While they have a temporary suspension on new projects, China is building nuclear plants, windmills, and solar. I do not see why the future energy grid needs to be either solar free or nuclear free. They all have their place on the grid.

My experience (at least with GW Bush and Conservatives) suggests politicians and major political/social players can have priorities 100% in opposition to their ‘stated’ agendas. I came to realize (re biotech issues) that ‘staying in the game’ and brokering power was far more important to national leaders than adherence to worldview policies. Their actions taught me a reality that’s as relevant to climatic change as it was to stem cells: grassroots voters can be hoodwinked into believing whatever they want to believe–or enticed to rejoin the fold if offended–but financial backers in Pharma, BIO, (and Big Oil and Mining) cannot.

Hence the meaningful actions of politicians of BOTH sides court THE MONEY while their empty words and gestures are meant to appease the voters. I understand exactly what Ken is saying…withdrawing support for Obama (or Democrats) ensures Pro-Oil politicians will further consolidate their stranglehold on our fate. However, Richard is also correct. Appeasement with two-faced allies who betray our futures and trust will never win this war. In fact, the system exploits this very desperation–the need of grassroots movements to have ANY ally when the only alternatives are committed enemies–to entrench the status quo.

I am far beyond the stage of believing that the Obama Administration is playing some kind of three dimensional chess on these issues. The White House fundamentally failed in its strategy and sacrificed climate goals. I wrote about that here: From Grand Bargain to Devil’s Bargain

You tell me not to quote articles without checking the ‘facts’, but ABC and Businessweek use factcheckers, while your scenario is just a hypothesis – you don’t back up what you say with facts at all.

I have not run into anything from the White House indicating that this is some maneuver to increase RE funding…but even if it was, increasing Nuclear loan guarantees that the CBO (more of those facts) says are likely be defaults, during this disaster is jaw dropping.

I am not worried about ‘igniting emotions’ that is what we need to organize and mobilize for 2012, I am not saying people shouldn’t vote – but we need to fight for actual progress on these issue and the White House isn’t going to do that without a movement pushing them.

As a final two cents, here is an article contrasting the Japanese reactor with Canadian “CANDU” reactors, which operate in several provinces and countries. http://envirogy.ca/2011/03/17/nuclear-energy-staying-grounded/

Thanks for the debate.

Perhaps it is just the youth bias on this blog, but I was talking about ‘the largest nuclear disaster in modern history.’ – which may be a different definition from yours, as most of the readers of this blog were born after that accident. In fact, my father received a civil service commendation for handling information on Chernobyl for the State Department, so I am pretty familiar with it.

This disaster is still unfolding and we won’t know how bad it is until it is resolved, so calling it ‘hyperbole’ may be premature.

Also, pro-nuclear groups always say this: “Nuclear is the only way to reduce emissions, be realistic, etc” and quite frankly your arguments are weak. Nuclear is slow, expensive, tremendously hard to implement on a grand scale, and dangerous. Even the IAEA said it just isn’t realistic to imagine that nuclear energy can replace or supplant coal in the next 50 years.

You might want to take a look at reports like: Carbon-free and Nuclear-free – http://www.ieer.org/carbonfree/- before you get condescending about ‘reality’ and nuclear power.

I realize disaster spawns hyperbole, but I don’t understand why so many clean energy gurus choose reinforce the nuclear stigma with such haste. If we really want to lower emissions from power generation on any grand scale now, nuclear is really the only way to do it. Nuclear is the segua between the fossile fuel and renewable energy eras. Nuclear is easy to hate, because of its stigma and its association with some horrible things (weapons), but if you delve deeper into the technology and be realistic about clean energy initiatives, one realizes its importance. http://abetterenergyplan.ca is a great place to start. Also, this article, http://www.enviralment.ca/2011/03/09/terrapower-eyes-a-new-kind-of-nuclear-power/, talks about the work of Bill Gates on ushering in a new breed of nuclear power plants which correct many, if not all, of nuclears shortcomings.