Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Dick Cheney and Nuclear Energy

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU
 
losthills Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-15-08 08:51 PM
Original message
Dick Cheney and Nuclear Energy
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/05/08/power.woes.02/index.html
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Nuclear power can both solve America's energy woes and help protect the environment, Vice President Dick Cheney told CNN on Tuesday.

"The answers, Cheney said, lie in increasing the supply of energy sources -- a policy that would include giving nuclear power "a fresh look."
It is a safe technology and doesn't emit any carbon dioxide at all," the vice president said in an interview with CNN's John King. "With the gas prices rising the way they are, nuclear is looking like a good alternative."





http://www.commondreams.org/headlines01/0502-01.htm
"Vice-president Dick Cheney dismissed on Monday night the idea of "conserving or rationing" as 1970s-era solutions to the US's energy shortages.

"In a speech in Toronto, Mr Cheney said that "conservation may be a sign of personal virtue, but it is not a sufficient basis for a sound, comprehensive energy policy.

"He rejected energy conservation and renewable energy sources as major alternatives, promoting nuclear power as good for the environment since it emitted few greenhouse gases, ignoring the problems of nuclear waste disposal."



http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0882164.html
"From 1995 until 2000, Cheney served as CEO of Halliburton Co., a Texas construction and engineering outfit that services oil companies. He left the company to head the vice presidential selection committee. The group vetted several possibilities, but he himself emerged as Bush's top choice.

"Cheney has become as one of the most hands-on vice presidents in history. He has weekly one-to-one lunches with the president, is a key foreign-policy advisor, and has taken charge of the president's energy policy, which calls for exploring wider use of nuclear power and fossil fuels, as well as increasing oil drilling. "


http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,198862,00.html
"Another company that had entree to the Cheney task force was Peabody Energy, a coal behemoth whose holding company and top officer have given nearly $200,000 to the President and his party since Bush took office, including $25,000 for the May gala. Sources say Peabody chairman Irl Engelhardt and other energy executives met in March with two task-force members, Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham and Bush economic adviser Larry Lindsey. Cheney's group also heard in March from officials from the nuclear-energy industry—whose trade association, the Nuclear Energy Institute, contributed $100,000 to the Bush event. Both coal and nuclear power got major endorsements in the task-force report. "



http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/Dick_Cheney_Energy_+_Oil.htm
Give nuclear power a fresh look
"Nuclear power can both solve America’s energy woes and help protect the environment, Vice President Cheney told CNN. The answers, Cheney said, lie in increasing the supply of energy sources -- a policy that would include giving nuclear power “a fresh look.” Cheney said, “It is a safe technology and doesn’t emit any carbon dioxide at all. With the gas prices rising the way they are, nuclear is looking like a good alternative.”
Cheney acknowledged that the problem of nuclear waste was “a tough one” and that the US would need to establish a single location to dump the waste, a program he said has been very successful in Europe. “Right now we’ve got waste piling up at reactors all over the country,” he said. “Eventually, there ought to be a permanent repository.” Cheney foresees an additional 1,300 to 1,900 new power plants over the next 20 years to meet demand -- some of which could be nuclear plants -- along with a number of refineries to process oil. "



http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/about_hal/energytf.html
"According to the GAO's report, "senior agency officials" with the Department of Energy met "numerous times" with energy companies to provide advice to Cheney's energy task force. Those companies include Bechtel, Chevron, American Coal Company, Small Refiners Association, the Coal Council, CSX, Kerr-McGee, Nuclear Energy Institute, the National Mining Association, General Motors, the National Petroleum Council, and the energy lobbying firm of Barbour, Griffith & Rogers. In addition, the Secretary of Energy discussed national energy policy with chief executive officers of petroleum, electricity, nuclear, coal, chemical, and natural gas companies, among others. The task force even sought and received advice from the now-disgraced and bankrupt Enron Corporation.

"The GAO does not know whether Halliburton was one of the companies involved in making recommendations to the energy task force. And Cheney refuses to release all the documents which can prove or disprove Halliburton's involvement, which only fuels suspicion that Cheney has something to hide."


http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/110507A.shtml
Cheney Pursuing Nuclear Ambitions of His Own
By Jason Leopold
t r u t h o u t | Report

Monday 05 November 2007

While Dick Cheney has been talking tough over the years about Iran's alleged nuclear activities, the vice president has been quietly pursuing nuclear ambitions of his own.

"For more than two years, Cheney and a relatively unknown administration official, Deputy Energy Secretary Clay Sell, have been regularly visiting the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to ensure agency officials rewrite regulatory policies and bypass public hearings in order to streamline the licensing process for energy companies that have filed applications to build new nuclear power reactors, as well as applications for new nuclear facilities that are expected to be filed by other companies in the months ahead, longtime NRC officials said.

"Before being sworn in as deputy energy secretary in March 2005, Sell, a lawyer whose roots extend to Bush's home state of Texas, was a White House lobbyist working on energy issues. He had also participated in secret meetings with Cheney's Energy Task Force.

"In April, Sell and Cheney had both met with NRC officials to sign off on the final regulatory policies related to new nuclear reactors. Following the meeting, Sell had alerted a group of energy companies they could begin to take advantage of the faster application process, NRC officials said.

" NRC officials said that Cheney has expressed a desire to see applications for nuclear reactor projects approved by the NRC when he and Bush leave the White House in January 2009.

"The energy corporations Cheney and Sell have been personally lobbying the NRC on behalf of this year have advised the vice president and his staff on energy policy in a way that would boost their companies' profit margins. These corporations have also donated millions of dollars to President Bush's and Cheney's past presidential campaigns.

"One of the cornerstones of President Bush's National Energy Policy, released in May 2001, but never wholly adopted, was "the expansion of nuclear energy in the United States as a major component of our national energy policy." Cheney said that reviving the nuclear power industry would be long-term solution to the country's increasing thirst for electricity.

"At a time when public awareness surrounding renewable energy resources, the devastating effects of global warming and the importance of conservation is at an all-time high, the Bush administration has steered tens of billions in taxpayer dollars toward revamping the dormant nuclear power industry, touting it as the only proven technology to combat climate change.

" Behind the scenes, Cheney and Sell have worked in tandem with the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), a powerful industry organization whose members include some of the country's largest energy corporations, to get the NRC to rewrite long-standing environmental review policies and limit oversight of new nuclear projects, thereby simplifying the application process, and significantly cutting down the time it takes to get new nuclear projects off the ground, an NRC official said."


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
bbinacan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-15-08 09:03 PM
Response to Original message
1. Nuclear Energy seems
to be working well in France.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
diane in sf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-16-08 12:24 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. Till you consider they still don't have a good waste dumping solution.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dead_Parrot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-16-08 05:42 AM
Response to Reply #2
4. Unlike the Chinese, you mean?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Systematic Chaos Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-16-08 06:31 AM
Response to Reply #4
5. But nucular is bad, mmmkay?
Edited on Wed Apr-16-08 06:33 AM by Gentle Giant
Luoyang Zhonggui High-Technology manufactures polysilicon for use in solar cells. There are high hopes all over the world for solar energy to heat water and generate electricity. China has high hopes too. Eager to supply the growing demand of polysilicon, 20 Chinese companies are poised to manufacture 80,000 to 100,000 tons of polysilicon, which is significantly more than the 40,000 tons manufactured in the entire world today. One of those companies is Luoyang Zhonggui Hith-Technology, which is located in the central plains of Henan Province near the Yellow River. Luoyang Zhonggui is slated to manufacture 3000 tons of polysilicon this year (compared to just 300 tons in 2007) catapulting to the top in China and is a key supplier to Suntech Power Holdings. Suntech Power Holdings was founded by Shi Zhengrong, who is the richest person in China. To build a polysilicon plant and begin manufacturing, it typically takes two years; Chinese companies are attempting to do it in just one year. Prices have sky-rocketed too from just $20/kg to $300/kg in five years.

For nine months, dump trucks from Luoyang’s factory have dumped buckets of bubbling white liquid onto the grounds between the cornfields and the primary-school playground. The bubbling white liquid is silicon tetrachloride, a highly toxic substance. Four tons of silicon tetrachloride liquid waste is generated for every ton of polysilicon manufactured. Silicon tetrachloride breaks down into chlorine and hydrochloric acid. Plants cannot grow and the land becomes unsuitable for people to live in. In the developed world, silicon tetrachloride is recycled and returned to the manufacturing process, but the process requires expensive equipment, enormous energy and time. Silicon tetrachloride must be heated to more than 1800-degrees Fahrenheit to be recycled. In a land where all go to procure cheap components and labor, companies like Luoyang do not install recycling equipment and technology. According to Pro-EnerTech, a polysilicon research firm based in Shanghai, the Chinese government is overlooking the problem due to the severe shortage of polysilicon. From two years ago, Chinese plants have been stockpiling silicon tetrachloride hoping they will find a way to dispose of it later. Others such as Luoyang Zhonggui are simply dumping them anywhere and saving millions of dollars in the process. The cost of manufacturing a ton of polysilicon with environmental protection technology is about $84,500. By simply dumping poisonous gas into the air and silicon tetrachloride in the ground, the Chinese companies can manufacture a ton at only $21,000 to $56,000 per ton of polysilicon. This is not surprising as Chinese manufacturers have continued to put cost reduction ahead of environmental concerns.


It's all good, though, as long as it's just a few million of those people on the other side of the world with no land to grow food on, or clean water, or breathable air... all so we can have our little solar energy clusterfuck wet dream. Because there are people here who will swear that nuclear power is a brazillion times more deadly than anything and everything else. Reality be damned. Truth be told every last one of you makes me about as ill as a nice big cup of silicon tetrachloride.

Can I get a straw with that? :grr:

:yourock::woohoo::applause::bounce::applause::woohoo::yourock:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dead_Parrot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-16-08 06:50 AM
Response to Reply #5
6. Poison kids over there, so you don't have to poison them over here
Edited on Wed Apr-16-08 06:53 AM by Dead_Parrot
Because they're poor, and not even white.

Err, something like that.

Hang on, what was the question?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bananas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-17-08 01:20 PM
Response to Reply #4
21. But "glow-in-the-dark bubbling white liquid" is ok?
"It's magically delicious!"


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bbinacan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-16-08 06:56 PM
Response to Reply #2
10. But they do well
with recycling and reusing spent fuel rods.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NNadir Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-16-08 08:17 PM
Response to Reply #2
12. And let's here the fundie plan for disposing of dangerous fossil fuel waste.
Edited on Wed Apr-16-08 08:19 PM by NNadir
What?

You don't have one?

Why am I not surprised

Unless you are posting dumb stuff in San Francisco with your cool solar powered computer - we'll leave aside the question of the dangerous organohalide waste involved in that (I guess you don't drink the water in San Jose) - and clearly you're doing no such thing - you are simply announcing that you couldn't care less about dangerous fossil fuel waste.

You have no plan for disposing of it, because you couldn't care less about it.

You have to be, by the way, scientifically illiterate to claim that so called "nuclear waste" exists. You cannot produce a single incident of a person injured by the storage of used nuclear fuel - and you are indifferent to the number of people - numbering in the tens of thousands who die each day because you don't give a rat's ass about dangerous fossil fuel waste, for which you have the personal responsibility for many tens of metric tons that have been dumped in an uncontrolled fashion into the flesh of other human beings.

You scratch the surface of a fundie anti-nuke and you find arbitrary criteria.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NickB79 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-16-08 02:42 AM
Response to Original message
3. And George Bush says we're addicted to oil
Should I run out and buy a Hummer? Because that's basically the same argument you're making: Whatever Bush and Cheney support, we must do the exact opposite.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
losthills Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-16-08 09:24 AM
Response to Reply #3
7. Cheney's Rangers ride again....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NickB79 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-16-08 12:49 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. Ah, another ad-hominem attack
You've really become predictable, ya know?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
losthills Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-16-08 03:39 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. Interesting... (Not really.)
to see who immediately leapt to Mr. Cheney's defense.

Cheney happens to be the foremost nuclear power promoter and apologist in our nation. That there are members of this forum who use the vice-president's rhetoric almost verbatim is not something that I made up. Reporting facts does not qualify as an "ad hominem attack." (Sorry....)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bananas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-16-08 07:57 PM
Response to Reply #9
11. 8 years of propaganda has taken it's toll. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NickB79 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-17-08 03:39 AM
Response to Reply #9
20. I didn't leap to Mr. Cheney's defense, though that's what you'd like to believe
I was using an example to point out your use of a logical fallacy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem#Guilt_by_association

"Guilt by association can sometimes also be a type of ad hominem fallacy, if the argument attacks a person because of the similarity between the views of someone making an argument and other proponents of the argument."

But then again, don't feel you have to start using logic on my account, since you've obviously made it this far without it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NNadir Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-16-08 08:36 PM
Response to Original message
13. I guess in fundie school, they don't teach courses on logical fallacies.
This is hardly a surprise.

There is NOT ONE fundie anti-nuke on this website who knows how to think.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/guilt-by-association.html

Guilt by Association is a fallacy in which a person rejects a claim simply because it is pointed out that people she dislikes accept the claim. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:


It is pointed out that people person A does not like accept claim P.
Therefore P is false
It is clear that sort of "reasoning" is fallacious. For example the following is obviously a case of poor "reasoning": "You think that 1+1=2. But, Adolf Hitler, Charles Manson, Joseph Stalin, and Ted Bundy all believed that 1+1=2. So, you shouldn't believe it."



Nuclear power - the world's largest, by far, form of climate change gas free energy - has been damaged by the Bush administration which 1) misrepresented nuclear science repeatedly to encourage fellow dumb fundies to get their underwear in wedgies about nonexistent "mushroom clouds"and 2) was involved in climate change denial.

I note that without anti-nuke fundie ignorance - anyone who had a shred of education on the subject of the science of uranium knew immediately that the uranium/Niger story was a lie - there would have been no dangerous fossil fuel war in Iraq.

In fact, Dick Cheney was lying about his support for nuclear energy and I note with moral contempt, that dumb fundie anti-nukes have been making the same mushroom cloud argument that he makes, when for instance denying that Muslim countries have a human right to nuclear energy.

All humanity has a right to the world's largest, by far, form of climate change gas free energy, nuclear energy.

But there is NOT ONE dumb ass fundie anti-nuke who can sort this out, because well, they're dumb fundie anti-nukes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
losthills Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-16-08 09:22 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. Who made the following statement about nuclear power?
"It is a safe technology and doesn't emit any carbon dioxide at all,"

A) Dick Cheney
B) NNadir (AKA Dr. Jules)
C) Both
D) Dick Cheney, Dr. Jules and four of their friends who are regular contributors to the E%E forum on the Democratic Underground chat site.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NNadir Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-16-08 11:35 PM
Response to Reply #14
15. Um, maybe it comes as news to fundies, but Dick Cheney and I have both said that
Edited on Wed Apr-16-08 11:38 PM by NNadir
2 + 2 = 4.

I have no limit to my contempt to the reading level of anti-nuke fundies, but apparently the discussion of logical fallacies escaped your purview.

This is hardly a surprise. You can't be a fundie anti-nuke if you know how to think.

Clearly you were unable to comprehend the last post, and you will prove similarly unable to comprehend this one.

I've been bashing fundie anti-nukes for poor thinking for years, and there is NOT ONE dumb fundie anti-nuke who, in eight years of "renewables will save us" anti-nuke lying who has managed to get it. I have linked the Nizkor website hundreds of times in response to dumb fundie anti-nuke rhetoric, and still it comes.

If you want to see dumb fundie anti-nuke thinking in toto, it is all here: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

The headings are like a laundry list of dumb ass anti-nuke rhetoric, the most popular of which (and this list is by no means meant to be exclusive when describing dumb fundie anti-nuke rhetoric, because every logical fallacy is demonstrated here by dumb fundie anti-nukes:

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-fear.html

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/hasty-generalization.html

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/false-dilemma.html

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/biased-sample.html (This one is especially true of dumb ass anti-nuke fundie talk about
Chernobyl, about which dumb ass fundie anti-nukes use what I call "nuclear exceptionalism". There is NOT ONE dumb ass fundie anti-nuke who gives a rat's ass about how many people died last week from dangerous fossil fuel's normal operations, because dumb ass fundie anti-nuke rhetoric can only exist in a moral void.)

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/bandwagon.html

I could go on listing every element of dumb ass fundie anti-nuke thinking, but it seems that dumb ass fundie anti-nukes are unimpressed by reason.

One asks oneself if the anti-nukes are trying to illustrate poor thinking or whether it is just their nature.

Presented with the choice, I would guess the latter, since all fundies are more or less the same. My impression of the entire class of dumb ass fundie anti-nukes is that, as a class, they are too dumb to know how dumb they are.

Oh.

And by the way.

It would seem that the only people who give a rat's ass about what Dick Cheney thinks are fundie anti-nukes. There is NOT ONE dumb fundie anti-nuke on this website who has not parroted directly illiterate Dick Cheney rhetoric about the connection between nuclear weapons and nuclear power.

There is NOT ONE dumb fundie anti-nuke on this website either who can explain while Belgium hasn't engaged in a nuclear war with Switzerland, just as there is not one dumb fundie anti-nuke on this website who can demonstrate an instance of a single person in either Switzerland or Belgium or for that matter, the United States, who has been injured by the storage of used nuclear fuel.

(I note that there is NOT ONE dumb fundie anti-nuke who knows who negotiated the treaty to put Russian uranium in American nuclear reactors.

Now.

You can't be a dumb fundie anti-nuke if you know any history, but the treaty in question was negotiated by a recent American Vice-President, and it wasn't Dick Cheney.)

Speaking of Dick Cheney, there is NOT ONE dumb fundie anti-nuke who is any way able in any fucking way to 1) explain how Dick Cheney is responsible for nuclear power in France, Japan, or for that matter Ukraine.

I hear from dumb fundie anti-nukes all the time about how so called "renewable energy" was sabotaged by Dick Cheney. This, of course, in no way explains why so called "renewable energy" has been a miserable failure in say, Italy, or for that matter, Algeria, Iran, Iraq, Belgium, Germany, India, Botswana, Lesotho, Paraguay...

Ignorance kills.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
losthills Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-17-08 12:08 AM
Response to Reply #15
16. But the point is that you promote Dick Cheney's
energy policy.

That is just a fact.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NNadir Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-17-08 12:22 AM
Response to Reply #16
17. The point is that you can't think.
Edited on Thu Apr-17-08 12:24 AM by NNadir
I predicted that the link to the website explaining logical fallacies would go over your head, and you have come back to validate the theory.

What a surprise!

Ignorance kills.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Systematic Chaos Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-17-08 12:26 AM
Response to Reply #16
18. Isn't it sad?
I mean, isn't it pretty sad that this is all you can come back with for a response?

Mostly mighty goshdarn hilarious, but sad in a pathetic sort of way.

Nah, actually it's just plain riotously funny. :D
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
losthills Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-17-08 01:58 AM
Response to Reply #18
19. What's funny about people trying to sell Dick Cheney's
energy program to Democrats?

The two words that come to my mind are "sad," and "disgusting...."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Apr 24th 2024, 11:20 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC