Started By
Message

re: Trump is making Nuclear Energy Great Again

Posted on 10/2/26 at 4:48 pm to
Posted by billjamin
Houston
Member since Jun 2019
19929 posts
Posted on 10/2/26 at 4:48 pm to
DOE LPO has a pretty solid track record on these investments. They're below market interest but not so much so that it's free money. I don't think they've had a portfolio miss it's target returns yet even with notable failures like Solyndra.
Posted by captainFid
Never apologize to barbarism
Member since Dec 2014
11779 posts
Posted on 10/2/26 at 4:59 pm to
Thanks OP

It is impressive...

I can't believe the turn-around we are seeing.

Massive Nuclear Buildout: The Department of Energy is providing loan guarantees to a coalition of six American utilities to construct up to 10 new Westinghouse nuclear reactors, each capable of producing over a gigawatt of electricity [13:39].

Direct Government Investment: Additionally, the Department of Commerce has agreements for another 10 massive gigawatt units. The government plans to develop these reactors directly and potentially transfer them to private ownership once built.

quote:

While the globalist are shutting down nuclear power, trying to sell us on solar and wind, President Trump is rebuilding the greatest energy civilization on earth - Mike Steger w/ Promethean

(bookmarked at this section of Energy Dominance)


Workforce Mobilization: To support this scale of construction, the major firm Bechtel has partnered with building trades unions to modernize apprenticeships and recruit a new generation of high-skilled workers specifically trained for nuclear construction [15:30].

Nuclear-Powered Merchant Ships: Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy has launched an initiative to deploy Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) on American commercial shipping vessels, aiming to rebuild American maritime power for the 21st century [16:39].
Posted by Lsujacket66
Member since Dec 2010
5590 posts
Posted on 10/2/26 at 5:14 pm to
quote:

Nuclear-Powered Merchant Ships: Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy has launched an initiative to deploy Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) on American commercial shipping vessels, aiming to rebuild American maritime power for the 21st century [16:39].

An interesting byproduct of the smr powered ships is they’ll be able to carry heavier cargo loads due to not needing the storage and weight capacity for the fuel it would’ve needed to power ship.
Posted by Deplorableinohio
Member since Dec 2018
8361 posts
Posted on 10/2/26 at 5:19 pm to
Negative. You forgot how well the Republican Congress has worked with Trump and his 77.5 million voters to codify his MAGA agenda.

Oops my bad. You didn’t forget. Without a congressional agenda for the future and nothing to show for the past two years, republicans will lose Congress and let the investigations and impeachments begin.
Posted by weagle1999
Member since May 2025
4110 posts
Posted on 10/2/26 at 5:23 pm to
quote:

Yes, unbeknownst to you that is one thing the government should do with our tax dollars, ensure we have frickin electricity.


Socialist bullshite.

Should the government ensure you have food also? How about internet connectivity? A house?
This post was edited on 10/2/26 at 5:25 pm
Posted by davyjones
NELA
Member since Feb 2019
37899 posts
Posted on 10/2/26 at 5:46 pm to
So it’s all or nothing, eh? Either the government guarantees absolutely everything, or absolutely nothing. How about maintaining traffic control signals? That’s socialist bullshite as well? The act of managing, for example, intersections such that carloads of mommies with babies on board dont t-bone each other?

Or what about law enforcement agencies? The sound of it being socialist bullshite is too much to justify having an organization your grandmother can call when a bandits are trying to force their way into her home?

How about child advocacy centers where children are interviewed under very particular circumstances and conditions designed to protect them from further permanent damage, while still netting evidence to use in the effort to put the monster away?

And what’s more, just as this subject is far more nuanced than you’ve acknowledged thus far at least in this case, most other similar situations found at the center of vigorous debate are just as more so nuanced than perhaps one might similarly acknowledge.
Posted by deltaland
Member since Mar 2011
104656 posts
Posted on 10/2/26 at 5:58 pm to
quote:

Theres zero chance the next Dem administration doesnt shut this down on day 1 and embezzle the funds for other things. If Dems wanted cheap energy blue states wouldn't be the most expensive in the nation. So good luck getting 25 years of exclusively Republican leadership til 2050


If the R congress had just half a sack of balls they’d pass energy infrastructure legislation to put all of this into law so it can’t be easily undone
Posted by deltaland
Member since Mar 2011
104656 posts
Posted on 10/2/26 at 6:01 pm to
quote:

have been advocating nuclear p'wer for a long time on here and other platforms. Its safe, its track record is second to none. It blows away the mickey mouse solar and wind boondoggles by miles.


Same. I hate people who oppose it because muh Chernobyl as if our plants and safety measures are anywhere as shitty as the communist Soviets

Just don’t build the plant on a fault line or where a hurricane is likely to hit on the coast and we should be fine. Tornadoes are non factors they build those plants like bomb shelters
Posted by Tigersforthee
Member since Dec 2025
437 posts
Posted on 10/2/26 at 6:05 pm to
So when Boasberg disagrees and a newly stacked SC agrees with Boasberg then what? Oh thats right, it comes to a screeching halt and the funds get pilfered.
Posted by deltaland
Member since Mar 2011
104656 posts
Posted on 10/2/26 at 6:06 pm to
quote:

Actually the permitting reform bill that’s about to pass has a clause to basically not allow future admins to stop already approved and funded projects… Dems want it because Trump stopped all their green scam projects


This can be good or bad. There should be a process allowed to kill bad projects or at least kill federal funding but allow them to proceed under private funding. Maybe set parameters that make projects eligible to kill such as not financially viable without subsidies after 5 years of operation or proof of major environmental damage and require a simple majority (no filibuster) in Congress to kill the funding.
Posted by weagle1999
Member since May 2025
4110 posts
Posted on 10/2/26 at 6:08 pm to
quote:

child advocacy centers where children are interviewed under very particular circumstances and conditions designed to protect them from further permanent damage, while still netting evidence to use in the effort to put the monster away?


Are you a woman?

I
Posted by davyjones
NELA
Member since Feb 2019
37899 posts
Posted on 10/2/26 at 6:13 pm to
You don’t see how that would very much relevantly intersect with the Epstein sexual abuse of children matter you all have desperately relied on to weaponize against Trump? Apparently not. Demonstrating that for most of you that particular issue has nothing to do with actual child victims, but instead solely Trump. I mean, that’s the only reasonable conclusion to come to here.
Posted by RohanGonzales
Pronoun: Whatever
Member since Apr 2024
13417 posts
Posted on 10/2/26 at 6:15 pm to
quote:

Without a congressional agenda for the future and nothing to show for the past two years, republicans will lose Congress and let the investigations and impeachments begin.


so worthless TV show committee hearings and no conviction impeachments?

hahahahaha
Posted by Bard
Definitely NOT an admin
Member since Oct 2008
60662 posts
Posted on 10/2/26 at 6:19 pm to
NEGA, please.
Posted by billjamin
Houston
Member since Jun 2019
19929 posts
Posted on 10/2/26 at 6:30 pm to
quote:

projects eligible to kill such as not financially viable without subsidies after 5 years of operation

There would never be another nuclear plant ever built if you did that.
Posted by Powerman
Member since Jan 2004
176094 posts
Posted on 10/2/26 at 7:04 pm to
quote:

This is awesome news. How soon can we expect cheaper energy?

Nuclear isn't necessarily cheaper. It's just very reliable for constant base load generation.

Energy in the United States is relatively affordable because we have a glut of natural gas
Posted by DeBoar
Member since Jan 2024
5973 posts
Posted on 10/2/26 at 7:06 pm to
At scale and operation it’s much cheaper and cleaner than any other source.
Posted by billjamin
Houston
Member since Jun 2019
19929 posts
Posted on 10/2/26 at 7:07 pm to
quote:

At scale and operation it’s much cheaper

No it is not.
Posted by Timeoday
Easter Island
Member since Aug 2020
27319 posts
Posted on 10/2/26 at 7:18 pm to
The old Monopoly Board knew what a Monopoly energy companies had over the American people.
Posted by TenWheelsForJesus
Member since Jan 2018
12090 posts
Posted on 10/2/26 at 8:47 pm to
quote:

Socialist bullshite.

Should the government ensure you have food also? How about internet connectivity? A house?


Small government extremists talk tough, but all of you would cave if the government stopped spending money on water treatment facilities. Or any number of modern conveniences, really.

Are you so principled that you will take a daily trek to the river for water to boil?

A first world society benefits from certain amenities. The are plenty of third world countries that don't provide these services. Which of those small government countries do you want the US to emulate?
first pageprev pagePage 2 of 3Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on X, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

Facebook•X•Instagram