit safety concerns"
Like.... - hamobu, on 07/04/2009, -2/+9I thought that Obama was for safe nuclear energy as a part of diverse energy portfolio? Oh wait, that was just a nonsensical phrase that does not mean anything but sounds good in a speech.
Actually, the real reason why Obama does not want to recycle nuclear fuel is that he does not want Iran to do the same thing. - p51d007, on 07/04/2009, -0/+7What a dumbass.......Hey, if you want to eat dinner in the dark, go ahead! You idiot environ-nazis need to go jump in a lake and leave the rest of us alone. You won't be happy until we are all freezing to death in the dark, or melting from the heat, because you've "outlawed" air conditioning.
The human experience is to better their lives, NOT go back 200 years! What a dumb pathetic idiot. - norman619, on 07/04/2009, -1/+8I hope he get's fired next election. I actually hope he gets fired much sooner.
- inactive, on 07/04/2009, -7/+13Change you can believe in
- snapcase, on 07/04/2009, -0/+6Uh yeah... so we should oppose a method of power generation that the adoption of which would have a HUGE positive impact on the environment (do you have ANY idea how much green house gasses come from coal burners?), because it would be too convenient. Yeah that makes loads of sense.
So in the mean time lets keep pumping pollutants into the atmosphere including that mercury that keeps ending up in our tuna just because it'd be too damn good of an idea to use a better fuel source instead. - Ferretman, on 07/04/2009, -4/+10Idiots.
I thought he wanted America to be INDEPENDENT of foreign influences when it came to our energy. When in Odin's name would he do something like this?!?!?
One screwup after another.
Obama voters -- sorry yet? - j0en, on 07/04/2009, -9/+15Anyone who uses "B. Hussein, Obamessiah, Odumbo, President Hussein" comments should be immedialtly disregarded, you can make semi-valid points without looking like a total prick.
- Naieve, on 07/04/2009, -0/+6We are discussing actual methods of energy production that can be mass produced in the foreseeable future. Solar and wind at present are not mass producible. It will take decades for them to even begin to have a competitive section of the energy market, and that will be at the cost of hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars.
- TheDougem, on 07/04/2009, -0/+5Candlelight dinners? *gasp* Aren't you aware wax PRODUCES CARBON?? You must HATE the environment! Eating in complete darkness is the only way to be truly carbon neutral. Oh, and no conversation either - you produce too much CO2 already.
- Howitzer86, on 07/04/2009, -0/+5It is also a reliable and time tested resource.
The money spent on R&D with alternatives could be better spent building new nuclear power plants across the country. -
Show 51 - 100 of 216 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is