White House publishes a statement supporting the use of Nuclear Power - Polidicks

[QUOTE=The White House] The Administration supports H.R. 1551, to modify the production tax credit for advanced nuclear power facilities.[B] The bill would fulfill the President’s commitment to the continuation of nuclear energy as a major contributor to our Nation’s energy production and security. Nuclear power is critical to the reliability, security, and diversity of our national energy mix.[/B] H.R. 1551 would direct the Internal Revenue Service to allocate unutilized portions of the 6,000 national megawatt capacity limitation to eligible advanced nuclear facilities placed in service after December 31, 2020, thereby extending the tax credits prior to the expected in-service date of nuclear reactors currently under construction. In addition, the bill would enable the transfer of credits from public entities to project partners so that the benefit can be realized. ... [B]If H.R. 1551 were presented to the President in its current form, his advisors would recommend that he sign the bill into law[/B]. [/QUOTE] [url=https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/06/20/hr-1551-modifying-advanced-nuclear-power-tax-credit]Source[/url] [url=https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/1551?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22hr+1551%22%5D%7D&r=1]This[/url] bill just passed the House, and it would give significant support to the plants under construction in South Carolina and Georgia

Careful Trump, people might start expecting you to do good things ALL the time.

Well neat, Trump doing something that's not awful! So much for his commitment to coal, though. v:v:v

[quote]If H.R. 1551 were presented to the President in its current form, his advisors would recommend that he sign the bill into law.[/quote] I love the wording of this statement. Instead of "The President would be happy to sign H.R. 1551" or something, it's "The President's advisors would recommend that he sign the bill into law." like the president has no idea what he's doing.

[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;52387361]I love the wording of this statement. Instead of "The President would be happy to sign H.R. 1551" or something, it's "The President's advisors would recommend that he sign the bill into law." like the president has no idea what he's doing.[/QUOTE] 'Cause he don't. In any case, at least [I]something[/I] good is happening. Doubt Trump (or his advisors, I suppose) can keep this up though.

[QUOTE=Riller;52387348]Well neat, Trump doing something that's not awful! So much for his commitment to coal, though. v:v:v[/QUOTE] This bill wasn't passed because it's better than coal. H.R. 1551 makes it so that you receive some pretty nice tax breaks if you were even remotely involved in the construction of a nuclear power plant, and if you provide the nuclear plant with steam and nuclear fuel rods.

I'm all for nuclear power, hell of a lot better than coal.

I'd love to see the US become a leader on nuclear energy. More politicians from both parties should be supportive of it.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;52387632]I'd love to see the US become a leader on nuclear energy. More politicians from both parties should be supportive of it.[/QUOTE] A lot of members in both parties still demonize nuclear energy iirc

billy, nukes aren't gonna be built with the enourmous cuts to subsidies, regulatory agencies, and the massive increase in state expenses if trump were to have his way and even a fraction of his budget gets into the real one

There were some sillybillys (including one who was going to Toxx me) saying Trump wasn't going to do anything on Nuclear. Hopefully this trend keeps on going. Gotta say I am pleasantly surprised today. Mostly because things are going faster than expected. :v: [editline]21st June 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=joshuadim;52387650]A lot of members in both parties still demonize nuclear energy iirc[/QUOTE] Sadly it is mostly from the Democrat side opposing it. [url]http://www.gallup.com/poll/190064/first-time-majority-oppose-nuclear-energy.aspx[/url]

I really don't understand why politicians don't like nuclear other than corporate coal lobbying

[QUOTE=Dr. Evilcop;52387791]I really don't understand why politicians don't like nuclear other than corporate coal lobbying[/QUOTE] Fukushima is still in recent memory, perhaps

[QUOTE=Dr. Evilcop;52387791]I really don't understand why politicians don't like nuclear other than corporate coal lobbying[/QUOTE] Aside from that, anti-nuclear people tend to be very vocal (and misinformed) about it while pro-nuclear people tend be nerds like us who keep to themselves. So the politicians cater to the LCD At least on this site, any anti-nuclear post is immediately shut down and humiliated with "oh boy, here we go again..."

[QUOTE=Dr. Evilcop;52387791]I really don't understand why politicians don't like nuclear other than corporate coal lobbying[/QUOTE] Petroleum lobbying is the main opposition at the moment.

[QUOTE=Tudd;52387733]There were some sillybillys (including one who was going to Toxx me) saying Trump wasn't going to do anything on Nuclear. Hopefully this trend keeps on going. Gotta say I am pleasantly surprised today. Mostly because things are going faster than expected. :v: [editline]21st June 2017[/editline] Sadly it is mostly from the Democrat side opposing it. [url]http://www.gallup.com/poll/190064/first-time-majority-oppose-nuclear-energy.aspx[/url][/QUOTE] This is honestly not the big deal you made it out to be though. It's nice, unexpected, but it's also of limited value in this administration. They're scrambling for SOMETHING to call a win.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;52387831]This is honestly not the big deal you made it out to be though. It's nice, unexpected, but it's also of limited value in this administration. They're scrambling for SOMETHING to call a win.[/QUOTE] I guess this is better than gathering a ton of people just for the purposes of signing a memo.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;52387831]This is honestly not the big deal you made it out to be though. It's nice, unexpected, but it's also of limited value in this administration. They're scrambling for SOMETHING to call a win.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=HumanAbyss;52384502] Trump is doing nothing, literally, about nuclear. [/QUOTE] [QUOTE=HumanAbyss;52384531]Trumps team seems to making some noise about it. That's about it. It's still nothing but a deflection, and it's not because of global warming they're doing this. It's because coal is too expensive, which also means that Trump pretty much bold faced lied about his support and efforts to bring it back.[/QUOTE] It isn't Nuclear Reactors being built right now, but it is another step on the path Trump and his administration/campaign have been paving. Which is quite alot for 7 months in office if you actually understood what it would take for president to initiate steps to reinvigorate the Nuclear industry. Also you have been severely wrong on Trump's support for nuclear.

[QUOTE=Tudd;52387887]It isn't Nuclear Reactors being built right now, but it is another step on the path Trump and his administration/campaign have been paving. Which is quite alot for 7 months in office and going against Nuclear Stigma. Also you have been severely wrong on Trump's support for nuclear.[/QUOTE] He is signing a bill pushed by the House to subsidize companies responsible for making nuclear plants. Get outta here with "severely wrong".

[QUOTE=Raidyr;52387905]He is signing a bill pushed by the House to subsidize companies responsible for making nuclear plants. Get outta here with "severely wrong".[/QUOTE] Well it is more like completely wrong since he said "Literally nothing" at one point. The severely is just me being nice and recognizing he had to back up abit when he realized he was wrong then.

okay could someone explain what is this bill actually going to change, because i don't understand this talk about tax credits

[QUOTE=JXZ;52387913]okay could someone explain what is this bill actually going to change, because i don't understand this talk about tax credits[/QUOTE] Essentially subsidizing, but instead of a direct funds going into companies, it reduces their taxes.

[QUOTE=Tudd;52387887]It isn't Nuclear Reactors being built right now, but it is another step on the path Trump and his administration/campaign have been paving. Which is quite alot for 7 months in office if you actually understood what it would take for president to initiate steps to reinvigorate the Nuclear industry. Also you have been severely wrong on Trump's support for nuclear.[/QUOTE] No. You're severely reading into the runnings of this administration as having anything to do with him. He never supported nuclear during the campaign. He is simply signing a bill other members put forward. This is still "Practically nothing" from the Trump administration. He didn't galvanize the right to give a toss about Nuclear.

[QUOTE=Tudd;52387908]Well it is more like completely wrong since he said "Literally nothing" at one point. The severely is just me being nice and recognizing he had to back up abit when he realized he was wrong then.[/QUOTE] Ok but the point is this is coming from congress so it doesn't make HumanAbyss wrong. [editline]21st June 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Tudd;52387920]Essentially subsidizing, but instead of a direct funds going into companies, it reduces their taxes.[/QUOTE] Which makes ya'll lose your minds when its happening to wind and solar but I guess when its for nuclear plants its okay.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;52387929]Ok but the point is this is coming from congress so it doesn't make HumanAbyss wrong. [editline]21st June 2017[/editline] Which makes ya'll lose your minds when its happening to wind and solar but I guess when its for nuclear plants its okay.[/QUOTE] It's literally always "It's okay when I do it" See the healthcare bill being rammed through congress harder than Tudds dick through his Trump poster See the issues the FCC is causing under Ajit Pai See the issues that Betsy Devos is causing

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;52387928]No. You're severely reading into the runnings of this administration as having anything to do with him. He never supported nuclear during the campaign. He is simply signing a bill other members put forward. This is still "Practically nothing" from the Trump administration. He didn't galvanize the right to give a toss about Nuclear.[/QUOTE] Find me any presidential candidate openly supporting nuclear power, its massive political baggage that ends up going no where since no one can agree on the same issues the industry has faced for decades. I have pointed out before that Trump is personally pro-nuclear but you disagreed with me that it mattered. Support like this in the form of tax breaks is the best we can expect from an unpopular administration and in the current state of the nuclear industry. More importantly it lays the groundwork for new waves of reactors to be constructed which will need additional political momentum to construct. Where is Silence I Kill You to tell us about how this affects his reactor construction job [editline]21st June 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Raidyr;52387929] Which makes ya'll lose your minds when its happening to wind and solar but I guess when its for nuclear plants its okay.[/QUOTE] For me personally, all I've wanted is an even playing field. Nuclear is a clean technology from a climate change viewpoint but is not treated as such by policy. This makes nuclear power difficult to compete with renewables and already cheap natural gas. Subsidizing nuclear is better than getting rid of other clean energy subsidies altogether but that's my own opinion.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;52387928]No. You're severely reading into the runnings of this administration as having anything to do with him. He never supported nuclear during the campaign. He is simply signing a bill other members put forward. This is still "Practically nothing" from the Trump administration. He didn't galvanize the right to give a toss about Nuclear.[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/19/nuclear-energy-is-on-the-front-burner-says-sec-rick-perry.html[/url] [url]http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/334663-trump-to-nominate-three-to-nuclear-commission[/url] [url]https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-12-09/trump-s-team-is-asking-for-ways-u-s-can-keep-nuclear-alive[/url] [url]http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/02/nuclear-power-industry-revamps-climate-pitch-trump-era[/url] [url]http://video.foxnews.com/v/4586873/?#sp=show-clips[/url] [url]https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/trump-would-increase-energy-department-funds-to-manage-nuclear-stockpile/2017/03/15/2c2c784a-0998-11e7-93dc-00f9bdd74ed1_story.html[/url] Again you have an article that mentions Trump's Campaign team inquiring about it, Trump nominating 3 Nuclear Commission, a boost in the Energy Department to reviving Yucca Mountain, and now this. You have been severely wrong with your previous statements and have to further readjust them. [editline]21st June 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Raidyr;52387929] Which makes ya'll lose your minds when its happening to wind and solar but I guess when its for nuclear plants its okay.[/QUOTE] I know people have some bad reading comprehension or memorization, but I have always argued that those same subsidies for Solar/Wind should have been going into Nuclear power. I just said that yesterday. If were going to subsidize to save the environment, it shouldn't be 40% of the energy budget for Solar/Wind and only 7% for Nuclear. They should be flipped pretty much.

[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;52387969]Find me any presidential candidate openly supporting nuclear power, its massive political baggage that ends up going no where since no one can agree on the same issues the industry has faced for decades. I have pointed out before that Trump is personally pro-nuclear but you disagreed with me that it mattered. Support like this in the form of tax breaks is the best we can expect from an unpopular administration and in the current state of the nuclear industry. More importantly it lays the groundwork for new waves of reactors to be constructed which will need additional political momentum to construct. Where is Silence I Kill You to tell us about how this affects his reactor construction job [editline]21st June 2017[/editline] For me personally, all I've wanted is an even playing field. Nuclear is a clean technology from a climate change viewpoint but is not treated as such by policy. This makes nuclear power difficult to compete with renewables and already cheap natural gas. Subsidizing nuclear is better than getting rid of other clean energy subsidies altogether but that's my own opinion.[/QUOTE] He's made a few statements about it in the past in the same way he's made statements about lots of things that he clearly is [B]blatantly fucking ignorant about.[/B] But sure, yeah, lets go with that. Second of all, I wish more candidate would support nuclear. It's awesome that there's any word about it at all. But it sucks that this is going to be done as a tax cut, during the administration, and tenure of one of the largest guttings of the american healthcare and taxation systems. That's not what anyone but giant corporations really needs. Not to mention the additional giant spending packages Trump campaigned on. The mind boggles at how these things will be paid for when you realize how striking the taxation benefits are going to be under his budgetary frame work. If this is the "Groundwork" that gets momentum going, then great. But I think you're reading so far into it that you'll see anything you need to see frankly. I frankly don't see Trump as being the herald of modern nuclear power. He blatantly lied about his promises to coal, and the coal industry. Why should I trust him here? Nuclear power being suggested by literally the most divisive politician of all time is not likely to be the galvanizing factor people like yourself are hoping for. For a variety of reasons.

[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;52387969]Find me any presidential candidate openly supporting nuclear power, its massive political baggage that ends up going no where since no one can agree on the same issues the industry has faced for decades. I have pointed out before that Trump is personally pro-nuclear but you disagreed with me that it mattered.[/QUOTE] The thing is nobody is calling Trump particularly anti-nuclear, it's you guys pushing the narrative that he supports nuclear SO MUCH because you understand [I]it's literally the only[/I] thing Trump (and the Republicans) have regarding an environmental or energy stance that seems. [QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;52387969]For me personally, all I've wanted is an even playing field. Nuclear is a clean technology from a climate change viewpoint but is not treated as such by policy. This makes nuclear power difficult to compete with renewables and already cheap natural gas. Subsidizing nuclear is better than getting rid of other clean energy subsidies altogether but that's my own opinion.[/QUOTE] Fair enough for you but it's a pretty big point of hypocrisy on the right and for his part I've only seen Tudd bash renewable subsidies. [QUOTE=Tudd;52387984] You have been severely wrong with your previous statements and have to further readjust them.[/QUOTE] Have you ever readjusted your statements based on overwhelming evidence given to you on these boards?

[QUOTE=Tudd;52387984][url]http://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/19/nuclear-energy-is-on-the-front-burner-says-sec-rick-perry.html[/url] [url]http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/334663-trump-to-nominate-three-to-nuclear-commission[/url] [url]https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-12-09/trump-s-team-is-asking-for-ways-u-s-can-keep-nuclear-alive[/url] [url]http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/02/nuclear-power-industry-revamps-climate-pitch-trump-era[/url] [url]http://video.foxnews.com/v/4586873/?#sp=show-clips[/url] [url]https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/trump-would-increase-energy-department-funds-to-manage-nuclear-stockpile/2017/03/15/2c2c784a-0998-11e7-93dc-00f9bdd74ed1_story.html[/url] Again you have an article that mentions Trump's Campaign team inquiring about it, Trump nominating 3 Nuclear Commission, a boost in the Energy Department to reviving Yucca Mountain, and now this. You have been severely wrong with your previous statements and have to further readjust them. [editline]21st June 2017[/editline] I know people have some bad reading comprehension or memorization, but I have always argued that those same subsidies for Solar/Wind should have been going into Nuclear power. I just said that yesterday. If were going to subsidize to save the environment, it shouldn't be 40% of the energy budget for Solar/Wind and only 7% for Nuclear. They should be flipped pretty much.[/QUOTE] It was already pointed out how those articles and your take on them was just that. I read them. I don't agree with you. Oh no. And I mean right. Fucking. Here. [QUOTE]The Trump budget proposal would boost Energy Department spending on managing the nation’s nuclear stockpile and reviving the controversial Yucca Mountain storage facility for nuclear power plant waste but would slash spending on a host of science and climate areas[/QUOTE] This is the blatantly dishonest posting I've come to expect from you. Post an article that vaguely supports your premise. Barely read the first two fucking lines of it. Post it. Be told "You realize that's not what you think it is, right?" Repeat until we're all braindead [editline]21st June 2017[/editline] Like great. Nuclear at the cost and expense of the environment. This isn't an increase, this is a shifting of budgetary priorities, and frankly, it's a stupid fucking shift. [editline]21st June 2017[/editline] I mean for christs sakes Tudd How much of this [url]https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/trump-would-increase-energy-department-funds-to-manage-nuclear-stockpile/2017/03/15/2c2c784a-0998-11e7-93dc-00f9bdd74ed1_story.html?utm_term=.f822045056f6[/url] Did you even read before passing it on as if it exonerated you? I'm getting embarrassed for you.