CNN

Um,yes. I remember when the Republicans in Congress were banning everything french because France wouldn't support Pres. Bush on Iraq. Now the republicans are singing France's praises? Wow...

Finally something I can agree with the republican'ts on...

As a middle school teacher, I frequently observer the logic used by children much like the argument presented by our distingushed Senator Alexander. Just the other day, a student remarked that if I lowered testing standards, then all students would score much better, and therefore, we would become a high achieving school.
Since used nuclear fuel rods are dangerous for thousands of years, and there is no conclusive way of destroying the waste, storing the material is the current solution. I don't believe this is making our society any greener. I have a counter proposal for Sen. Alexander, let's build the 100 nuclear plants, and store all the waste in his beloved state of Virginia. I'm sure his Republican constituents would agree that his efforts would benefit the nation and the world.

We built a nuke in our area 35 years ago. Its construction cost was at least triple the original estimate. It took 10 years to come on line. We had one of the highest summertime rates per kW hour in the nation. Spent fuel rods need to be stored in a pond on the premises because there is no safe way to dispose of them. A decommisioning charge is paid every month on our bill because these plants have a lifetime and will be shutdown and dismantled. I was under the impression the French use a breeder style reactor that is more difficult to control but uses waste radiation to operate, thus less contamination to dispose of.

“We say find more American energy and use less. Energy that’s as clean as possible, as reliable as possible, and at as low a cost as possible. And one place to start is with 100 more nuclear plants."
*************************************************************************
I don't think it's realistic. The environment is much too saturated with pollution now, to try and find new outlets for nuclear fuel in the future. Republicans at this point are reaching to the moon to find solutions that make sense, but they can't seem to get away from talking points and sound bites. For example, he says: “They talk about President Kennedy sending a man to the moon. Their energy proposals wouldn’t get America halfway to the moon." Then another: “We say, keep prices down. Democrats say, put a big new national sales tax on electric bills and gasoline." They continue to harp on 'spending.'

America is moving in a new direction. Reps. are determined to resist change. America is not attempting to get to the moon - Poor analogy.

Instead of nuclear,Geothermal energy should be a top priority,because there is no radiation.Radioactive waste is the main issue .transporting waste across our nation to nevada [whose people dont want it there] is the main prolblem.does any one want a nuclear waste spill on their highway?When nuclear power first came along,it was supposed to be one of the cheapest forms of energy ever,almost free.Now it is oneof the most expensive ever devised.

The nuclear industry has made great strides along with other technologies and provides us with a wonderful oppurtunity to do great things for our economic plot and our environment. I have seen first hand how the nuclear industry can fuel a whole town/states economy by creating jobs. I can only hope that law makers can see this and will take advantage of this oppurtunity now.

I like this idea... and Obama can get both sides in on this. It creates jobs to construct and maintain, could be a centerpiece of a more effective power grid, and is safer and cleaner than most realize.

I'm a San Francisco Raving Liberal. (I really live in SF)
And I support Lamar Alexander AND nuclear power 100%. Even 200%

Grow up America! There are dangers with every power source.
Nuclear power sure beats those hundreds of "dead still" windmills I pass every time I drive I-580 to/from the SF Bay Area.

yeah, nuclear is providing 70% of our 'pollution free' energy until that one accident, and all of a sudden it's providing 10,000% of an unimaginable sort of pollution.... not worth it. side note – absolutely hysterical that GOP is apparently drooling over France and nuclear power. if they were to get 100 new nuclear power plants, would french fries be french fries again?

I am in favor of nuclear energy, if and when we can figure out what to do with the waste. Currently, it has to be stored, safely, for hundreds of years, and we don't have a place where we can do that.

The GOP might suggest burying it is some poorer country that needs money, that is not a solution.

Find a solution, then use the energy.

The republican Senator from very RED Tennessee is now pushing a nuclear agenda that John McCain discussed during the campaign. Maybe the French have figured out how to handle the waste from nuclear plants, SAFELY!!! If not, that is the dilema. Good source of energy, but what do you do with the waste. President Obama was NEVER against nuclear energy, he was against solving one problem while creating another. Lets get it right and use American made energy as the Senator suggest but he needs to tell ALL of the story, not just what makes for a political story.

Funny how the republicans hated France – everything French including French Fries, remember that – but I guess, as with
everything they do, the republicans will side with anyone in
order to feel they have any revelence. Well, to so many of
us Americans – they don't!

I thought the French were the Republicans' "bete noir" (so to speak). Freedom fries, anyone?

For once I must agree we need to rely on nuclear power more than we do. However, it will require that they get their act together with regards to safe storage of spent fuel rods.

Nowhere does he mention the problems of properly disposing of nuclear waste, which includes uranium mine tailings, not just spent fuel. I guess we just pass that one on to our children. Just like denying global climate change, the Republicans are trying to sell the American people another pig in a poke.

How come the Republicans all of a sudden care about global climate change?

The cap on CO2 is not a tax. It is a fee to pay to clean up global-warming pollution created by releasing CO2. Republicans can't seem to understand what we all learned in kindergarten – CLEAN UP YOUR MESS.

who cares about what you guys think.The era of greed and lining wealthy pockets are over. It is the economy, stupid!

So now when it's convenient, after dissing France for about 9 years, the GOP wants to emulate France when it comes to nuclear power.

How many different ways do the GOP spell hypocrite?

I thought GOP lists France as a socialist country? Nuclear began as an expensive technology.... and the cost began to lower over the years. Technology will improve over the years, if we bother to invest in them. Nuclear power generates a lot of nuclear wastes... something that this guy didn't know...

This is not a partisan issue. New technologies such as "pebble bed" reactors need to be explored. There is a caveat though, that the Ukraine is the major supplier of nuclear materials in the world. So instead of the Saudi's, we will bow before Yulia Tymoshenko.

Nuclear indeed deserves a serious look, democrat or republican.

What is it with Republicans and their tendency to chose the most obviously bad things to adopt? First it was drilling for oil...unsustainable, then ethanol crops...unsustainable, now again the Nuclear Power again unsustainable. When hydro, solar, wind, geothermal, algae has such a long way until they are exhausted. Why don't they make new jobs with these ideas until every avenue is exhausted AND THEN talk about the less than desirable choices like Oil and Nuclear...Oh wait, I totally forgot...they want profits and they want it now and in obscene amounts.

Great idea. More power to nuclear power.
Not only is it clean, but safer. (1000;s die each year due to coal pollution and accidents.)

The tax issue is different. The lower French deficit is based upon much high tax rates. One of our problems today is not enough tax revenue to cover all the responsibilities the federal and state governments have assumed. We could solve the deficit problem with a carbon use tax. We should pay for the waste that we dump into the air!

Sounds great except there is still the unresolved problem of what to do with nuclear waste.

This is a politically "toxic" problem as no politician is supporting burying it in their voter’s back yard. For example Yucca mountain….

The GOP needs to get real and come up with real solutions. Just being the oppossition party is not working for them.

Great idea Lamar! Let's bury all of the waste in TN!

Did we just go through a blackhole and emerge in an upside down world? The GOP is advocating that we follow French example instead of their usual pitch of namecalling them as surrender monkeys? Whom they considered to be a bigger enemy than Saddam Hussein? evil? The GOP that thinks ONLY Americans know what's best? The GOP who thought (at least during the Bush years) that America is already perfect and we should love it or leave it? They are now admitting that perhaps some ideas were better figured out by... France?

nuclear energy= very clean
nuclear waste = very very nasty

Figuire out a way to send the waste to burn up at the sun and you have my vote.

If you have ever wondered why most of the right wing talking heads are now female it is because the largest group of GOP politicos are the most uninpressive sissified, looking group of SUPPOSED LEADERS this country has seen in my 79 years.would any soldier ,sailor or any military man want to be backed up by BOEHNER, CANTOR OR MConnell. The toughest looking GOP is Kay bailey Hutchinson. Your wimpt butts will be handed to you the next8 yrs unless you get someone in your paerty that represents strengh and integrity.

I'm laughing my head off. The GOP is the one who wants to follow the French example? They call it socialist when Obama invests your taxpayer money into renewable energy, but they don't consider it socialist if we follow the French example of building nuclear power plants (which are considerably more expensive to build) on your taxpayer money. Hypocrisy alert!

Great for the republicans but, if they are really serious, why don't they agree to take the high level nuclear waste in their states?

Regarding Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tennessee support for bringing on new nuclear power plants, I wish the GOP senator would stop being counter productive regarding the environment and our quest for clean energy.

Look,
is this the "socialist" country that you repugs are so afraid off?
Tell me more, idiots!

I got a good idea for the repubs who love nuke power...send all the waste to the states where repub governors turned down stimulous money. The feds will then pay them to store it there. Then they get to make some money and get that nuke waste they apparently love so much. It's a win-win for everybody!

Sacre Bleu! The GOP must really be hard up-they're now praising FRANCE!

CNN, as usual posting a Republican opinion rant as news without a corresponding rebuttal from the Democrats. CNN, as usual, doing that disgusting Right Wing cheerleading thing they unfortunately have become known for more and more. Bring back the Fairness Doctrine, if you're going to publish this Right Wing rant I want to hear what the Democrats have to say to defend themselves, and what they see as their policy. You know, I faintly remember when CNN was a trusted NEWS ORGANIZATION, but no more.

It's disgusting to me the way Alexander is denigrating France over and over. We could learn a great deal from many other nations without resorting to this kind of pandering and insults. I agree that we could be doing more with nuclear power, and I'm glad that the Republicans are finally offering some kind of solution, but leave it to the Right to make it a polarizing issue. Republicans are bad Americans.

I think the PRESIDENT Obama is doing great job less he trying that on than bush ever did ! that for sure!

A single nuclear plant costs anywhere between 2-6 billion dollars and 6-8 years to build. This is not throwing up a shack. This guy acts like building 100 of them is no big deal. There is also no clear way to dispose of the nuclear waste safely. 100 nuclear plants will create a lot of nuclear waste. The long term environmental consequences are problematic. If we lean all the way on nuclear power, as this congressman is suggesting, we will ultimately face many more environmental issues than if we start figuring out how to generate waste-free, renewable energy right now. We know that wind, water, and solar are safe and renewable. It's a better investment than nuclear.

Since we are referring to the GOP isn't it spelled and pronounced "nucular".

YES to more nuke plants!
And if it takes the rethuglicants to push it that's fine too.
One thing that's overlooked in this first decent rethuglicant suggestion: France standardizes on their plants – that's to say they are cookie cutter plants.
That makes them cheaper and easier to build and maintain and if there is a problem with one they can then fix the problem in ALL the plants at once making for even safter nuke generated power. However standardization on design and construction will be harder to get then agreement on doing more nukes 'cause the GE's, B7W's and Haliburtons of this country will have hissy fits...

Suddenly the Republicans want to emulate the French? They had better brand this new energy policy as "Freedom Fission" to get the Toby Keith fans* on board.

* (Shudder!)

I will trust the Dems on clear energy far more than the republics, but this guy is right on. Wind, solar, geothermal... all great, but investment in nuclear is super important and can provide clear energy on a mass scale. We just need to make sure the spent fuel is deposed up in an equally clean way.

Again the republicans get it wrong. where will we store all of this necular waste. just what is wrong with solar, wind, sea current. and thermal. we need less necular not more. and with another 100 plants, that is just more terrorist targets. the waste from all this is all ready causing problems with storage. as usual the repub's have no new ideas.

So we want to be like the French?

I don't care what technology you use, as long as a cap-and-trade system with teeth is introduced the market will figure out the proper price levels and technology to use. Government can provide some research money but that's about it. Once there is a price for polluting the whole country will mobilize to reduce consumption and create energy from cleaner sources. If nuclear is cost effective then fine, but we should not be providing massive subsidies to them just because they have a good lobby in Washington. If there was a cap on emissions clean energy like wind would not need subsidies.

Lamar Alexander is beholden to the nuclear energy lobby. The Democrats have a much better solution -50 new solar-thermal plants in California, Arizona, Utah, Nevada, Texas, Colorado, Florida and Georgia and 50 new windfarms in Montana, Wyoming, Texas, the Dakotas, Nebraska, Colorado, and Oklahoma-these have following advantages over uranium:(1)no nuclear waste, (2)three year build instead of 10+ years(3)no terrorist problem, (4)do not have to import Uranium from Africa, Australia, Canada etc or create open pit mines (USA only has 4 % of worlds uranium), (5) mineable uranium will be depleted in less than 100 years (oil &gas on 40-50 years) wheras solar and wind last forever(6) , nuclear plants are more expensive to build and operate than either solar or wind farms. Think solar and wind are in the future and cannot do the job?-there are more than 9 solar-dynamic 250 MW to 500 MW plants under construction in California, Florida and Arizona-these are close to size of potential nuclear plants-we are quadrupling true renewable energy every year, by the time we get nuclear plants approved and built, solar & wind plants will have met the demand -they are cheaper, safer, and less politically objectionable (Do you want a nuclear plant next door?)What they do not have,unlike nuclear, coal, gas and oil, is a large well-funded Washington lobby and they do not have Senators in their back pocket, but give them time....

Ah, will the Republicans NEVER learn? Europe has been cutting back on nuclear. Are we going to dump the nuclear waste in McCain's Arizona?

It was only a matter of time before the obstructionist Republicans started their whining again. Here we have it. We're so TIRED of hearing them whine and complain. Congress and Presidents have had the chance to change the way we consume energy since the 1970s. Here we have Republicans STILL in the same ole rut.

Great. Now figure out a way to safely dispose of the hazardous waste and I'm convinced.

Oh, wait... we've been trying to figure that one out for over 60 years.

Well, GOP, you've got the plan, let's see if you can follow through. Short term answers for elections aren't going to help us when it comes to nuclear energy (or, frankly, for any other short-term idea you've pitched for the past 35 years).

And, yet another member of the lunatic fringe heard from!

Makes sense to me! It's refreshing to hear a republican offer an actual plan. Nuclear power can be debated, but at least someone on the other side of the aisle is doing their job, and trying to LEAD rather tha OBSTRUCT.

Please explain to me why you need to give more "incentives' (aka tax breaks) to companies making record profits to get them to clean up their industry when all they ever do is raise prices to the brink of what people can afford and make lame excuses for why they are doing it. Nuclear energy may be a piece of the solution but more oil, gas and coal is not.

Well let's see my question to good old boy republican is this then why the hell didn't the republicans go there after all they were in power and could have done this. Oh well did they even try when they were in power no no no and why real simple people Cheney in his private meeting which he refuses to this day had secret meeting with the big corps. that made it clear real simple folks they would lose money. So my question is this get the answer from Cheney and you will know, oh I know Cheney will never give it up, in other words DUH get a clue people you were lied to by Cheney just like he and Bush lied about everything else.

..lol...

The party of convience. Now, they want to emulate France. Usually, NEONUTs bash France...

GOP has one position. If the Dems and the whitehouse are for it, we are against it! That's the only GOP position!

In reality though, both parties are wrong to fix this debate on our fixed energy needs. Mobile energy (energy/fuel for transportation) should be the focus right now.

We could build a 1000 nuke plants (right) or 10000 wind farms (left). However, if we don't address our mobile energy needs, nothing will change. We will still be damaging our environment and we would still be beholden to dictators and despots by having to import foreign oil.

They need to focus on that not fixed energy.

Now how come the republicans didn't do that while they were in charge for the last eight years? maybe it's not such a good idea.

oregon had a nuclear power plant up untilla couple years ago when it was dismantled. it was run by portland gen. elec. abount 20 miles from my home. there were some issues abount safety , and the cost of the elec. produced was not as cheap as everyone thought it was going to be. another smoke screen from the party of NO

I actually like the republicans offering an alternative plan. The country only benefits when we have several viable options to pick from and mix and match. I don't know if nuclear energy is feasible but at the very least their should be some expansion of its use to meet some of the shortfall.

go nuclear!

obviously, he did not read the President's budget.

Well Done. The DUMocrats have held up the expansion of nuclear power for years. I can't wait to hear what Idiot Pelosi and Obummer have to say abou this.

Let's see if Obummer can support a good idea.

Isn't is just too strange that all of republicandom acted as though our country had not a problem or care when George W. Bush was in power.

NOW, all of a sudden, they are just full of ideas and information on EVERYTHING and anything they think will steal President Obamas thunder.. Their so intent on making him a bad guy, they have lost the sense of part ownership of this country.

So I say to you Mr. Alexander, get off your republican ass and try to do a FEW good things for this country instead of sitting back yelling because the democrats (who's plates are pretty full) are busy trying to repair the economy.

I bet IF you would talk nice to President Obama, (instead of hollering about how he just isn't doing things the right way), he might even put YOU in charge of something, like cheap energy. maybe....

Then you republicans could own something good instead of all those BAD things you own like,(war,bad banks, debt of the country,etc.) So go for it...

Me likey!

Because of our money hungry press who will print anything to
sensationalize, for their own profit, any subject that will create a panic
response in their listeners or readers we have the following:

If the American public hears the words "nuke accident"
they start peeing in their pants. Giants, OIL AND GAS, are happy to
perpetuate this fobia.

A government, thinking only about re-election, would not dare tackle
the issue of more Nuke plants. Until our government commits to
requirements like, "having brains" or like "having a conscious" before
one becomes a representative "of the people and for the people" this
nation will stagger along with it's irrisponsible and unscrupulis
infividuals who have got us into this current mess.

Finally, someone talking about the only real solution to our country's energy problems...nuclear energy. It is the cleanest, safest, most reliable source we have, and there are ENDLESS possibilities. Anyone who says we shouldn't have more nukes has no idea what they're talking about and is ignorant to what nuclear energy is really all about. I'm not a fan of republicans, but this is great. Go Senator Alexander!

Coincidentally... Today's news report

"Le Havre, France — Since 02.00 hours this morning, 20 Greenpeace activists have occupied loading cranes at the French port of Le Havre to prevent 450 tonnes of radioactive uranium waste being loaded onto the Russian freighter the Kapitan Kuroptchev. The activists are occupying cranes on both the dock side and the ship. The waste comes from the Pierrelatte uranium enrichment plant in the Rhone valley and is scheduled to be transported to Russia.

Greenpeace has launched the protest to expose the thirty year old practice of illegally transporting and dumping nuclear wastes produced in Europe and shipped to Russia. A new report from Greenpeace, “Europe’s Radioactive Secret”, details the illegal nuclear waste trade between Europe’s nuclear industry and the Russian Federation"

Lamar Alexander needs to know France is embroiled in many nuclear waste dumping cases around the world.

Didn't John McCain run against nuclear power during the election? Whats up? GOP changing their platform again to try and swindle some confused moderates out of their votes.

Oh, now the GOP love the French.
Nuclear power is not a solution. We should not give terrorists MORE targets to attack. Besides that, there is no place to put the waste.
Building a nuclear power plant and not knowing where to store the waste is like buying a house and not knowing how you're going to pay for it after it the payment goes up.

As recently as last July enriched Uranium leak in a French reactor caused two rivers to be contaminated and the reactor to be closed. The risk of similar accidents coupled with the fact that cost of building such reactors is huge and in the long run it will again require importing radio active elements from foreign countries as dependance on such technology grows means we are in square one.

Those who want nuclear powerplants, don't want to live near them.

How much does it coast to build ONE nuclear plant? How big is France? How many do they have? How big is America? How many would we need? How long would it take to finance and build them?

I'm sorry... I don't trust nuclear power plants. I never will. It may be clean, but it's too risky. Meltdown is still possible. I just don't agree with it at all. Sorry, Republicans...you fail.

Are these the same guys who pushed up the military budget to over 530 billion? Want us to be policeman of the world? They tells us to spend money everywhere in the world but in our own country.

I have never understood the fear over nuclear when it is so obviously superior to our current fossil fuel dependency. I'm not saying it's perfect, but as a "stepping stone" technology until we get something better that's actually viable, it is a great alternative.

what a stupid idea! where are we going to put the waste from 100 nuclear plants? put all that waste in Tenn , maybe in his back yard!

I ain't no republican but all this makes some sense

good point

One day, not too far in the future the GOP will be once again proven ........ wrong.

They just......... don't.........get..........it.

We must be good steward's of God's gift and creation......... EARTH.

I wonder which big corporation is getting the contracts for these plants? That has to be the only reason the repubs are pushing for nuclear power. The party of no is now the party of yes...if you have enough money?

I do not agree with nuclear power as an alternative because of the disposal, for one thing, the safety issues for another and do think there are many, many more alternatives that are being and can be pursued that are better for all humanity in the long run.

France has nuclear power because thier socialist government paid for it – is our government now going to subsidize Nuclear even further? Current energy policy will pay for half of the construction of new plants, and yet private companies aren't building new plants.....hmmmm... why is that?? Because they aren't profitable!!

So the Republican party wants us to force an unsustainable (where will we get the Uranium?? what will we do when it runs out too??), unprofitable, and (oh yeah) hazardous energy on private companies. Sounds like the free market too me!?! Now who's a socialist?

All nuclear plants are not the same. France's designs do not result in the amount of nuclear by-products that mar America's design. I'll stick with wind and solar for two reasons; one, we can create more jobs for American workers and two, our electricity grid is far different from France's. The national grid that will be built for the U.S. will enable the average homeowner to sell excess electricity back to the grid, thus adding a little private enterprise incentive. I like that.

So, now the party that villified France for not helping invade Iraq by allowing American planes to fly over its air space (remember "freedom fries") now want the US to emulate them? My how times have changed.

I don't like it when people look at things like this guy is doing. Nuclear uses so much water and it is such a dangerous thing to have around, both due to meltdowns and terrorist attacks. Why should we build these monstrous plants that cost so much to build? Also, these plants have to be constantly kept up due to the fact that a meltdown could cause serious problems for the workers, the surrounding towns and the environment. I know we haven't had one in a long time, but that doesn't mean they don't happen. Anyways, my instincts tell me that we should harness what nature gives us. That is the most economical way to get cheap energy. I mean, any city or town along the coast could use tides year round, any place that is windy could harness winds and any place could use solar. I mean, it seems like with all the smart minds in this country, we should be able to figure a way that even people along rivers and standing bodies of water could use the water somehow for energy. If we would just spend the money to develop the technology and then own it we would be cruising. Honestly, I don't think people are even trying to do the right thing. Nuclear is not good. Only innovation will free us, I think.

I know about the fact that it SEEMS a good source of energy but the spent fuel, even though used up for energy (except for possibly making bombs), will be safe to hold in only 100,00 years. (Is that what is meant by WMD?) Turbines & solar power still seems a safer and better solution. The French also had the Mageno (spelling) line.

just shut it already! about 99.9% of Republicans really think the earth was made in 7days and oil renews about every 100 years.

You guys had your time in power you effed it up now just go away already!

I find it ironic that Lamar Alexander, who has voted against American industry every time he gets a chance to outsource something, would invoke the term of "American-made nuclear power". I guess he hasn't figured out how to outsource that yet. The only bright spot when talking about Lamar Alexander is, he is the second worst senator from Tennessee next to Bob Corker.

Nuclear energy is the best answer-of course-of course-of course.

But–The American public is so paranoid about nuke accidents that all

It's hilarious that the GOP uses the French as a scapegoat for every policy that they don't like, but they have no shame in using them for policies they do like.

GOP can still give perceived comfort to these poor, cheated, low educated, highly religious folks who make some 30% of our population – but this comfort comes with a price tag: Trust GOP and you will feed crooks. With better education GOP base will gradually reduce to 1% that it deserves.

Great idea. The only problem is we really do need to find a good place to store spent fuel.

Sounds like the repos worrie more about France and getting their dig's in at the democrats than the American public. I guess this is the next item to complane about since no one is listening to them any way. I believe we are looking at nuclear energy and have not ruled it out. Lets see how popular it is if a plant wants to build in some repos district. How about one in Utah where Romney lives???? Or in Lamars district?

I'm sorry.
Did I fall asleep for a hundred years or something?
How is it possible that a Republican is seriously asking the American people to look to the French for solutions to global warming, energy independance, and environmental cleanliness?

Obviously, we must make enormous changes.
But, the Republicans are really out of their minds if they think they'll be able to convince the American voters that they are the party who will effectively make those changes.
It's like they think we've all forgotten what they've been about for all these years! They're wishing collective amnesia for all of us!

Build the nuke plants. Drill offshore and Alaska. Tell the Saudis to pound sand.

We are building windmills because GE has the contract. The same GE who owns NBC, better known as the official mouthpiece for the Obama administration. In addition, all this green crap is just that, crap. Those new lightbulbs we have to install? Drop one and it is a bio hazard. In addition they are made by GE. Guess where? in China!!!!

By building nuke plants and drilling we will create millions of jobs and new economies. We can get back to the business of manufacturing, where unions can once again flourish.

A Republican with a progressive idea. Someone call Ripley!!

Not saying that Nuclear isn't cheap, but it ain't cheap to store, or build. On top of that, we're discouraging other nations from building their own nuclear plants. And lastly, I find using "American" wind or "American" solar more appealing than building more nuclear plants using "American" uranium coming from even more "American" mines.

The problem with the republicans is that they lack a plan, they lack common sense, they lack rational thoughts and they lack the ability to understand the needs of our country. At present, the republicans are the "NO" party. They prefer to act as antagonists and negative thinkers. The republican platform is to cling to guns and religion, ignore science and act as idiots.
The dems and Obama have a plan for the future. The republicans have nothing to offer. Obviously, they are acting as angry losers. And, that is exactly what republicans are.

So where do you put the radioactive waste?

Cool – they agree with one of Obama's ling standing positions!

Of course if Obama proposes it they will have to say no because that's what they do – even when it is a c complete reversal of a position they previously had.

So what do we do with the waste ? Bury it and let the next generation deal with it. Isn't that what you said about the budget from Obama. Well GOP if the waste does leak the monies used to clean up a nuke disaster will cost more then his budget.

What Alexander fails to tell you is that the nuclear option in France was only achieved at the cost of personal liberty. There were huge demonstrations against nuclear power at the time and the then socialist/communist government overruled all opposition.

The US would experience turmoil orders of magnitude greater if the same thing was attempted here – quite apart from the fact that it takes between 10 and 25 years to bring a single new nuclear power plant on-stream, by which time it would be too late to be of any use to anyone.

Isn't it ironic that the GOP are practising selective amnesia. They have been all over the news accusing Obama of socialising the economy following the example of Europe, now all of a sudden France's policies are the greatest in the world because of an issue this party seems to identify with. Its a shame.

Show us where there is true recycled nuclear energy technology? Tell how long waste is held in tanks or other storage places? How much danger is this material to this countries security? As far as I know France gets rid of most of its waste to other countries.
The Republicans have denied global warming, pollution etc. They have been dragged kicking and screaming.
Newt Gingrich is still in denial. if it was up to conservatives we would be using feather tips to write with. They believe in themselves and to hell with everyone else.
Liberals realize it takes all of us together to make this a better world.

I can't believe democrats like lamar alexander are trying to force us to be a socialist nation like france. france is cowards so they shouldn't be emulated. in the usa we burn coal, get used to it.

And bury the waste in TN, Lamar... that's not exactly "clean" energy

They should go ahead and vote for his energy plan. He has included all forms of independent energy. There is no one solution, it will have to be a combination. Since they don't like him shaking hands with Chavez., perhaps they should get behind energy independence so we don't have to deal with him or the Saudis.

After watching Wolf B's interview with Robert Gibbs regarding Pres. Obama's first 100 days, I am now making a pledge that I won't be watching CNN for the next 100 days. I don't watch Fox news because I remember their behaviour after 9/11. Everyone was a terrorist, therefore anyone who supports the divisive agenda of the republican party, I don't have time for. As a Canadian, one will wonder, why is America's politics any of my business, but we share so much in common, that we are affected by your decisions (Napolitano's crazy comment about terrorists coming for Canada) good or bad.
Therefore if I wish to listen to the talking points of Rush Limbaugh, I tune my radio to stations which air his awful diatribe, yet since BO's election, CNN has become the avenue for every right wing talking head. Every commentator seem to be republican. Sad. I guess the moderator will censor my post, but so be it. My voice will have been heard by even the moderator, and my absence by Neilsen.

I understand the Chernobyl scare but that was decades ago....if France can do it effectively and safely, surely we can do it!

It may be challenging at first, but the point is to have diversity in energy sources and to not completely depend on oil from people who do not particularly care for us

americans don't know how to build nukes.

the french do:

all their plants have the same design.

they don't build them on fault lines

Sure. Republicans have all the answers on energy policy. Just look how well Dick Cheney's secret energy task force did! RePIGlicans also deny global warming, sign off on torture, start wars on false pretenses, vote like a bunch of lock-step Nazis and then act like they're the only true Americans.

But we should trust 'em on energy.

With the Republican inclination for deregulation of business in order to maximize profits, nuclear power is probably not the best solution.

Also wondering, is Alexander offering a Tennessee site to store spent fuel?

No?

I thought not.

If you want more clean fuel for electricity or to just burn, get coal gasification, its proven (1984) Woodriver, Illinois power co.A-C did it.
Let's face it The Democrats don't want to get more power they would rather get their Al Gore Cap & Trade excise Tax through. A wisconsin power co. is quoting 16.00 per month excise tax with cap n trade.Global warming is at most a farce, plants need all the Co2 that we can produce. We can grow more food with higher Co2 in the attmosphere.
Most credible sceinentist will tell you that we are in a global warming period right now and will continue for a number of years.

i just think republicans have no credibility. 8 years in office 8 years to put their policy in place 8 years to raise the minimum wages, no raise, 8 years to lower taxes. taxes not lowered, 8 years to help small business by lowering the capital gains tax which was suppose to help small business hire more people. it did not work. now since president obama in office. the republican care so much about higher tax, jobs, health care ect. you people make me sick. this tea party crab where was the tea party 4 years ago (no credibility) if you republican is so worry about higher taxes just remember president bush took us into iraq and afganistan and both of these wars cause billions and billions of dollar. the republican have no problem speending tax dollars on wars but oh god forbid they spend any tax dollars on the american people. do me a favor anyone take a survey of all the people who attended these so call tea party and tell me how many were republicans, how many were white people and how many makes over $150,000 a year. i think some of you people just want to complain about somethng. whats puzzling me is why now, what so different than 5 or 6 years ago. where were all of this out rage 4 years ago. just be honest with your self. these tea party are just left over anger from mccain supporters who feel they have nothing left to do but complain not help but complain. oh and one more think. all of you mist a day of work to protest but you care about jobs yea right

While I don't have a problem with more nuclear power plants, we have to think this through very carefully. First, what about waste disposal? Second, let's not be stupid and put nuclear plants in either Tornado Alley (unless they are underground) or on top of an earthquake fault, such as those that exist on the West Coast.

Wow I had no idea how much the GOP was in awe of France!!! The party of no wants 100 more nuclear power plants. How many nuclear power plants are in Tennessee anyway? Lets build several in your state and see what happens first. Then you can sell power to Kentucky and West Virginia and eliminate your state debt. Lead the way Senator. Isn't France, the country you are so enamored of a Socialist state?

lets see nothing the gop says has any traction so this is the flavor of the week. as soon as boehner gets out of the spray tan bed he will let the gop what is on the menu for next week. cantor will then attend another briyttany spears concert and proclaim the gop is relevant again. wow you right wingers are in for along haul with the nim rods who are your leaders. gop i have to admit it thanks for the laughs!!

it takes years to build one of these plants and would be an easy target for terrorists to attack. the cost is enormous as well. we have to many other opportunities that would be much cheaper.

It wouldn't make any difference if electricity was .001 cents a killowatt, the people who run it would find a way to rob the people! My light bill is 350.00 dollars a month, and thats for running my household. I'm on social Security and I only get 1200. a month. People in America are totally convinced that utility companies and the government are out to destroy the people. Problem is, nothing the people can do about it. With the amount of senior citizens still around, How do you think we can afford utility bills ths high. By the time I pay 700.00 a monthe for all my utilities, put gas in my car, it usually leaves me with about 200.00 a month for food. How many politicians could live on 1200.00 a month?

President Obama needs to put energy at the top of his list of things that need to get done. Our economy and way of life depends on people that are not our friends–that's a scary thought.

Hear hear GOP. Finally you have made a statement that has some common sense behind it. The answer is wind, solar AND nuclear. It's also time for Harry Reid to bite the bullet for the good of the nation and quit obstructing Yucca Mountain–which will be a key component to increasing nuclear power.

I'm ok with more nuclear plants, and I'm a Democrat. It sounds like a useful way to improve the infrastructure of the US.

Another Republican Joke ,...

Nuclear power would be a no-brainer...except for all that inconvenient toxic waste. I will be an passionate supporter of nuclear power just as soon as there is a federal nuclear waste repository to store the waste in. I didn't hear any mention of that in this latest Republican attempt at relevance.

After decades of screaming Not-in-My-Backyard, over Yucca, it looks as if if Nevada might actually have a point; Yucca Mountain is a little too close to the water-table. Despite this, there will almost certainly be no new search for a alternate site because no senator, including the Republican ones, want to risk have it end up in their backyard. This congressional cowardice in my opinion completely invalidates nuclear power as an American energy source.

And maybe this is the partisan in me, but I can't help thinking that this latest push to go nuclear is at least partially motivated by the opportunity to accuse Harry Reid of putting his states' interest before country. He is, but no more so than the rest.

Nuclear power is safe, cheap, readily available and carbon free. I'm not a Republican but they've got this exactly right. If you want to end human-caused contributions to global warming the answer is nuclear. If the US switches to plug-in hybrids recharged by carbon free nuclear power we can essentially be free of reliance on foreign oil. By the way 5 hours out of every 24 hours is already brought to you by nuclear power. 100% nuclear is the answer.

We can not even regulate our financial institutions with any reasonable amount of effectiveness, how do we propose to insure that the public isn't placed at risk by unscrupulous business people who care more for their profits than the people they serve?

Until, we as a country, can get it through our collective skulls that regulations and government actually have a purpose then this suggestion is simply a major disaster in the making.

i suppose sen. alexander is going to allow all of the spent nuclear fuel rods to be stored in tenn.?

i thought not.

nukes are not the answer.

Yeah, and the French are shipping all that waste to Russia. Should we send ours to Tennessee? I'm sure your constituents won't mind the dangerous rail shipments, the huge holes in the ground, or the centuries of radioactive waste in THEIR community.
If we use less, we don't need to "find more." Republicans want to drill and mine their way out of the energy crisis, but never want to help find ways to conserve! We see right through you, Senator.

...Whoa. An actual IDEA coming out of a Republican? I'm waiting for the catch. Do we have to torture French people to do this? Or start a war? Or give money to rich people? I'm confused.

Alexander, are you trying to follow those crazy, socialist French?

There are flaws with nuclear energy, but I believe its a step closer from getting off fossil fuels.

thats a great thought. but remember the enviromentalist. they will do every thing in their power to stop it and then go around the corner and complain about global warming. so i say just stop all the talking a build the plants starting tomorrow. you want jobs in america? well this should create several thousand jobs. so again stop talking and get going.

Wind and solar are 100% safe. Before we jump to adding new nuclear plants, we need to consider the problems and environmental costs that are inherent with nuclear power. Nuclear waste storage is a huge concern, and the ever present risk of a failure that leads to a melt down is a also a huge concern. We must not forget Three-Mile Island and Chernobyl.

seriously, somewhat of a good argument if it ws focused on the building of nuclear power plants and the benefits of building those plants. nonetheless, this speech brings up the question as to why germany will not build a plant in their backyard if nuclear power is a critical component to their energy policy. Additionally, what is the length of time it would take to construct these plants. Of course it would create jobs but the energy it would produce would only come 10 years from now. Finally, if the point of his speech was to show a hole in the current energy policy of this administration then his speech has a couple of holes as well because it failed to mention the necessity of more fuel efficient vehicles utilizing alternative and renewable fuels or was that intentional?

“We proposed a new Manhattan Project – like the one in World War II – to find ways to make solar power cost-competitive and to improve advanced biofuels. But today, renewable electricity from the sun, the wind and the earth provides only about one and one-half percent of America’s electricity. Double it or triple it, and we still don’t have very much."

And, like they have for the last 40 years starting with Nixon's tax cuts to benefit the rich, they want our children and grandchildren to pay for it.

Nuclear energy is a good idea, but it is a good idea for the same reason that wind, solar, etc. is a good idea (energy independence / low GHG emissions). It is a bad idea because of the inherent risk of a meltdown involved, and the fact that when you add in the cost of secured storage for the waste for literally hundreds of years, it may not be the most economical choice.

It should be an option on the table, but it is not an argument against other instruments aimed at reducing GHG emissions.

Finally, just a thought: Do you ever feel like the Republicans need things be at least a little bit evil to get behind them?

Are they FRIGGIN CRAZY? "Embrace nuclear power?!" What a bunch of backwards hillbillies! The GOP's really DUMB. Oh, wait, I shouldn't speak badly of the infirmed and sick, after all, THEY are the mutant result of exposure to radiation.

It's NO WONDER they're going the way of the Do Do Bird!

Idiots.

Really.

Michael.

Wow, France. When Bush and Cheney were bullying the rest of the world into giving them permission to attack Iraq in 2003, and Chirac, then president of France, resisted, the GOP declared France to be the country of the bad.

French fries were renamed into Freedom Fries ("freedom" was the favorite name related to anything the Bush regime was exercising oppression of free opinion).

And now, the GOP discovers that not only with Iraq, the French were right, they are even right when it comes to how to have electricity and clean air at the same time. I agree. Nuclear (or would the GOP spell "nucular" ?) energy sure is cleaner than "clean coal" can ever be.

It's really funny that in the transcript, the GOP man is putting France into the position of a big competitor when it comes to doing things right and efficiently (low electric bills, clean energy, lower deficits, etc).
So if the French are doing so many things right, why paint them in dark colors ? The French are not the enemies of the US, but during the Bush regime, they strongly resisted the bullying and the distinct fascist smell of the Bush-Cheney propaganda and methods. The French should be commended on their strength of personality to stand up against people like Bush, while the GOP marched in lockstep with him.

I'm an Obama supporter and a lifelong Democrat but I completely agree with the GOP on this one. We absolutely need more nuclear power plants and we need to reprocess the spent fuel. It is the only REAL way to reduce our carbon footprint. I'm also pro-solar and pro-wind but the reality is that these technologies do not scale well enough to make a significant dent to our requirements. We need to build up all alternatives but we definitely need to build nuclear power plants.

It's about time for us to get over Three Mile Island, isn't it? If this is the only issue that the republicants can get together on, so be it. It's certainly the right climate to begin talking about energy creation in an adult manner, sans the histrionics of the treehuggers over the dangers of nuclear energy.

It appears that the Republicans now realize that, since the current French government is conservative, not "socialist," it's okay to say nice things about "socialist" France." As for the "socialist" Germans and their solar panels and windmills, don't tell anyone but their government is also currently conservative. And the "socialist" Obama administration actually includes nuclear energy in its energy mix for the future and "socialist" Obama has talked about "clean coal" at least since last year's election campaign. Those labels sure get confusing. Maybe we can learn more from our "socialist" allies in Europe. How about universal health care and a serious mass transit system for starters? We can't wait for next Saturday's weekly address.

France is the size of the state of Texas. It is small enough to use nuclear energy efficiently but it is not France's only sourced. France still uses foreign oil. Have forgotten TMI, Chernobyl and other mishapps. The Obama seeks energy sources that will keep us green and leave our future generations unharmed.

Doesn't the GOP spell that word N-U-C-U-L-A-R?

Rather than try and find common ground with Republicans and conservatives, Obama and the Democrats continue to exclude them from the process.

Today Obama said in his weekly national address that the deficits are not sustainable and threaten our future. But up to now, when Republicans pointed this out, he said they had no right to talk about deficits and to shut up, while offering no plan to deal with them himself. On April 15 I took part in the TEA PARTY protest to voice my alarm and anger over the out of control spending and unsustainable and dangerous deficits. The White House response was for Home Land Security to list my concerns as those that a right wing extremist domestic terrorist would have. And top White House staffer Axelrod called TEA PARTY protests as unhealthy. Is Obama now going to be watched by Home Land Security as a potential right wing extremist or just myself and my fellow TEA PARTY patriots? I will continue to protest and will not hold my breath waiting for any meanfull spending cuts to come from the likes of the liberal Obama or Congressional Democrats. Obama is the leader of the lowest bunch of thugs that Washington has ever seen.

What is the reluctance to use an energy source that is proven? Conserve, yes. Alternate fuels, yes. But until then, nuclear first, natural gas and then clean coal and oil. Makes sense. France has been doing is successfully for years as the article points out.

The main question about building nuclear powerplants, other than preventing another Chernobyl, is where will the nuclear waste be stored? As the residents near Yucca mountain would tell you, anywhere is fine but non would like the stuff placed near them.

Crawford Texas anyone?

This man is unamerican. Has he forgotten about the whiny, sniveling french who betrayed America by not going to war? What an elitist european socialist. If france has nuclear power, than we can't have it because everything France stands for is wrong. This makes me sick. I need to go eat some freedom fries.

Imaginary?

Isn't that the fantasy land that the Republicans live in day by day?

Sen. Alexander seems all too excited to talk about the budget deficits we're saddled with. Apparently he forgot that there was a 150 BILLION DOLLAR budget surplus that the Republicans inherited and subsequently destroyed. Congratulations, Senator Alexander.

This is the right move

So – the GOP goes French after all

Who cares what the GOP thinks, again...? i'm sorry. I suppose CNN has to pretend they do, but really. This is the party that accuses the President of the United States of being a socialist. They should be getting psychiatric help instead of making press releases.

As a Democrat maybe nuclear power is something to look into.I think we need to make sure it outways its risks.Just the words Nuclear Power Plants, strewn across America scares the hell out of me.Who knows maybe we can trade electricity to Mexico for there oil.

The republicans are as predictable as they are hypocritical. What ever happened to "drill baby drill" ? The republicans will be critical of democrates even when they have no position of their own to promote.

The Republicans actually have an idea that isn't a joke? There might be some life left in them after all.

Whenever I argue with my Republican next door neighbor, we always come to the same conclusion. In seeking to become energy independent and break our reliance on fossil fuels, everything else has to be on the table.

Interesting that France is the good guy here. France's Renault is reportedly going to be building 100,000 electric cars a year for Israel, which I understand from an interview with Shai Agassi on NPR last night will be going "all electric" at a fraction of what it now costs them to import oil. And they'll be powering their grid with solar energy.

Agassi also talked about hydroelectric power, not only through dams, but also through wave energy in the sea.

What's needed is a coordinated effort, like the one that Israel did under Shimon Peres. Probably only Obama has the creds and the balls to bring it all together as fairly, quickly and effectively as possible.

Let's hope so.

So the

N
GOP

"The Party of NO new ideas"

want more nuclear...hmmmm...if we can not protect our borders and we have even more nuclear plants....that just increases our chances of a major disaster/attack. France is the size of...what...Texas....We are a much bigger country.

So why is the GOP so protective of OIL, COAL and NUCLEAR.....maybe because they get most of their Campaign money from those groups!

So we are on the frontier of real change and this is all the GOP comes up with? 100 more nuclear plants? There is nothing stable about nuclear power. I encourage anyone to look at the problems we already have with disposing of nuclear waste, there are many disposal sites around the country that aren't secured, are leaking radioactive material or both. Do we even have to talk about Yucca Mountain? Who knows if that project will even work. We are at a point where we could embrace renewable, sustainable energy, like wind, solar, geothermal, wave, etc. or keep thinking in unsustainable terms like the GOP. I mean first the right hates everything France stands for, but then they completely embrace their energy policy. I'm sure their are countless other arguments that can be made against this. If we had to make a choice between coal and nuclear then nuclear would be a feasible argument, but we have a chance to make a real investment into renewable and sustainable energy production. And cheap electricity is not the answer we should be looking for, cheap electricity only encourages waste, which is at the forefront of the entire problem. We use too much electricity! If we start a program of aggressive conservation and a push into sustainable energy production we can solve the problem.

At least we have a Republican acknowledging conservation may be a good public policy goal. But I have to question "polution free" is the right label for a system whose byproducts must be kept away from humans for hundreds of thousands of years. I think there should probably be some more licenses granted but I'd prefer a JFK type goal around thermal or wind energy rather than nuclear. Also I have to confess when I hear a politicial talking like this my first reaction is to check his campaign contributions...wondering if nuclear is the butter to his bread.

I guess he needs to read Obama's budget plan that way he would have known Obama is including nuclear energy in it.

Gee it's about time they put forward something - might even help for a change. Sure shows the Republicans are running scared - who knows they might even help this country after 8 years of running it down.

Senator, we already have nuclear weapons. I think that's enough. We don't need the threat of nuclear accidents by errors and/or terrorism "magnets" from nuclear power plants, so terrorists could become "one" with "Allah" in our own backyard. My point is that the Republican party has traditonally manipulated the energy industry for uneccessary war to profit, and the bankruptcy of our people and federal government. Based on the ultimate goal of bankrupting our Federal government; so as to implement the complete privitization of America....what the hell makes you think America trusts the Republican energy commission opinion???

Why do something that makes sense?

OK. Only one problem: please tell us what will be done with the spent fuel rods? Got room in your state near where your home is, Lamar?

Once again, Republican and Democrats miss the point. Democrats opt for smart grid technology with large solar farms and wind farms producing power and distributed to your houses. Net effect, your energy bill goes up and you have less to spend for health care and college.

Republicans want nuclear energy. Just as Constellation Energy provides more than half of their energy through nuclear power. Yet their prices are based upon fossil fuel rates. Net effect, they have one of the highest energy costs in the country. And republicans want to spend hundreds of billions more.

The truth, in two years we can expect the cost of a 7 kilowatt solar panel system installed on a housetop to be around $14,000. It will pay for itself in 5 years. In fact, in new construction it may be more cost effective to create your own power system then pay to connect to the grid. Net effect: the money spent for new power systems are for your own personal benefit and go directly to your bottom line as a home owner. You have more to spend for college and more to spend on health care.

However, in this scenario the utility companies would be the ultimate loosers and neither democrats nor republicans are willing to stand up to them. So, good luck America. Neither party has your best interest in mind. Note the small print. Politicians want an "Energy Independent America" , not an "Energy Independent American Household".

The difference is who you pay for your energy. Do you make the investment in your own home and work for your own independence from not simply foriegn oil but power in general. Or do you simply pay a higher bill and take some sort of esotheric pleasure that "the country" is somehow better off, even while you have less and pay more.

The question will be where will all the nuclear waste go? Also the high number of town won't have a Plant in their town.

The Republicans can't just put forth their ideas in a mature and respectful way, they feel they need to resort to the school yard bully tactics making condecending, demeaning, and nasty little comments. What a bunch of punks. I guess like all bullies they are just weak and afraid.
Yea, we need them in control again. NO we need to vote them back to their caves and fire sticks. Nuclear energy is too dangerous for those little boys to handle.

Asking Republican politicians to look ahead is a misguided endeavor. Nothing a Republican says merits any more time.

I guess that the Senator would not mind if his state was used for storing the waste. Since N. power is so great this should not be a problem.

Always a day late and a dollar short. This country should have already been on solar and windmill power by now, with safe nuclear power. Many out of work manufactory workers could already be employed making solar panels, so all Americans could afford lower engery bills. News flash we are twenty years behind the rest of the world.

But I thought that if the Europeans did it, then it was off limits because we're American.

Is this the same party that gave us 'freedom fries"? Now it's follow the French? Let me go put my flip flops on..

I doubt that the Democrats have the necessary knowledge to realize that nuclear power can be safe and reduce most of our energy problems. They are still back in the dark ages, despite having forty or more years of military nuclear reactors operating safely. In addition, since it isn't their idea, there is no way they could embrace. That would mean that someone else has better ideas than their own.

Here is a switch. A republican actually making a suggestion. However, as we all know,[ as does this Republican ], the President had it in his budget already... I guess the Republicans are not only the party of NO, they are also , `[ a minute late and a dollar short].

This makes too much sense to be an American plan. Do what you say, figure how to make illegal drugs not profitable for everyone but us, and spend enough on health care to actually cover most or all of the people without breaking the health care providers, and you can have the country back. Obama inherited a mess, and the fact is he's making a bigger mess, but you still haven't, until now, offered a better set of solutions.

France subsidizes its nuclear power to obtain the low price. New nuclear power plants cost $8 to $10 billion per 1000 MW, and utilities must charge 30 to 40 cents per kwh for the power to pay those costs. Nuclear is not the way to go unless the Senator wants consumers to pay outrageously high power prices. Plus, nuclear power creates plutonium that can be used for nuclear bombs. Also, nuclear plants produce radioactive toxic wastes that must be buried for thousands of years. All of the above are sufficient reasons to NOT build nuclear power plants. - Roger E. Sowell, Esq.,

It's about that some one in congress is talking about investing in a power source that makes sense.

This is all fine and good, but some how not very realistic. Three Mile Island was 30 years ago. Nothing has been built since and several existing plants are at the end of their useful life and need to be shut down. If you signed the contracts today you are looking at probably 10 years to get a plant on line, maybe more. 100 plants would take decades to build. And you still can't point to a foolproof method to deal with waste products which will be dangerous for 1000's of years. It's one thing to complain about taxing our grand children, and quite another to foist radioactive poison on our descendants for the next 10,000 years.

If we had kept building after Three Mile Island, we probably wouldn't be in the energy mess we find ourselves in, but I think it ihas been too long, and too big a gap to make up within the energy crisis window we find ourselves looking at.

The republicans including this character Mr. Alexander have killed all their credibility as it pertains to helping the American people with the exception of their rich counter parts. It is my opinion that majority of the republicans want the president to fail. The fact that they seem to attack him at any given moment, lie about his policies or rather distort the truth and call him a socialist, marxist, communist and even laugh when their friends at Faux News compares the president to Hitler is so discusting that I can barely listen to anything they have to say. The so called modest Republicans should get a back bone and denounce all this hateful rhetoric spewed at the president. Unfortunately I believe most of the republicans would rather that the president fail than for the country to succeed. Whatch what they do and not what they say!

Gentlemen,
In light of energy crisis, enviroment, health, and economy issues caused by fossil fuels, we need to have a urgent plan to address this problem.
We ought to be independent from foreign oil, and act faster on clean and renewable energy programs.
Here are some facts: Transportation in the US consumes almost half
of energy needed in America . If we have a clean source of electricity
from nuclear power plants to provide power for transportation vehicles,
then almost half of gasolin problem will be solved.
We can not affort to continue to build more fossil fuels burning plants,
because it contribute massive amount of green house gas.
There are some small islands in the Pacific ocean area just disappear due to global warming.
Change we need: More nuclear power plants in US, along with renewable energy, and conservation will lead us out of oil dependency from Arab countries. A lot of problems ovethere.

I donot understand why the us is not seeking nucular power. It could surpass all the other alturnative powers we are looking at. jgeast

Where are you frigging idiots going to store the waste from all these nuclear power plants you want to build?
Can you store it at the home of the great save the planet guru(algore)?
Can you store it at the home of that freak living in the White House?
You people have all lost control of your faculties. you may succeed in destroying humanity but you don't have what it takes to fool mother nature.

Let me try again..........I suggest your lead line replace "goes" to "promotes" to avoid any appearance of dissing the Republican Party.

Well my fellow Republicans, if you all had showed the slightest interest in alternative energy and energy independence when Congress and the Presidency were under your leadership, you might have a speck of credibility. But alternative energy and energy independence were NEVER a priorities of the Republicans on a national level. Knocking solar and wind power, the technology of which has developed into economic viability in spite of your disinterest, is only going to make you look more foolish and useless. I'm just waiting for you all to retire so we can get some new, fresh conservatives in who understand how to put together a healthy, sound infrastructure for energy independence.

Lamar – Let us start with one of those nuclear plants next door to YOUR home ! !

Then we can talk about 99 more !

Oh, then there is the issue of siting the reprocessing plants you are so anxious to build. Perhaps across the street from your home ?
.

How ironic–Now the GOP wants to imitate France rather than making fun of France?

Sure, Senator, we'll just dump all the radioactive waste in your home state of Tennessee. I'm sure Graceland will appreciate having that warm glow at night.

but i thought you guys hate everything about the french??

GOP 2007: "Terrorists are everywhere so you should be in constant fear that they could somehow get nuclear material!!"

GOP 2009: "We want nuclear plants everywhere."

Blah, blah, blah.......this is sad. I remember the good old days before the party called a Republican Party did have good ideas. Then after Newt and the Contract with America came the hate and fear campaigns.

Let's save our planet please!

I thought necons and members of the Republican party held France in contempt (remember Freedom Fries?) and now they are holding up France, a ...gasp ... EUROPEAN COUNTY ... as an example for us to follow? LOL!

Absolutely correct, Lamar!

All nuclear plant are heavily subsidized and we can't get rid of the waste.
All nuclear power plants are built by the same big corporations who are part of the status-quot and are oligarchies.

Just look who is pushing it – the party of corporate interests over people.

It is high time to let others with better ideas lead the way!

As one who has studied nuclear engineering, I've a lot to gain by a big boom in nuclear energy. That said, I don't think its a good idea. The toxic waste it produces is too much of a hazard. It is not only radioactive, but highly toxic, and since they are heavy metals, their toxicity will not eventually go away like their radioactivity will.

The potential for nuclear accident is always there, the chances are small, but always present. The more nuclear energy we use the statistical likely hood of a catastrophic nuclear accident goes up. The Chernobyl disaster is a sobering reminder of an event humanity can never repeat.

Finally, last time I looked at it, which I admit was about ten years ago, the per kilowatt hour cost of nuclear energy was much higher than that of conventional power plants. Maybe technology has changed and made the industry more cost effective. But I suspect that France's nuclear industry, much like their aerospace industry, exists thanks to large government subsidies.

"The Messiah" already gave us his energy plan: air up your tires.

For once, I actually agree with a republican. Now, don't get me wrong, I think we should be investing in wind, solar, and other renewable energy sources. However, nuclear energy would serve as another path to energy independence. I support nuclear energy.

Republicans starting to sound a lot more like Democrats. Hrmmmm.
Who was the party that ran the country for the past 8 years then?

Oh...and those spent plutonium rods....we're gonna bury them in your State Mr. Alexander. How do you vote now?

There might be a solution to the above stated problems. This is a good time to revive the cancelled development program for the "Integral Fast Reactor". It is claimed to use uranium fuel more efficiently, can use existing nuclear waste as fuel and its waste products have a much, much shorter half life than conventional waste. Developed in the US of A.
Google it for more information.

BS Obama supports nuclear energy. One of his first acts was to shut down Yucca Mountain. This is where we are to store all reactor waste. But in a pay off to Harry Reid (D Sen from NV where Yucca Mtn is) Obama caves. Where do you think waste nuclear fuel rods are safer – 1) burried deep in the NV desert or 2) stored in cooling ponds next to reactors? A simple explosion could cause that mess to be a nice RDD. It's not the reactors that are a concern it's the waste and we have a way to deal with it. So like normal Democratic administrations Obama supports "research" just don't actually do anything!!!

Alexander is a time warp from the past. Between him and Rush Limbaugh, I can not tell which one is crazier. Alexander fails to tell CNN's listeners that eating fish from lakes in East Tennessee is considered dangerous due to the radiation exposure caused by the nuclear plants.

Sunds good, but qill the French come here and build safe ones for us? Or China, Taiwan, Korea, India?

NO !! NO !!!! This is NOT what we need, stupid Republicans. We need cheap, totally safe and very inexpensive (after initial investment) wind and solar energy. After the windmills and mirrors are up it's free forever. Nuclear is dangerous, dirty and leaves behind very toxic waste. Another thing, we in this country haven't been able to decide for over 20 years now where to put our nuclear waste, no state wants it so it's going to pile up in very unsafe locations and poison the land for hundreds of years. This is why the people have totally rejected the Republican party, they keep coming back to the same old tired ideas. The reason is they and their cronies in the business world won't make one tenth the money on green energy as they would building huge nuclear plants all over the country.

It is about time the GOP started putting forward real ideas to deal with global warming.

Senator Alexander, like most Republicans you choose to grand stand in the media. President Obama presented this idea prior to becoming the president of the Unitied States, but during the election you guys were sleep at the helm as you are now....

God Bless President Obama

GOP gets something right.

The Republicans do make some good points. However, what they do is entirely different than what they say. They say "Be financially frugal, not excessive spenders like the Democrats." But what do they do? Start an unneccesary open-ended multi-trillion dollar war in Iraq, and poor the tax dollars into wasteful military programs. They say "Stand up for traditional Christian values." But what do they do? Publicly advocate torture, hold prisoners without charges, legalize shooting tresspassers dead, etc etc. I would vote Republican if what they say was actually what they did.

Republimorons – let's take an idea already circulating through the congress and call it our own. See how great we are? Time for the republiweenies to go away. They should all move to Texas and secede.

Senator Alexander has a great idea but the way he proposes it, it sounds like he wants to socialize the energy industry because he implies that the government should built the 100 powerplants in 20 years he proposes. I thought Republicans were supporters of the free market but Alexander seems to be in favor of privatizing the profits and socializing the costs. Perhaps he will clarify his position.

Nuclear waste disposal is a deadly serious matter, given the fact that its' radioactive by-product remains deadly for ten 10.000 years...

...Nobody with ANY ounce of intelligence gives a hoot what unevolved, conservative, confederate Republican'ts suggest...

...Alexander is just another Newt ,who's just another Rush, who's just another Cheney...

...ALL Republican'ts (and their supporters) should be relegated to the dung heap of society...

...time for progressive, intelligent minds to fashion the solutions our society needs to keep the planet ALIVE...

...Republican'ts are only about profit, torture, death and destruction, like their lord and master...

...SATAN...

What does France do with the waste from their nuclear plants? I keep hearing that nuclear power will reduce people's electric bills, but who is going to pay the expense of building them? I thought part of the reason we haven't built any new plants for the past 30 years is because they are so expensive to build. What do we plan to do with the waste? I think we would be setting ourselves up for unintended consequences and we don't seem to handle those very well.

Republicans are always looking for ways to tap more profits for big corporations at the expense of working Americans. This is just another one of their con jobs. There are better alternatives to nukes and there are also better ways to structure production, housing, urban development, etc. that will mean a cleaner environment and stronger economy.

Perhaps the good Senator from Tennessee would also approve of storing high level nuclear waste in his state. The Oak Ridge Valley has lots of space and there are already thousands of workers and scientists knowledgeable in the Nuclear Industry, so it seems like a good spot for storing all our high level waste.

It will never happen, even though Obama wants thousands of electric cars on the road within a decade. The only way to get that much electricity (short of using fuel cells) is through nuclear. It's a proven power source, but it isn't "green" enough for the Dems. So instead of cheap reliable power without the carbon emissions that come from coal, we are going to get stuck with expensive intermittent power that comes from wind and solar. It is really a shame.

so why, Mr Alexander, is it up to the Democrats to push nuclear power? why is it the Republicans can't help put forth a bi-partisan legislation to get it going? It would seem to me that both parties have good ideas and everyone should contribute.

the big questions about nuclear are costs and time horizon to build. Past administrations, most of which have been republican, have not embraced nuclear power and thus we are well behind the curve on this. figures.

OK GOP – put up a bill and get some democrats to help and it would be a good thing. Or sit on your butts, do nothing, and then have something to complain about in four years. Don't worry – many of us will remember.

Republicans are idiots!!! WHY not use SUN and WIND first you bozos it's FREE!!!

This is WHY Republicans are irrelevant, the don't have a brain!!!

Please just GO AWAY. Americans want to move forwards, not backwards.

Fine. But the Nuclear Waste Storage Facility in Nevada must be on line before we can proceed. How you gonna crack that nut?

Nothing is FREE folks especially Nuclear power plants!
I would like the French to let the world know where they are dumping all of their Nuclear WASTE! We should be putting more resources into making Fusion possible.

Blah, blah, blah, blah. This is supposed to be the "United" States. But it doesn't seem like the republicans want it that way. Get your facts straight. Obama "is" for nuclear and other renewable energy.

Build a thousand.... imagine the jobs... imagine the low cost power...it will drive down all other fuel costs when American power is 100 percent nuclear.

What a jerk. Doesn't he Sen. Alexander know Obama is in favor of exploiting nuclear energy? As well as
other sources of energy?

Times sure change. Not too long ago, anything French was anathema to most Republicans. Now, all of a sudden, we are told we must look to France for ways to deal with the energy crises.

And what's this nonsense about a new Manhattan Project? Doesn't he realize that such an investment would cost even more billions than are already being spent by the current administration?

Or would that sort of governmental expenditure somehow or another not count. Good Lord, these Republicans spend the bulk of their time bemoaning government spending for this or that project, and then have the audacity to propose a project that would cost untold billions more.

Which means, I guess, that if the GOP proposes a government-funded project it’s just fine. If the Democrats propose a government-funded project, it’s somehow or another a waste of resources. Like (say) volcano monitoring , for example.

Like I say, Sen. Lamar Alexander is just another GOP jerk, pumping out rhetoric with no basis in reality. Sort of like that wonderful new GOP leader Bobby Jindal. You know, the one who views volcano monitoring as a waste of government resources.

Christ in a 39 Chevy! How clueless can these people be?

Little slow yet again republicans, we like nuclear as well as renewable energy, haven't you been paying attention at all? And again you're being hypocrits, you love to criticize France, but then use their ideas. Your so annoying go away and stop slowing things down!

Well, he's right that we need to turn to nuclear power a bit more than we are now.

But for the Republicans, the answer to the energy future MUST involve a lot of rich people making a lot of money.

The sun puts out more energy every day than we could use in 20 years - if only we could harness it. But unless the rich people can pad their pockets, the Republicans won't be interested.

I applaud Sen. Lamar Alexander stance on understanding the URGENCY of our country not relying on importing foreign energy, and the DIRE NEED for clean, renewable energy for our planet.

I suggest that we build the VERY FIRST nuclear energy plant in the town that Sen. Lamar Alexander lives in, as an honor to his brilliant understanding of the environment!

Does anyone believe that just because Obama's budget promotes nuclear energy that he will actually DO it? George Soros, Al Gore and the Sierra Club wouldn't want this. It's too good for Americans!

FINALLY......A REAL idea "radiating" from the bowels of the GOP.....Leave it to republicans to copy the French......Oh, the irony!!..........

I smell Newt Gingrich. This idea makes too much sense to come from the Limbaugh side of the party!

I say use all of them, just like President Obama said. Nuclear alone is not the answer. Incentives cost money. Mandates don't. If they are trying to save taxpayer dollars, they should be in favor of mandates.

Republicans always go for the easy answer. Do they even think hard and deep?

but its ok to let the french out do us on healthcare huh

Too bad the Republicans don't know how to read.
I'm an independent and I am really sick of their complaints. Do they not have a clue as to why they are out of power!

Lamar Alexander...the party of NO, the party of WAR, and now the party of TORTURE... Alexander and his Boss Limbaugh republicans need to go visit Oak Ridge, TN. The deer glow in the dark at night due to radiation leaks. People will not eat the fish around the nuclear plants in Tennessee due to it being unsafe. Alexander's time has past...His approval rating is less than 35% in Tennessee.

A small increase in nuclear energy may be an important consideration, but a decentralized system of wind, and solar also opens the oportunity for all american housholds to participate in producing the energy we need. Also, nuclear power still has many hazards that are extreamly dangerous. The focus should be in making every home and farm in America a small local producer of power

The senator does not explain how France disposes of nuclear waste. That would be my concern.

What are your House and Senate bill numbers?

All energy alternatives including nuclear should be considered, and that is what the Obama administration has proposed. But, where were all the nuclear power plant building permits during the Bush administration when the republicans controlled both the house and senate???????????

Finally, something from the republicans that actually makes sense.
After nearly destroying our economy, maybe they finally have come to their senses. Nuclear power makes sense and we should be using it to generate much more of our electricity. It is safe, clean, efficient and does not require the use of Arab oil. That sounds like a good thing to me.

It seems that CNN can't help swaping saliva with Barry O.

What the hell is he talking about?

That's all well and good, but . . . until we have developed a viable way to dispose of nuclear waste . . . I say it's not a viable option.

Yes! Finally! A Republican proposal that makes sense! I’m not sure that the Obama Administration is against all of the things that Sen. Alexander mentions, but proper disposal of nuclear waste is still problematic. He mentions that we need a “Manhattan-Project-style” development of solar panels, clean coal, and bio-fuels – very good. However, he fails to mention something even more obvious - How about a Manhattan Project for nuclear FUSION, as opposed to the fission reactors we use today? Nuclear fusion produces almost no waste!

It's amusing to see Republicans embracing nuclear. We'll see, though, if it is a real policy stance, and not just a chance to try and repeal taxes on carbon-producing forms of energy.

They seem to have forgotten that the Manhattan Project required quite a lot of taxpayer money to finance it, too - it was the most expensive single publicly-funded scientific effort ever at the time! $2 billion 1945 dollars, $100 billion or so in modern currency. You can't both cut taxes AND fund gigantic research programs. The money has to come from somewhere.

LOL...The GOP is late as always....

The Republican plan is sensible. Currently we use Coal to produce about 50% of our electricity. Its the dirtiest way to produce it and with the Cap and Tax plan working in Congress this would hammer the consumer with huge increases in costs due to the emisions spewed when its burned. The Utilities can't just absorb those costs as many think so it will be the consumer who bears the cost ultimately.

Secondly if we think that electric cars are the answer, they are clean to run but they have to be refueled with electrricty, again 50% of it from coal. The answer has to include much larger Nuc Power production and more domestic Nat Gas and Oil production. This would help us keep costs down and isulate ourselves from international production cuts and price increases while we move forward to viable alternative and renewable energy sorces.

Obama is still parroting earlier Dems on nuclear. It's never 'Let's build the latest generation of nuclear reactors that have been available for years,' or 'let's streamline the ridiculous amount of red tape one has to go through to build a nuclear plant', it's 'let's find a way to make nuclear enegry safer'. The new plant designs ARE safe. The old first- and second-generation plants had plenty of issues, but we're up to what, fifth? sixth? generation nuclear reactors now. Waste storage wouldn't be a problem if we opened up to nuclear fuel reprocessing, which is well-understood by nuclear engineers and is carried out in other countries with ease.

The main reason nuke plants can't take off right now is because they must go through YEARS of red tape and procedural hurdles set up by the government, while already leasing or owning the land to build on, resulting in hundreds of millions of dollars spent before construction can even begin. As if that isn't enough, they must have on-premises storage for the waste since a federal waste depository (or, say, reprocessing?) that was supposed to be available in the 80s still isn't, resulting in even more expenditures and fines and leaking waste.

Harry Reid has promised he'll see any attempts at permanent nuclear storage sunk and I don't see any politicians budging on that or reprocessing. If these hurdles were removed or at least streamlined, maybe then efficient, carbon-free and on-demand nuclear power can eventually become a reality.

Sure – Just as long as the plant isn't too close to Lamar Alexander's house.

You're right, Mr. Alexander. We have a lot to learn from the French, and not only about nuclear energy. They have single-payer health insurance, a 35-hour work week, meaningful support for new parents, excellent quality daycare and college educations at very little cost to their citizens, pensions, and many other social safety nets, resulting in a wonderful quality of life, yet their budget deficits are still lower than ours! In the U.S., millions of our citizens have no health insurance (or policies that will still leave them bankrupt if they get sick), no pensions, lousy and expensive daycare options, and UNPAID parental leave policies, Plus, our children graduate from college with so much debt it's equal to a mortgage, and their parents are exploited by their employers - expected to work 50-80 hours a week while being paid for 40. So I totally agree with you: the U.S. should emulate the French and the rest of our European cousins.

My first question to any Republican who cares to answer in a civilized manner is this:
Why is it okay want the same nuclear power program France has but to even think of having a health care plan similar to France is considered some sort of Anti American socialist ploy to ruin the US?

If France's nuclear program is acceptable then lets adopt their health care plan too. They seem to have figured out how to do it and do it far better than we have.

See ya later, Lamar Alexander. You'll lose on this, just like you and the GOP will on all your initiatives. Why? Because the public is fed up with your stonewalling and your hidden agendas that always benefit the wealthy at the expense of the middle class.

Nuclear technology has a lot of issues not addressed in this article. For instance, what do we do with all that spent nuclear fuel which will remain radioactive for up to 100,000 years. What about the cost of dismantling an old plant, and the cost guarding active and decommissioned ones?

The world has now greatly changed since 9/11. Nuclear plants and all it's contaminated pieces of equipment have to be closely guarded and inventoried. Even a decommissioned plant is a goldmine for terrorist organisations.

wait a minute...wait a minute.... republicans actually wanting to copy france??? what?!

FINALLY..... the US is starting to wake up and realize that nuclear power is a great stop gap for energy needs while we continue to invest in alternate energy resources for additional viability. Cars are going to eventually be powered with electricity (wether straight up rechargable battery power, or through the use of hydrogen fuel cells. In either case massive amounts of electricity are needed to support this. A 'closed nuclear' fuel cycle would also reduce the amount of radioactive waste currently being produced each year by the plants through recycling nuclear fuel..... With careful planning and security precautions this could be a great enabler for US energy independance.....GO GREEN GO NUCLEAR

The senator is a blathering fool but at least he presented an idea instead of no, no, no. Next time 1) try to come up with an idea Barack Obama hasn't, 2) don't vote no on the bill when he proposed it, 3)try something other than tax cuts/drill baby drill

Keep them coming republicans. You're starting to get the picture.

When listening to Sen. Alexander prattle on about the same old, same old, keep in mind he is a member of the GOP braintrust that just passed a bill here in Tennessee to make it legal for people to carry concealed handguns in bars and other alcohol-serving establishments. Now I ask you, how wacko is that?

First, the 2009 budget already addresses the responsible development of nuclear power. Second, the GOP now wants to mimic
the French????? Does anybody remember Fox News and
"freedom fries?"

If you believe France has the solution to clean energy, googled "France" and "nuclear waste". You might find that they do reprocess their fuel, but create additional toxic waste water they apparently dump in the English Channel. They also send waste to Russia. They have also failed to find a safe, underground place to store the radioative waste and there are concerns it would eventually leach into the water table . Maybe our politicians think that if they keep calling it "clean energy" it will actually become so.

What are you going to do with the nuclear waste we already can't rid of.
I guess we'll think about that later.

After serving on a nuclear ship when I was in the Navy I have no problems building more nuclear plants to generate energy, just as I support wind farms and solar energy. (I lived in Australia for some years and home solar water heaters were in every neighborhood and have been for decades.)

The challenge the Republican party needs to understand is that it takes some very bright, very well trained personnel to actually operate those plants and one would hope we could add "significant experience" to that list of qualifications.

I know that in the Navy a officer or enlisted person was sent for a year of rigorous training and then got to start at the bottom of the ladder when they came aboard ship.

Republicans might have a good idea, but they need to get their act together in terms of understanding what is needed at all levels in order for it to be successful. Maybe special scholarships for those bright enough to make the grade. Start sending through university as soon as a project is started and then hire experience from the Navy.

I am really glad to see that ole Lamar is a fan of Europeans and wants to emulate how they live- even if he is mistaken as to what the average energy costs- very mistaken. Now, if we can only get him to understand the benefits of socialized medicine that would be great! Keep learning Lamar!!!

So now Republicans think the French are genius'? Incredible, just when you think Republicans can't possibly Flip-Flop any more than they already have, they now want to be just like the French!
Judging by the last several elections, they just might be as competent ........as the French are at fighting.
Long live Freedom Fries and Duct Tape!

It ain't clean- it's costly. The life expectancy of a nuke plant is relatively short, and after that, the contamination and decommissioning costs, (never mentioned in the propaganda about how "cheap" it is) drives the overall taxpayer expense through the roof for decades. Don't believe this- it's another attempt by big business to glut at the public trough. Solar, wind, and other naturally available, low cost, long term sources are the only real solutions.

Good. Go Nuclear it is an excellent idea!

if they knew how to get ridd of the waste i would be all for it. but the best they can do right now is just dig a ditch and bury it.

is sen. alexander going to let the u.s. store it's mounting inventory of nule power plant waste in tenn.?

i thought not.

nukes are not the answer.

Alternative energy, yes. Nukes, no.

I thought the Republicans were anti-French...

I noticed that Mr. Alexander didn't mention what he wants us to do with the high-level wastes that nuclear production of electricity leaves.

France has a deep geological disposal site, a political possibility in that country because they do not have a federal system of government. Local residents and government officials there have no way to resist the imposition of such a facility. Matters are different in the U.S.

Which American state is Mr. Alexander planning on coercing into filling the role of nuclear dumping ground so that he can please his corporate sponsors?

Gezzuz Kahrist..... why is it that in every discussion I read or hear of lately there is absolutely NO discussion about what we are going to do with all this nuclear waste from all the wonderfully safe nuclear energy plants? What IS France doing with their waste? What are WE doing with OUR waste? Is it being catapulted into outer space? Is resting underground in layers of metel containers that has top be replaced or reinforced over time? WHAT...WHAT are they doing with it....What do they plan to do with it?

I hear talk about the debt we are leaving our children and grandchildren. I hear climate change reports on tv and see the evidence in my own back yard that things are changing and changing fast. Earthquakes are coming back to back, hurricanes like we have never known before, tornadoes everywhere, and yet repubs say NO climate change... let us continue to do whaterve it is we do to make more and more money!

Will someone out there in power wake up and stop burying your collective heads in the ground? I know I am not the only logical educated mind in the world that sees this for what it is! We don't need anymore nuclear power plants... we have too many already. If one of these explosive monsters goes wrong, we are ALL DEAD!

I think this should be part of the Energy plan. We need to concentrate on the safety but definitly agree that this could be a bipartisan thing.

Actually, as much as I disagree with many things that spew from the once great "Party of Lincoln" they have a point here. But before we let Haliburton and Bechtel go hog wild at the public trough let's set a few ground rules. First off we should have real regualtion on safety, second (as much as it hurts your Anglo pride) we must ask the French, yes the folks that y'all so love to hate how in the heck do they do it. Something like 30% of their power comes from nuke plants and they are very close to fusion which uses waste to create power. Maybe if Bush had not been so anti-sciebce we could have been specializing in fusion insted of con-fusion. Oh well now is the time because Obama won't make it "NO BID" and there will be actual regulation. I think we could link the nuke plants to "high speed rail (also need to talk to the French)

Nuclear energy makes sense for the French because they have a policy of encouraging the renewing of spent fuel rods. We Americans, through our Congress, have made that illegal. As a result, we have an enormous storage problem that has made nuclear energy more costly and so far, impossible to solve to our satisfaction.

Util our policy of prohibiting spent fuel rods is changed, it is unlikely that there will be much in the way of additonal nuclear energy plants, due to this problem of where to store the spent fuel rods, whose half-life is in the thousands of years.

I guess since the Republicans are fresh out of new ideas all they can come up with is lies and disinformation about President Obama's position on nuclear energy. But mainstream American can thank the Republicans anyway for pushing for something that President Obama has already included in his budget. (I assume it was just an oversite on Lamar Alexander's part when he said that the attitude in the United States between 1979 and 2008 was anti nuclear power, but he neglected to mention that for most of that time we had Republican presidents and/or Republican control of congress.) So if the Republicans want to blame anyone for not pursuing nuclear power, they should blame themselves.

I'm a Democrat but I have to say the Republicans are absolutely right this time. Nuclear energy is clean, safe, reliable, and efficient and inevitably the power plant of the future. Wind and solar need to be expanded, but nuclear is the only true answer to clean energy. We Democrats need to jump on this quick before our reputation as the party of the environment is tarnished.

Your headline is misleading to readers. May I suggest you replace "goes" with "promotes"?

I also am disgusted how quickly you close comments on some of your articles when you don't see the comments going the left slant you desire.

Just like France? Really? Aren't they the Socialist-Cheese-Eating-Surrender-Monkeys who forced us to eat Freedom Fries a few years back?
Why are they an icon of good sense now? Pray tell where are we going to find 100 communities that WANT a nuclear plant? Perhaps Three Mile Island is ready for another go? More Hanford anyone? What a fabulously antiquated and stupid idea. Just like Republicans themselves.

I am a hardcore Democrat, and he is right about a lot of this. Do the research...it will take 200 years to dump oil for solar and wind, but nuclear can be a much faster realization.

I guess the big debate is safety. The GOP doesn't care about pollution, heck look at the Gulf Coast in Texas. Drill baby drill means pollute baby pollute, but what has the GOP ever cared about anything other than business profits? Seriously, name one thing. This guy Lamar is in someones pocket obviously, however in this example he may be very well correct.

I do not agree with Republicans on a large majority of issues, but nuclear power should be something we as a nation embrace.

Yeah? You know what else the French have that we don't? An excellent system of socialized healthcare. I'd love to see some of the GOP start pulling for that, but they're so scared of "big government" they'd probably pee in their pants, the clueless old farts.

100 more nuclear plants? That's great – and how's that whole "nuclear waste" problem coming along?

I swear, could the Republicans be any MORE short-sighted? The play now, pay later party....thanks for all you've done already, really.

Funny that the Bush administration cut the US funding for the an international fusion reactor, that would have been the most advanced in the world. Fusion is (a) the most powerful energy source humans know about, and (b) it is clean from the radiation standpoint. And Alexander condemns the democrats for not being behind a new "Manhattan Project".

Also, it is funny that the GOP has traditionally been the party to cut funding for all renewable or alternate energy research. And that they are the party behind big oil.

The irony.

who cares what they think!? they support torturers!

It's great that at least some Republicans are looking at alternative energies. But of all the alternative energies out there, why choose the most dangerous one? Solar and wind energies are the safest for the environment. They alone cannot meet our country's full needs, but they should be considered and implemented before nuclear power.

Finally, something I can agree with the GOP and presented by Alexander. In fairness, Barack Obama has stated that nuclear power will be part of the solution to our energy needs. Thanks to a relatively small number of no nukes nutcases we're decades behing on this. France also consumes less oil than they did in the 1970's according to some sources.

It is interesting that the Republicans have idolized the French government in the past several weeks. The normally associate the France with "leftist" thinking and socialism. I guess they will try anything since no other ideas seem to be sticking with mainstream Americans.

The party of no new ideas living in the 20th century. We certainly need more innovation than this. But nuclear fits into the republican agenda for wars because the material left over from the reactors can then be made into bombs. I am so glad every day that Barack Obama is our president and leading us into the 21st century with 21st century ideas and we will prosper because of it.

Every quotation used in the "transcript" part of this article does not have "end quotes".

'
"...So you’d think that if Democrats want to talk about energy and climate change and clean air, they’d put American-made nuclear power front and center...."

and you would think that the GOP could have done this 2000-2008 if it was such a wonderful project: What state is Lamar from and where in this state would he like the nuclear waste buried?

Easy to ignore the past GOP failures and pontificate without really having a solution to one of the toughest problems about nuclear.

Wow I agree with the Republicans for once! Nuclear power is the way of the future. It's clean, efficient, and safe as ever -and it's made in the USA!

Why does CNN find it necessary to comment (of course negatively) on the Republicans Address. I see that Ed Hornick had to include a note that "the govenment promotes nuclear energy promotion" That's nice.. let us see how it has done this:

Further on in the rejoinder is the statement that " $242 million is allocated for Nuclear Power 2010, "an industry cost-shared effort to bring new nuclear plant technologies to market and demonstrate streamlined regulatory processes."

The president’s FY 2010 budget, which passed the House and Senate recently, provides $26.3 billion for the Department of Energy.

If you do the math, you get less than 1% of the energy budget.. and that part is "shared".

CNN: Please just give us the statement and let us draw our own conclusions... I saw Newt on CSPAN yesterday and his testimony was interesting... and not interpreted by local media.

A Republican that actually speak eloquently and uses his head. How refreshing!

Alright! No to France's common sense healthcare system, but yes, to polluting the earth with Nukes! Great job elephants!!!

This is really nothing knew, and it's part of the argument as to why clean energy is just a liberal agenda issue.

All energy sources should be on the table, period. Yes, we need to get off fossil fuels as fast as possible as much as possible.

However, you don't get that way by simply shutting them down and hoping that the money you throw into solar and wind magically makes up the difference.

This will take decades, and, in all honesty, nuclear energy is a no-brainer. If it's ok for Europe, it's ok here. France gets 70% of their electricity from nuclear.

Nuclear power isn't a bad idea, but it isn't the solution. It would be years before new plants would even be approved to be built let alone actually get them to start generating power. And then there is the waste issue. Compare that with wind turbine farms that can be up and running at full capacity within a year or solar panels that can provide home energy savings almost within days of deciding to put them up.

Republicans have become the party of putting off until tomorrow what needs to be done today, but it is comforting to see that some of them are at least willing to contribute ideas to the debate.

Well...the French still have not solved the waste disposal problem which threatens to undermine the industry. Like the Yucca Mountain in the United States, French citizens reject any facility in their locale.

Also, "recycling" isn't quite what the Republicans are suggesting. From an online article by the IEE Spectrum:

"The major products of the separation are uranium and plutonium. The former, consisting of the isotopes U-235 and U-238, constitutes 95 percent of the spent fuel. The plutonium yield is just a little more than 1 percent. Most of the uranium is shipped to an Areva plant in southern France and, at the moment, stockpiled. Some analysts predict that uranium prices will eventually justify more reuse of La Hague’s uranium; but for now, utilities find it cheaper to use fuel freshly made from uranium ores and enriched to the precise isotopic composition they need. As for the plutonium, it is shipped across France to the Rhône Valley, where Areva’s Marcoule fuel plant blends it with uranium and fabricates it into fuel for French reactors."

They're right. Such a shame. The energy of the sun is safe, clean, and as ubiquitous as the universe. Democrats biggest failure is tort reform and nuclear fuel. We were all expecting intelligent policy, however honestly, like a paradox, republicans to teach intelligent design but support nuclear energy and democrats pseudo pro science but reject possibly science's greatest feat; sad.

Makes much more sense to do what's economically feasible vs government (i.e. taxpayers) subsidies to make it cost effective to use those forms of energy. For example, ethanol is so heavily subsized vs the benefit that only a government would do it. If it made economic sense, private industry would've done it without subsidy. I've been hearing the same about solar/wind energy. We as taxpayers would have to heavily subsidize these for so little return and extravagently high cost to us as consumers.

I'm a democrat and I think we need to go all out nuclear. It is the only source of energy that can meet our energy needs and does not emit CO2. It is our only option. The U.S. Navy has been using nuclear power since 1953 and have yet to have an accident. It is safe!

However, I think we should be building breeder reactors because they can use the U-233 and Pu-239 that is the result of reprocessing. They also breed more fuel than they consume. They can use fertile elements like Th-232 and U-238 (natural uranium that composes 99% of all uranium found in the world) and convert it to fissionable fuels that can sustain a fission reactions like U-233 and Pu-239.

If we build these kinds of nuke plants, our energy problems are solved. Also, the waste is only toxic for 200-500 years, not thousands or millions.

Please CNN, do a piece of fast breeder reactors and their benefits!

As usual with the GOP...almost a decade late and several billion dollars spent in Iraq short.

Yes to nuclear plants – but no to GOP deregulation of the nuclear industry, unless you want to see a real meltdown.

It just seems like yesterday, The Republicans were accusing the Democrats of trying to make America more like Europe. Now they know it's not a bad thing. But they are still playing the inferior game of being the victim to the Democrat policy and not as equals. Its a shame for the Republicans.

that is a great idea, so why didnt the republicans do that for the past 10 years? heign sight is 20 20 i guesss

One hundred is a good start. Two hundred fifty would replace the need for coal. In the long term nuclear power is the safest, cleanest and most cost effective way to generate electricity. Politically it is difficult to replace coal. Too many depend on coal for their livelihood. If we could put aside our fear of nuclear power and have the courage to develop generation IV nuclear reactors, there is a chance that the construction costs could be lowered to the point that nuclear power would be significantly cheaper than the dirtiest of coal power plants. We could have a world market for such a product and our labor force would have cleaner and safer jobs. Subsidies from the government would not be needed. If we couple development of nuclear power with a switch in Detroit to electrically powered transportation we can get out from under the economic burden of foreign oil and staggering health cost from air pollution that run into the hundreds of billions annually. The savings from not having to buy foreign oil, the health cost savings and the income from sales of exported nuclear power plants and electric vehicles would stimulate a robust economy. Let's take the risk.

GOP, I do not know where you guys are getting your stats from, because We The People,have been watching you nothings go on the air with your incorrect statements, a budget without figures. What is that all about? this is the Twenty First Century and your party doesn't look around and see you are the minority in this day and time you have to be living in a bubble!
I must say this about immigration, tell the American people, if the president makes the 12 million that are already here legal status who are they taking jobs from? your party isn't thinking,Black Americans are not going back into the fields, cleaning your homes, taking care of your kids and cooking your food, so just who is going to do it? The American people are tired of the GOP just saying NO with NO solutions. Check your attitudes at the door and unclench your fists, there is more than just White rich people in this country. Your trickle down effect didn't work, you guys forgot to turn around and share the wealth with the people that did the work to help you get there, so as far as most people I know give you guys an F as a grade.

Actually, in the past 8 years the economy was ripe for the Republicans to put their grand ideas forward, but they didn't. Now that they, the Republicans, put the economy in the tank want to complain about the Democrats is not wise. I'll take Obama's accomplishments in 100 days over Bush's lack thereof in the past 8 years.

Well lets see the genius GOP had EIGHT years to bestow their BIG ideas on us. And what did they do? They drove America into a ditch instead.

100 more nuclear plans, great. Now where do you get rid of the radioactive waste? In Alabama under Sen Alexander's house?

Hmmmm....Here we go again GOP....a day late and a dollare short....Pres. Obama and his Energy Dept. are already there...... And we know that when it comes to the GOP vote.....it will again be 'NO'...go figure....It's just sad....

Wow, GOP'ers saying something "nice" about France. That's rich! Sure let's build'em Lamar, it'll be ten years before they're finished and I'm certain you'll be just as vociferous when it comes time to store the nuclear waste in your backyard..

Ummmm ... ?

And what is the plan for the spent fuel rods ... ?

Same old problem dudes ... no answer

Sounds like the Nuclear people are sleeping with Republicans to me

Now the Republicans ADMIRE France! There appears to be no limit to their hypocrisy.

Why are conservatives so incredibly angry? Because every idea they tried while in power flopped miserable. Why are they in such a rage about Obama? Because he may well fix the mess they made and prove them wrong. Why do they champion torture, Palin, concentration camps, Limbaugh, unjust war, Gingrich, broadscale wiretapping, Coulter, secession, and so much more radically insane delusion? I have no idea.

The Democrats, to include the president, are too afraid of their leftist friends who are terrified of nuclear energy! Furthermore, their "energy policy" is about power and increased taxes, Not about independence from foreign oil!

So wait...the Republicans are invoking a proven effective policy model of Eurppean origin (France no less!) and they're not mocking it or trying through tortured doublespeak to explain how adopting it will lead to the downfall of our nation because we weren't the first to think of it/implement it on a large scale? So European ideas are no longer elitist, effite, america-hating (and by extension freedom-hating) blashemy that are considered only by those who are ashamed of their country? What is the world coming to?

France's nuclear program works, but it wouldn't work here... because we're not France.

In France, there is one standard nuclear plant design. ONE. Whenever a nuclear plant is needed the government buys the land, the region does not or cannot object, and the parts – which are mass produced – are all transported and assembled in a standard, almost snap-together format.

In America, on the other hand, initial designs are submitted to local governments, then changed, then the re-designs are submitted, then changed... Then a design emerges that is completely unique, with all unique parts and design assemblies. This plant is inevitably assembled in an extremely remote area.

The result of America's lack of federal authority over local zoning commisions is an average of 20,000,000 man hours of extremely high-skilled/highly educated labor in very remote locales for every 1 GW nuclear plant, or more than 6 billion dollars/GW.

Until something is done to reduce the power of local authorities in these matters, new nuclear energy is not competitive in America. Regardless of which side of the aisle supports it.

Since when do the Republicans want to do ANYTHING like they do in France?
Under the circumstances, it may need to be looked at more closely but the disposal of the waste must happen first before the Republicans' friends figure out how to make a ton of money off of this.

How will Lamar Alexander invest to build a nuclear plant?? How much will the entire republican party invest to build a nuclear power plant???

We have learned that republicans fail even simple 6 grade arithmetic and cannot count past ten without taking off their shoes. Otherwise they would have not spent a budget surplus the first year they had the presidency and complete of congress and then proceeded to borrow 1.9 billion dollars for every day Bush was in office and added to the already massive debt of Bush's father and Reagan to the tune of 6 trillion which makes that the last three republican presidents have added 9.5 trillion dollars to the 11 trillion dollar national debt.

The last or one of the last nuclear plants built was at Byron, Illinois and it cost more than a billion dollars and that was finished I believe in 1980. Now if we add in the inflation it would cost twice as much today or more. If the republican party had anything to do with it would cost a trillion dollars at least and maybe more with payoffs from contractors they use without the bidding process.

Does Lamar Alexander volunteer Tennessee as the repository for nuclear waste dumps? Maybe we should do what the GOP says and do whatever France is doing.

Apparently it has escaped the Republicans notice that nuclear is one of the worst polluting sources of energy on the planet. See, when a windpower plant stops workings, there's just no more power. When a nuclear power plant stops working you can nuclear fallout and the land is poisoned for hundreds of year to any new life.

So tell me exactly how nuclear is green energy again.

Obama knows that we have to wean ourselves off polluting and poisoness energy and move toward clean energy. Clean means wind, sun, and heat energy from volcanoes. It does not mean that we need to build another deadly nuclear power plant.

Wait a minute. aren't the french supposed to be Socialists? I guess there are a few things we can learn from them after all. stupid GOPpers.

It takes 20-30 years to plan and build a nuclear power plant. The carbon footprint made during the construction of a power plant is greatly excessive. (think of trucks, materials, waste, and all things that create a footprint). Nuclear waste needs to be kept safely, security, and constantly monitored for 10,000 years. There is no solution to the waste, period. Despite high security standards a nuclear power plant is never 100% safe. There will always be a risk of failure and the consequences are unreal to both human life and the environment. A failure could cause a large piece of our country to be completely destroyed and unlivable for hundreds of years. Nuclear Power plants are preferred terrorist targets. It takes 20-25 years before a Nuclear Power Plant will pay for itself. It is NOT renewable energy and uses a constant supply of Uranium. Uranium is in very scarce supplies and the world only has so much that is usable for a power plant. It's VERY expensive to extract and purify. The total life of a Nuclear Plant is 75-85 years with current technology. After that it becomes more and more dangerous to operate (pipes get old, things rust, structures become unstable) Population of France: 61 Million (2007) Population of the USA: 303 Million (2008)

I thought the Bloody red republicans hated the French.

1. Once again we have a born-again fiscally conservative Republican after the last 8 years of 2 wars, trillions in tax cuts to the wealthy, etc.

2. And this comes 3 days after Obama, once again, laid out his energy plans, which included the use of nuclear energy and oil/gas (in the short-term transition).

3. Clean energy was a part of the platform in which Obama and the Democrats won on. What were the GOP doing? Ranting and raving about "palling aound with terrorists", imaginary socialists/marxists, abortion, who's marrying who, and handing out tire gauges making fun of Obama's energy plan.

The GOP needs to sit down and be quiet. They had their turn and wrecked everything both foreign and domestic.

The GOP are railing against the financial legacy being left for our children yet they are happy to propose a legacy of nuclear waste that will be deadly for tens of thousands of years..... they must be nuts!

To those advocates of Green Technology, of which I am part, it may be worth the while to consider how the French operate their nuclear industry. I understand they RE-CYCLE their spent fuel. So please don't dismiss GOP claims as baloney. After all, how are you going to generate enough electricity for all of those hybrid and electric vehicle that are being built? Solar, wind and biodiesel can't meet all of our needs.

So the Republicans want the US to be more like France? Will wonders never cease!

This is hilarious. The past eight years the Republicans have done everything they can to show how completely evil France is. The majority of their base hates everything about Europe and France, yet now they want to use them as the beacon of enlightenment for renewable energy. Hilarious. Democrats have always been pro-nuclear, it's what to do with the fuel when it's done. A lot of Republican politicians have outlawed even transporting nuclear waste through their home states. McCain as an example. He's all for nuclear, but god forbid we move any of the absolutely toxic waste through his state. Hypocrites, the whole lot of them. 2010 will be the end of the party.

Oops! In keeping with our former President and his observations on this subject, your article should have been entitled "GOP goes Nuculer in policy pitch....."

Obama's FY 2009 budget, however, promotes nuclear energy development. According to the Department of Energy, the budget includes the licensing of new nuclear plants and additional research into the nuclear fuel cycle.

I guess he just left that little tid bit out. Why can't they just tell the truth?

I have a question for Mr. Alexander. Who is going to write insurance on those 100 nuclear plants? Robert Kennedy Jr. said no one will.

Kudos.

For once a republican is speaking, without mentioning Barack Obamas name. For one a republican is offering ideas instead of merely criticizing democrat's ideas. I swear the way republicans talk, you would think they are as obsessed with Barack Obama as they claim the media is.

Republicans say what??? Incentives? Incentives for what? If there is one thing that has been made absolutely clear in the last 8 years prior to Obama there is only one way to get these powerful groups and businesses to do what is right for the American people... and that is to make it unprofitable to what is wrong.
I am for the use of Nuclear energy the way France is using it by they way... just totally against doing it the way Republicans think we should do it. They have been dead wrong for far too long to still be considered credible.

"you cant hug children with nuclear arms or plants" ! still way too dangerous to use, look what happened at plant in Russia..I would rather have the windmills and other clean green ways than anything nuclear...

After 8 years of head in the sand, secret energy task forces where big oil was the key player, and zero movement towards energy independence, don't you republicans have nothing to stand on? Why would you recite the "freedom fries" childishness at this time? Not only was it childish, but clearly the object of your protest, that France wouldn't join us in murdering 110,000 Iraqis and 4300 American soldiers, was wrong and France (along with most of the rest of the world) was right.

Childish and WRONG. That pretty much sums up the part of your party that has been in power.

Bush/Cheney and their Republican allies: Wrong on war, wrong on terrorism, wrong on torture, wrong on the economy. Wrong on everything!

It has been a long time since the US has built a nuclear plant. The GOP is now pushing building nuclear plants as part of their policy for reducing energy. My question to the GOP is: Who in the GOP has will come forward to support building those plants in their home state or disposing of the nuclear waste in their back yard. It is one thing to push for a policy but another to step up to the bar and say I want the nuclear plant or waste in my home state. If they poll the people in their state I believe they will get a "NO" on either items.

For the first time in 100 days something positive and a good idea is comming from the GOP.
All we have to do is to promisse safety to the american people of the nuclear power facilities.
I hope rush air bag or insane Hannity go along with it

So the Republicans have gone from repudiating all things French (Freedom fries) to saying "Let's be like the French"? One might view this with cynicism if the Republicans weren't so innovative in offering new ideas. Oh wait...

So, like, where was your party when it had control of Congress since 1994, and all three branches from 2001- 2006? Missing in action!

and dump its waste right in his backyard!

No new plants from 1979 to 2008, and it's the Dems' fault? Gee, I could have sworn we've had some Republican "leadership" in that time frame. Are we going to start pretending that the Republican party and the oil industry haven't been attached at the hip all this time?

And now the French are leaders? Maybe you should apologize to France for all the abuse before using them to make your point.

This is a step in the right direction for the Republican Party. Looks like the grownups have finally started to speak up.

One reason France has been so successful, though, is that they have standard plans for nuclear plants instead of designing each one individually from scratch. America has got to learn to stop reinventing the wheel with every new technology (most apparent in the military and space programs).

Also, as nuclear power becomes more widespread, the cost advantage goes down because the price of the nuclear fuels rises with increased demand. So nuclear alone is not the answer, but it will definitely be a part of a smarter energy policy than digging up more dead dinosaurs.

If we do focus on expanding nuclear power, we really need to perfect and put into use Integral Fast Reactor technology so we don't have to keep burying radioactive waste in Nevada and elsewhere.

Wow, the Republicans must be really desperate if they're using socialist France to push their ideas!

Read the budget – it has nuclear – but why do they only like the most toxic and dangerous options? I guess it is just in the whiny party of NO's DNA. Stop with the fight every idea with more old bad ideas that you used to ruin the country and help Obama fix your mess.

Assuming pursuing 21st century nuclear energy technology does not harm wind and solar development, I think the Obama administration should be smart enough to recognize the Republican side actually has a valid positive proposal here (for a change), and should propose a study group and do some bipartisan messaging–rewarding the GOP for being positive, while assessing their solutions to the touchy issue of spent fuel and the prospect of terrorist attack on a nuclear facility.

While their message on dealing with the economic crisis has been more reactive than thoughtful, I give the GOP kudos for proposing a solution here, and for having the cojones to even praise France in putting it forward!

Hey, I have no problem with Nuclear Power. Just figure out where it's going to go first. Otherwise, you are just making noise. Waste that is poisonous for thousands of years should not be taken lightly. If we have that, sure, lets build some Nuclear Power as it will help fill the gap. 100? Our focus should be on Wind and solar. It's home grown power that is plentiful and isn't as dangerous as other sources.

As for coal, I would have the US pay to have ONE power plant setup to capture and store carbon. We need a working model to prove it can be done and that it can be done efficiently. This is required as 60% of our power comes from coal and if we stop using it or use it wisely, we can start exporting it.

Facts and history are irrelevant to the Democratic Party.

And as far as Obama goes, we've already seen that he says lots of stuff, claims to considder every idea, seems to change his mind back and forth, but in the end, he'll always follow his own arrogant set of pre-conceived ideals, plausible or not.

Fine, Sen. Alexander, give us some facts. How much will it cost? Where will they be located? How much time to research, develop, build and produce? Why are you touting the "French" as the ideal to follow? Come on fellows, you can do better! Marlene in Mich

Nuclear power plants are also the most heavily government subsidized and regulated forms of energy production.

So in one effect, I agree with the Republicans: the government needs to put up a large, dedicated, and expensive effort to move us towards energy efficiency and independence.

Germany merely put a declining subsidy on solar. France nationalized their power industry.

So all this talk on nuclear energy is great, but I thought Obama was supposed to be the socialist...

Nuclear energy is pollution free?
1. Nuclear power is not renewable – it uses uranium a limited resource est. left 30 years = won't exist for your grandchildren.
2. Nuclear power creates nuclear waste requiring expensive storage and long term monitoring -10,000+ years Mr. Alexander do you want the toxic waste in your back yard or mine?
3. No nuke plant is 100% safe. Love Canal, Chernobyl – still emitting radioactive particles.
4. It will take 10-20 years to build a one new plant.
5. Nuclear power plants are GIANT targets for terrorists. If they bomb just one.....think about it.
6. If we build 100 plants how do we justify denying other nations such as Iran, Iraq the right to nuclear technology?
7. Just which mega-corporations will reap the government contracts?
8. I didn't hear any price tag with this proposal. Ummm?

I don't know how you can argue with this. Finally something the positive from the Republicans. Why can't we recycle the nuclear waste? Do we really need 100 new plants? The largest hurdle is the misconceptions we have about nuclear power. By the way, I have always liked the French.

Great idea. We have 5000 active nuclear warheads in this country, and a couple thousand more that are inactive . How about we convert just a couple hundred of those inactive nukes into civilian power plants? Talk about killing two birds with one stone! We'd be getting rid of some nuclear weapons and using them to create both energy and jobs in this country! The author of this article highlights what to do with the spent fuel waste, which is really the only pollution that nuclear power generation produces (except for maybe heat pollution.) As an environmental scientist, I think we need to do more of everything, but we know that solar and wind power can't even come close to satisfying our hunger for energy in this country. Getting off of oil from Saudia Arabia, Iran, and Venezuela starts with "going nuclear." It's not the end-all, but it's a great start. Nuclear energy is just such a taboo thing in this country after Three Mile Island. It's a good thing we're not so afraid of everything else that we've ever tried that had a problem.

I totally agree, Senator Alexander, but the democrats are right, "Where would we put all the spent nuclear fuel that can't be recycled."

I have the answer.

Tennessee. Yep, just truck it all down to Tennessee and put it in an abandoned coal mine. Y'all have coal mines down in Tennessee, doncha? Well, they'll all be abandoned cause we won't need the coal anymore on account of the 100 brand spankin' new nuclear plants. So, yeah, all the nuclear waste gets dumped–safely–in Tennessee. Take that to your constituents, I'm sure they're behind you 100%.

Nuclear makes sense in so many ways. First off solar and wind power have down time when they produce reduced or no power. Everytime you build a solar/wind plant, you need to also build backup plants that can replace that solar/wind power when it is not producing. As of right now the only option is to build fossil fuel plants to back up renewable plants.

Nuclear allows for a non-carbon producing power option to back up solar power when the sun isn't shining and wind power when the wind isn't blowing.

The Grand Old Pinhead party is at again. The 19-frickin-50s are long gone. Reagan was a dimwit Dubya was a dimwit find some people who can actually think or shut-to-hell-up.

Nukes are ok with me technically but the whole idea of falling back on over-priced 1950s solutions at this point is for fools, idiots, and of course dimwits. We can do much better than that –following the French ya I'm drivin a Renault too... Jeez.

Nice way to set up that strawman Lamar. Sorry but Obama already seems to have th jump on you guys....again!

The waste is too dangerous in nuclear. We have to go with the save energy in order sto save our earth.

Along with taking advantage of the massive solar energy in the southwest and the massive wind energy in the midwest, we SHOULD use nuclear fission plants at least as a stopgap measure until new technology comes out that can increase renewable production.

New nuclear plants are 1000X time safer and cleaner than the old designs and technology from the 1970s..

That said, its interesting how resistant these republican idiots are to real renewable energy. Its almost like they are allergic to even saying Solar thermal, Solar PV, wind turbines, tidal energy, etc

The publicans have nothing but threadbare answers for every problem we face. They've worn the same old clothes for years, and refuse to change. The answer is not nuclear energy alone. I believe that President Obama said he was not opposed to nuclear energy, but it's only part of the solution. I agree with him. While we're overcoming our addiction to oil for the next decade or two, we need to develop many forms of alternative energy on a macro scale and a micro scale. We also need to engineer power-saving technologies such as adaptors that shut off when they are in a quiescent state. The publicans agenda reflects the special interests of an elite few. We, the people, deserve a better choice, and we voted for him. His name is Barack Obama.

The problem with free-market nuke power: competition has every installation slightly different. Fewer lessons learned and incompatible "systems" from building, equipment, training, maintenance, and disposal.

If a standard "unit" design breeder reactor was used – and replicated – then plants could be turned out on an assembly line instead of hand-crafted.

Operators and management could be exchanged site-to-site and everyone would know what to do.

Any "flaws" in the system could be quickly rolled out to all the companion units and eventually rolled-up into NextGen systems.

And a unit design reactor could possibly be unplugged and a new one plugged into the generation-distribution portion of the plant without tearing the entire facility completely down.

But that competition is best concept is they way we do things – mine's bigger cheaper, faster... oops... been there and that is the result we have now.

Sure, all these Republicans love nuclear energy as long as it is in somebody else's back yard. They tried it in Idaho and then in Utah; both failed because even red voters don't like the risk. If you can't pass it in those two scarlet states, it will never happen.

Here in Canada we mainly use Hydroelectric power from dams, and nuclear power. I do agree that although nuclear waste and spent rods are a very long term problem that needs a resolution, it is far better than "clean coal". We can at least launch nuclear waste in to the sun on rockets! hahaha

Wow- talk about deck chairs on the Titanic!
Didn't they loose the election?
McCain's pro-nuke gibberish fell flat...
Lamar Alexander? Another bridge to the past sponsored by where's Larry Craig these days?

Nuclear Power makes so much sense.
One Nuclear Power Plant equals about 250 huge Windmills and works even when the wind is not blowing.
One Nuclear Power Plant probably equal hundreds of acres of solar panels, and works even at night.
Except for electricity made from hydro dams, electricity made from nuclear power is the cheapest way to make electricity.
The arguments against nuclear power are emotional and show little understanding of physics or radiation. Just think, the French are decades ahead of use in having a source of cheap dependable electricity, but then the French did not have a coal lobby or a big oil lobby.

I guess we can build a nuclear dump in Tennessee, right Lamar?

And exactly what will be doing with the large amount of nuclear waste byproduct? It is a dangerous proposition. I think we would be much better off with renewable, clean, and decentralized power sources.

Relatively small application biomass gassification plants, wind energy, geothermal, and solar would make it to where if any part of the US lost energy, it would not affect those down the line. Nukes would supply energy to a huge area, meaning that if there ever was a melt down or transmission problems that huge area would be affected. Whereas only small areas would be affected by diversified energy production districts and most areas would overlap making brown outs and rolling blackouts a thing of the past.

Nuclear power plants would also be big targets for terrorism. I don't think we would want that scenario to even be a possibility. Lets keep it clean. Say no to nukes!

Republicans usually can't think of enough bad things to say about the French. Now Republicans say WE should become the French. Boy has the Republican Party run of ideas.

So does that mean Republicans are no longer mocking the French, you know freedom fries instead of french fries? Didn't the article also state that President Obama's budget contains funds to adress this issue. I hope the Republicans consider this when they decide to vote in lock step against everything President Obama tries to do.

I'm absolutely in favor of increasing our nuclear energy capacity. However, I am absolutely opposed to the overall Republican energy philosophy which is closed and inward looking with far too large of a carbon footprint.

So which states become the dumping ground for the nuclear waste from 100+ nuclear plants?

How much regulation of these nuclear plants would the Republicans agree to?

Nuclear fission plants can play an important role in the next 50 years,and perhaps we should build 50 to 100 "standard" same proven design plants (which are safer than the variety of designs built by different contractors we now have across the US (in contrast to France, we now builds only their standard proven design). However, there are several long-term drawbacks with nuclear fission plants (1) waste disposal; transporting, containerizing and long-term safe storage still has no good solution; (2) they are more expensive in both investment and operation than any other type of power plant , INCLUDING wind and large scale thermal-solar; although their cost could come down substantially by using a standard design; (3) we have to mine uranium, and the US does not have a large quantity of mineable uranium (Canada does however); (4) no cities or even rural areas wants new plants in their back yard. (5) they pose possible terrorist targets

. A much better near term solution is solar thermal plants with thermal storage; no waste, no radioactivity danger, no terrorist threat, can be built in the middle of the desert in the SW on presently non-useable useable land, uses only cheap plentiful materials like aluminum/silicon.They may take up more land, but anyone that has driven through Nevada, Utah, Arizona, etc knows that suitable land has no other good use.The technology and design techniques for Gigawatt size solar thermal power plants are here today (parabolic reflector ) no onerous licensing process isrequirted. There are at least nine solar-thermal plants ranging from 250 MW to 500 MW now built or being built in California, Arizona and Florida. It takes about 2-3 tears to build a solar-thermal plant instad of 10 yrs or more for a nuclear plant. The only drawback at present is the lack of high capacity transmission lines for some deser tlocations, as in Arizona, Nevada, and Utah, but these can be readily built.We can power the West and the South completely with clean, inexpensive solar (and hydroelectric ) power within 10 yeasrs if we make the dedicated effort and private investment require. No more coal , gas or nuclear power plants-only clean , safe and cheap electric power.

For some reason the Liberal's are against Nuclear Power Plants. The Global warming agenda doesn't support the US drilling for our own Oil, or more Nuclear Power Plants.
Even if we went all electric cars, or used more wind power, we will always need oil. So why not support drilling our own, versus buying! This means more good paying jobs for drilling, to processing, to storing, to shipping, and on, and on.
And not every place in the US will support wind power so why not use the cleaner, more available Nuclear Power.
Could it be that the liberal Congress is really not listing to the people, and is more than likely in bed with a smaller group of people with louder voices, and deeper pockets.

Having worked in both the oil field and serving on a nuclear submarine, I'm more in favor of nuclear power than I am about expanding our drilling activities. I recognize the concerns that many people have regarding nuclear power plants, but we've had far more oil drilling and coal mining related accidents than we have had in our nuclear Navy and the benefits of nuclear power far outweigh those of oil and coal.

Fuse baby fuse...

Everyone touts nuclear until they are asked if they would like to be the ones to store the waste.

He's out of his mind. If you really want to put a dent in our power needs try this on for size. Take 10 billion and dedicate it retrofitting EVERY ONE OF THE 50 MILLION HOMES in this country with solar shingles and solar arrays. Despite the fact that they are not 'Efficient' enough for the nay sayers 50 million 3KW arrays would reduce our commercial power needs over 60%, add in rental and vacation homes and the number climbs to 100 MILLION, add in apartment houses and commercials buildings and the number go up even more. Do the math, 100MILLION time 3KW and see what comes out.
Of course it would never happen, it seems to be 'unamerican' for people to NOT BE dependent on some corporation or other.

This is the same moronic statement that McCain used.

Exactly WHERE would you put 100 nuclear power plants? How are we to protect 100 plants? What about the nuclear waste? What is the cost of 100 plants?

The republican energy policy is like a 3rd graders that doesn't understand whats involved.

Do they realize the price tag that comes with a nuclear plant? The maintenence fees, wasted disposal, etc.?! It'd kill our budget even worse than what they're already complaining about Obama doing! Good lord!

Finally. Wind energy, while politically correct, does not have the reliability that consumers demand and would require billions in investments to reconfigure transmission grids.

Nuclear is safe, reliable and operationally cost effective. The construction costs are very high but can be amortized over decades.

Time to put some rationality into the energy debate.

I was involved in the nuclear industry back in the early 1970's. The U.S. industry did not have a solution to spent fuel back then. They still don't. How long should we have to wait? Until then, let's focus on clean and abundant renewable energy.

Wh... the... huh? I'm confused.

Did a Republican just concede the effectiveness of a French domestic policy decision, WITHOUT calling them "yellow-bellied surrender monkeys" and waving a tiny American flag while stuffing his face frantically with "freedom fries" and humming the national anthem?

And did he also express uncommon practical knowledge about the actual safety and effectiveness of nuclear power, something that has been grossly misunderstood and demonized by the American public consciousness, simply because it rhymes with "snooclear?"

He did? Wow. Well, alright. I agree with senator Alexander. Fission power is probably the best route for the US, at least until the fine folks at Fermilabs, Los Alamos and Livermore can finally provide us with a practical model for contained fusion. In fact, if the Republicans want to propose any kind of "new Manhattan Project," I would suggest the the fusion thing.

1) Nuclear power plants are easy terrorist targets.

2) Where do you plan to store all the waste?

well, at least the Republicans have some sort-of ideas–yet it seems like a run around, because they know that we don't have anywhere to dispose of spent fuel, and that it has been a real problems in communities where the storage facilities are supposed to be built. maybe this can be solved? i don't know. the bush administration was not able to solve it, that's for sure.

but hey, it's a step in the right directions–more IDEAS, less complaining

but seriously, to hear the Republicans invoking France is the funniest thing ever. if only we could get photos of some Republican senators touring Versailles, or shopping at Chanel–that would be priceless.

Nothing new here. Same old GOP distortions and negativity. If Alexander were truly genuine about using more nuclear power, he would embrace Obama's energy plan, which includes nuclear, and make constructive suggestions instead of throwing stones. The transcript of his 'policy speech' is full of cheap shots at Obama and the Dems, all part of a continuing but failing attempt by the Repugs to keep the focus off their enormous policy failures of the past eight years and to keep the country divided.

Who cares what the Grand Old Pricxs party thinks or does...They are old history...Thanks to BUSH and "THE DICK" CHENEY.

They still don't get it. The Sun can provide unlimited energy. Fuel cells are nonpoluting. There are ways to get energy without the radioactive waste that is deadly for thousands of years. You want to save energy? Shut down LasVegas. That is the most wasteful city on Earth. Millions of gallons of water for golf courses that shouldn't exist. A 6" high pressure gas line for a casino's fake volcano? That's it!! Build the nuke plants and store the waste in LasVegas. Everything would glow as bright as day!! That would save energy!!

Here, Here!! Where has this policy position BEEN for the past ten years? Now that Repulicans are out of power, they've decided they have nothing to risk on this topic and so are finally speaking up. (Unfortunately, they lacked sorely in internal leadership while they were in power and so never even tried to advance this agenda, which is why so many conservatives remain disgusted with them.) It's time for the nuclear discussion. We Americans are overdue to grow up as to this issue. Nuclear power is safe and effective; and it is extremely environmentally CLEAN by any measure.

Nice spin, CNN, as always to put the Republicans into the worst possible light and in keeping with the liberal propaganda line.

Typical Hearst approach: "I don't care about the stories as long as I get to write the headlines."

Nuclear Energy can provide the power, and the GOP has made the correct talking points... but the primary problem with this power source is the by-product waste that is produced. No community or state wants to have a waste respository on their land. The issue of nuclear waste storage is one the primary hindrances to building new nuke plants.

No honest discussion can occur in congress about building new nuclear facilities unless the issue of waste storage is addressed simultaneously.

I'll give the GoP the benefit of the doubt. If they can produce concrete plans that cover every critical aspect of this debate, then I'm willing to listen. I suspect thought that all of these republican senators and representatives will engage in the standard NIMBY-centric positions in regards to this waste storage in their own districts – which will inevitably kill this idea proposed by Lamar Alexander.

Want some American fries with that, Lamar?

Just when one thinks the GOP could potentially see the writing on the wall, they come up with something like this. I'm all for energy independence, but this is a horrible idea.

And where will we put all the spent fuel? Oh, right, that won't be our problem – that will be our children's and their children's problem. Crazy is still crazy – even if it's cheap.

It's amazing. How can the Republicans come out on the wrong side of every issue?!? Look forward, you r-tards, not back. Innovate, invent, conserve. These would be the right choices. And quit having so many kids!

A good speech but as one of those swing votes, it still begs the questions....why didnt you do what you speak of for 8 years? I actually LIKE your arguments....but why didnt you follow through. While "green" is good, as it is pointed out it just doesnt deliver enough – and that means a more balanced approach. So...after all those years, where are the new plants?

I've been saying this for YEARS. It's stupid not to expand our nuclear power capabilities. It's efficient, and it's cheap. And one thing we need to dig us out of our economic troubles is energy. If we install cap and trade carbon emissions before expanding nuclear, we will be in a world of hurt...

Senator, how exactly do you propose we dispose of nuclear waste? Democrats are talking about CLEAN energy, not just another way for us to deal with more toxic waste.

Republicans are always trying to find a wrong even if it makes them look stupid in the process. It is a shame that the republican party is so far out of touch with the worlds agenda when it comes to climate control. Republicans just don't care about the future generations and it shows when you speak about funding education and energy.

Recycle....how do you recycle spent fuel rods. If a solar panel breaks down it just stops working, when a nuclear plant has issues people are born with tails and three eyes. I want to see more renewable energy in this country, but I don't think realistically nuclear is the answer. No matter how "safe" it is made out to be the consequence of an accident is cataclysmic. I think we as Americans can come up with something better than an answer that has the potential to completely destroy the planet. Besides, not a single one of these ideas is new....just rehashed, warmed over crap. If Mr. Alexander thinks that France is such a great place maybe he should move there.

Apparently Mr. Alexander hasn't looked into the availability of nuclear fuel for 100 additional nuclear power plants. Let's see him tell us where that is supposed to be found. He prefers nuclear over solar technology, no doubt, because it requires a non-renewable fuel and concentrates politcal and economic power in the hands of a few major corporations. Significant solar production, in contrast, can be highly decentralized, with every American homeowner a producer.

America needs to adpot the "all of the above" energy strategy.

If it works, If its clean, if its cheap, we should be investing in it.

Why cant America have solar energy in the SW, Wind Mills across the great paints, tide power along our coasts, bio fuels/switch grass in the Midwest and Nuclear Power Plants in the middle of nowhere?

We all need to realize Nuclear energy is 100% safer then it was in 1979 or 1983 (3 Mile Island or Chernobyl), and in many cases safe guards have advanced according to the laws of physics to limit the possible problems

"Well, we Republicans like renewable energy, too" I guess they just woke up after a long long sleeeeeeeeep. GIVE ME A BREAK

so after years of making fun of democrats for embracing france, we get this? granted, the guy is right in that we should try to mimic what france has done well, but at least admit that you'll use france as a punchline later on the dems.

When the GOP falters, it keeps on faltering! In my opinion, there is nothing "green" about nuclear energy and lets not forget the Yucca Mountain debacle which has set this country back decades in terms of a repository of nuclear waste. Alexander is throwing anything at the population during these shaky GOP times. This is something that will NOT catch on, now or in the near future! The GOP has more things to worry about, especially in torture and unAmerican ways! Don't expect a distraction likes nuclear energy to take the nation's focus off of the Republican orchestrated torture memos. Nuclear energy isn't savory at this time!

Where do we put all the radioactive waste. wheres the enviormentalism in that.

Same old tired rhetoric from the repubs. And where are we supposed to store the waste? As usual they have no answers. Invest in clean renewable energy like wind and solar. Obama looks to the future while the Repubs wish it could be 1950 for ever (segregation and homophobia included).

Leave it to the GOP to choose the most dangerous type of alternative energy, nuclear. They either want oil and coal, or nuclear. Why is it that the GOP don't care about the environment? How can they call themslves Christians when they don't care about the planet? We need wind, solar and biofuels, if we are going do put billions into alternative energy sources, why not choose the ones that are clean and safe?

How clever – the GOP begins pitching ideas already in Obama's budget. Can you say irrelevant?

alternative energy = NUCLEAR.

it's that simple.

not growing 100 acres of corn to power 7 experimental vehicles.

Follow the money. You can bet whatever you've got left in your retirement plan that Alexander is being paid off big time by the nuclear energy lobby.

Too little too late. As a former utility industry employee, I know that a nuclear power plant takes 10 years to build and get online.

Cold fusion is the power source of the future. The story last Sunday on '60 Minutes' proved that.

Typical Republican, more of the same nothing new. Republican Presidents generated more then 80% of the national debt. They have fought every efficiency law. Just look how mileage standards dropped during their reign.

During Bush's 8 years along with 4 years of complete Republican control of congress absolutely nothing was done about energy policy other then give tax incentives to buy huge SUV's and do "research".

Talking up research projects is basically doing nothing. Both parties have been "researching" these energy sources for over 30 years with nothing to show for it. If you really want to put a dent in our inefficient use of energy or find new sources put a targeted tax on it. Nothing moves and challenges an American like the almighty dollar. At the same time we can pay down the debt.

Another GOP socialist program.

So obama and the democrats have already set up licensing and actions to build more nuclear plants. And Alexander is whining and moaning so that when it really happens he and the republicans can take credit. Darn wonder if they are going to wait til the democrats have alternative energy, health insurance, more jobs and better infrastructure and then whine about it so they can take credit. The party of NO....NO ideas, NO actions, NO character, NO class and NO compassion...gee wonder why they are being called the party of NO>??????

Nuclear Energy definately is the way to go!! We only have to resolve a few things to make it a reality. WHO was ultimately responsible for the Three Mile Island incident; WHAT happened at Chernobyl; WHERE do we put the spent radioactive materials; WHEN will we have our first non-military Nuclear mistake; and HOW will we recover from that big-time Nuclear Disaster. The more we use it; the more we become comfortable with it; and the closer we come to making a mistake with it. Then we really will see the Mushroom Cloud, and we'll need to be fully aware of what to do WHEN IT HAPPENS; NOT IF IT HAPPENS!!
PS: France has a problem now with disposing of their nuclear waste. It just doesn't go away, and they keep adding to it. Then again, when have Republicans ever worried about what happens tomorrow.

Let me get this straight ... we're telling North Korea, Iran, et al. that they can't go nuclear or they will get sanctioned, but the GOP is selling nuclear as the energy source of the future for the U.S.A. Nice way to send mixed signals to the rest of the world and appear hypocritical in the process. Okay, but let's just be sure we send the nuclear waste to Tennessee.

Republicans can't seem to grasp complex issues. The GOP says create a Manhattan Project to build nuclear power plants. Obama says invest in all types of renewable power – solar, wind, hydro, and – yes – nuclear. I'm so glad we now have a President smart enough to invest in multi-faceted solutions.

Does everything out of the Republicans mouths have to be so venomous? How about, "Here's an idea Democrats should consider and we would be on board to help them get there." Instead it's the wedge politics that made them so infamous. No wonder people are fleeing the Republican Party for the Independents, or (gasp) the liberal Democratic Party.

Great idea Senator, why did you not bring it up before?
We should have invested in nuclear power decades ago, but we as a nation caved in to environmental wacko special interest groups and did nothing. You and your colleges allowed this to happen. I for one find your call for 100 nuclear plants to little, too late. And, unfortunately, this is just another lame attempt by the GOP to find political traction. Thanks alot Alexander for once again putting your moronic GOP ideology ahead of the country. Because you are trying to link nuclear power development to a GOP agenda, you polarize the issue and thus set back any real progress and any real chance of true energy independence.

These plants are extraordinarily safe. There is a one in 50,000 chance that anything could go wrong.

The only problem with a 0.0005% odds is that if something does happen, that mistake will continue to be a problem with devastating regional consequences for about 50,000 years.

Those are very good odds, and I'm might be comfortable with them if they didn't have such staggering consequences when that numbers eventually drops to one.

Storage also presents a problem. Whose backyard should we put the waste in? Is the solution to California's electricity problem be making Nevada glow at night of its own accord? I say that jokingly, but it does take about 24,110 years for a rod of plutonium-239 to half life, meaning to have half of its mass become non-radioactive.

By the way... civilization itself has been around for approximately 8,000 years. Will our species be cursing our generation for the mistakes that we made in our technological adolescence after 24,110 years?

If the Democrats, particularly the President, are smart (without question), they can turn this one around to use ...on healthcare. The healthcare statistics are overwhelming.

Also, the electricity utilities in France are government run....SOCIALISM!!!!! THE HORROR!! THE HORROR!!!

Nuclear is the only green technology that has the capacity to generate enough electricity for the country. Replacing all of the coal power plants with nuclear would drastically reduce the US carbon emissions. We have the technology to process spent fuel rods. It would take massive amounts of solar farms just to light one town. Solar farms also require extensive land and water. They only produce energy when there is wind or sunlight. Best of all, nuclear is one of the cheapest forms of energy. Sure, none of us want a nuclear power plant in our back yard, but millions of us live within a 100 miles of one and never even think about it. I would rather live near a nuclear plant than a coal plant.

.....but but.... Something from France? Like french fries? Used by us Americans!!! Unthinkable! I won't have those socialistic ideas used over here!

If you can tell I am being facetious.... good for you.

Signed,

Democrats who have always been for nuclear power.

Too bad some partisan barbs found their way into this response; it was almost a model for non-partisan speak that could lead to cooperation between Democrats & Republicans.

Can you imagine what blowhard Limbaugh would spew forth if a Democrat talked about the US joining the European Union?? How treasonous. Republicans praising the French will never be seen as genuine; using the French as a tool to repudiate President Obama won't work.

I agree that more nuclear generated electricity HAS A PLACE in our future but it should only be a GAP FILLER after we have MAXED OUT wind, solar, geothermal. Just like this piece lauds France for it's initiative with nuclear when it was not popular, so too should the US now leapfrog the world with wind & solar.

As far as the references to a "Manhattan project" and Kennedy going to the moon, the GOP is attempting to STEAL the ideas, promoted by Democrats last year, of a Renewabe Energy Imparative to rival the Apollo project of the 1960's.

Democrats, don't let them appear to be thinkers when they are not. Keep the Republicans as the party of: NO, "I hope hthe President FAILS" , SECESSION from the Union, fake TEA PARTIES, Right Wing Extremeism, legislative FILLERBUSTERS, and Congressional Obstruction. Point out their PLAGERISM and then invite them to be part of your progressive solutions.

For the first time in mordern history,i hear a republican making sense all through his comment,but with some apparent arrogance in the manner of his talk.I agree with nuclear energy but is it a must that it should be 100plants,get this idea to mr president and see if he wouldnt act on it.Hhmmmm,first time ever that a repub will make any SENSE on issues affect the citizens

It is stupid not to be using coal which this country has so much of and so many people have coal related jobs. I know the environmentalists will come down on me for saying this but clean coal should be included along with the alternative fuels since there is so much of it in this country. Almost 50% of our electricity now comes from coal fired plants and this could be increased with clean coal. Coal can be made clean if people would just realize it and stop putting it down and do more research.

And not one of them will let nuclear waste sit in their states. Hypocrits everyone of them.

GOP is a day late and a dollar short on this one.

well at least ONE of them tried to find a solution. (even though it's already on the table.)

Did they actually READ Obama's budget plan? I guess you don't to read anything before saying NO.

as usual Obama is ahead of the game and the GOP contiue to be thugasouarusii! It looks to me they keep grabbing for straws to one up Obama and he has already been there done that!

Wow, a Republican saluting French energy policy. How times have changed! When did Senator Alexander begin to hate America?! I'll bet he eats croissants for breakfast. French loving pansy!!

Kidding aside, while I agree with very little of stock Republican energy policy, I do believe we need to rethink our absolute opposition to nuclear power. While well designed, managed and guarded nuclear power plants do present a minimal amount of danger, continuing with fossil fuels offers almost certain destruction. It's time.

Is "Stupidity And How To Achieve It In Three Easy Steps" the new must read for GOPers? What absolute dribble. . .

Do these politicians hear themselves? How can we promote an expansion of nuclear energy over solar, wind, tide, etc. and tell the Iranians they cannot. Hello?

Also, unless Senator Alexander is willing to have the spent fuel storage and recycling facility next to his home in the great state of Tennessee, he needs to stop talking about the use of nuclear energy for fuel.

"We Republicans"
"We Republicans"
"We Republicans"

Give me a break. The only things being said in this whole dialogue is "we are Republicans and we are now terrified of Democrats rather than just being annoyed by them."

Sorry, guys. See you later.

As if nuclear is clean !!! Where does all that waste really go ? It's Nu Clear to me. This ever present double standard is amazing.

What a surprise.

Nuclear fission power plants can't compete in the open marketplace, so they come to Washington, DC looking for special rights and treatment.

The Republican Party that has given corporate welfare to Big Oil for the past forty years, now wants to give massive handouts to Big Nuclear for the next forty years.

But if we don't have huge, centrally planned, enormously inefficient plants to produce power, how will the power companies continue to make their obscene profits at the expense of customers and the environment?

The simple answer is, they won't. Unless we make them government protected bureaucratic monopolies and once again strangle the renewable local energy marketplace, fission plants are DOA.

It is time to say no to corporate greed and incompetence and end the bailouts of outdated and uncompetitive technology.

cool, build them in mexico though

The EPA study, upon which Democrats in the House claim to have based their energy bill, determined that there would have to be 150 new nuclear plants built in order to meet the goal of reducing carbon emissions by 80% by 2050, even with the most optimistic estimates of the growth of solar and wind power. Newt Gingrich pointed out in testimony to Rep. Waxman, Chairman of the House Energy Committee that there was no mention of nuclear power in the bill. Without nuclear power, none of the President's desires for more high speed rail, light rail, or any other electric transportation can come to pass. I believe that if Congress sends him a bill that includes development of nuclear power he will sign it.

Hey, I don't like the GOP, but at least he's offering an alternative.

And I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to actually see Obama give him a fair hearing on it, either.

France recycles its nuclear waste. Such recycling has been illegal in the United States since 1977.

I totaly agree on the nuclear power plants. Wind and solor just isn't going to cut it. They can't possibly provide the power. Besides the windmills are a hazard to begin with. Besides being a big eye sore they are a hazard to aircraft spraying farmers crops. I know this because I do that type of flying. The wind mills have also killed a lot of birds.

If you disregard Senator Alexander's bad mouthing comments about the Democrats, you can actually see a good arguement for nuclear energy development and use. The best example I can think of is a pretty (several very good points) girl that has a foul mouth (attacks upon Democrats that are unnecessary) . If she would clean up her act, she would be further ahead but her mouth ruins whatever she has to say.

As long as you don't plan to dump the Nuclear waste in my backyard in Nevada!

Nuclear power can make a significant addition/replacement to our energy requirements as can wind, solar, and other forms of energy capture/manufacture. Coal is proving to be very undesirable for many reasons and "cheap" oil is not cheap anymore and will become even more expensive as easy to recover oil is fast running out and its demand is rising.

My concern is that nuclear energy will be a focal point of disagreement between the parties as a way to garner power for each side. Both parties have taken a one and NOT the other approach to almost every challenge facing the US today.

As it stands now both sides are right and both sides are wrong. The one common theme for both parties has been to make a flashy show of one out shouting the other without really doing anything for the long term

I honestly don't know how the Republicans keep finding ways to be bigger hypocrites. After eight years of goose-stepping to the Cheney/Bush administration's don't-tax-but-spend-like-mad-and borrow-from-China line, they want to make ridiculous allusions to the French economic model. Well, the French aren't a super-power with world-wide military commitments. We still are, for now anyway. Could these people just shut up for eight years and let Obama try to clean up the mess, please?

So Senator, does your state want the nuclear waste? How about the train routes transporting radioactive items?
Thought not!
France is sending its waste to Russia now...think we could fly ours over?

The Chinese are far ahead of us in the real industry of the future...steel for wind turbines...that would create more sustainable and safe jobs than any nuclear plant. Think you have trouble selling "clean (sic) coal" wait until you try to build a nuclear facility or two in Tennessee.

And what is France doing with the nucleaar waste? And for how long can this dosposal last? I'm all for nuclear power when a longterm, safe disposal is found. As everyone else....but not in my state.

It's about time! If hordes of ignorant environmentalists hadn't stymied the nuclear program in the 1970s, this country would have ZERO dependence on foreign oil. There would have been no wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Middle Eastern extremist Islam would be inconsequential, and all the money we spend on energy would be going to American enterprises. Oh yeah, energy costs would be anywhere from 50-70% lower than they are now.

And please don't talk about safety issues. The worse possible scenario happened at Three MIle Island – and even with 30 year old technology in place, NOTHING HAPPENED.

The environmental history of the GOP:
–standing firmly in the way of any alternative forms of energy
–denying the scientific evidence of global warming
–standing firmly against any attempt to mandate better mpg
–fighting any restriction on power plants to make their output cleaner
–trying to open up every stand of old growth trees to logging
–drill, baby, drill
–one of Bush's 11th hour rules that Obama has to spend time undoing was to take more power from the EPA.

Now they're trying to sound like they are leading the way on energy and interested in the environment just like they're trying to portray themselves as being interested in healthcare. Our memories aren't that short.

OK –

The GOP hates France.
Now they love France.
And they never noticed that Obama has ALWAYS been open to nuclear as part of our energy future.

Hmmm.

C'mon, R-clowns, ixnay on the partisan rancor. We're very, very tired of it. So try to play nice. And, occasionally, come up with either an honest criticism OR a new idea. Both welcome.

And quit the obstructionist legal funding of Coleman's doomed recontructionism on the MN election. Yes, we can see through that, too.

This is way too much common sense . . . it will not be supported by the liberal democrats . . . probably because it does not support their ideals of hatrid and controlling the weak people on welfare.

Ship all the nuclear waste from these new plants to Tennessee.

So now they're boasting about France and its socialized energy production system and policies? WHAT IS GOING ON WITH THIS PARTY???

But this would not allow additional taxes to pay for the BO and the liberal democrats give-away programs . . . there woul dbe less money for them to buy votes.

What a hoot. They revile France whenever they oppose US policy, and now this gratuitous compliment? How about Freedom fries as a source of energy?

I hate to say it but the GOP may be on to something. Biggest problem I see is waste disposal. Overcome that and I say FULL Steam Ahead.

What Sen. Alexander fails to state is that nuclear energy (at least in the US) is way more expensive than other electric generating plants, not to mention the fact that no nuclear plant has ever been completed on time and on budget. Imagine trying to build 100 of those immensely complicated power plants! What we really need to do is have Congress put a carbon cap in place, and invest on renewable energy sources such as the ones Sen. Alexander and the rest of the Rethugs are afraid to support. NO TO NEW NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS!

What a great Idea..lets put ALL our money into something that produces nuclear waste that can't be safely stored anywhere. What other ways does the GOP want to destroy our planet? ...I'm shocked that the GOP's main argument for nuclear energy is "FRANCE DID IT!", when it was them just a few years ago that changed the name of FRENCH FRIES. Give me a break.

i'm a firm supporter of obama. and, i do believe solar power and wind power should be pursued as fundamental sources of power generation in the US. but, i don't disagree that nuclear power could be, and should be part of the equation in the present. and, i have to say it's quite a relief to see the republicans presenting a legitimate idea, with sound logic, for the first time in the obama administration. however, i'm sure it's not gonna last. they'll be right back to their completely obstructionist philosophy, promoting their failed fiscal and international policies. but, kudos to the republicans for finally having an idea !

Dweebs – They want to dictate hurry hurry hurry.

Obama has already said we will, ONCCE WE FIND SAFE STORAGE!

Ah, the nuclear lobby is putting the screws to their Republican toadies once again. I think nuclear power can be used cleanly. But, I don't think the current nuclear power industry is interested in keeping it clean or safe.

Well. Finally, a Republican policy point that makes sense! I am appreciative not only of the content but of the tone of this message. I believe this is the kind of thing Obama is looking for when asking for new ideas and reasonable dialogue within political discussion

Suddenly Republicans want to use the French as a good example of something for a change. Just because they have nuclear does not mean we need to create more power plants that generate more hazardous waste we still cant dispose of properly. This is more idiotic ideas from an out of touch party. Its costly and dangerous and just plain stupid to build more of these. We need CLEAN renewable fuels! This party should go away if they are going to continuously waste our timewith ill conceived ideas.

It's pretty freaking bad when Republicans are longing for the fiscal conservatism OF THE FRENCH, for crying out loud.

It is extremely expensive to build these plants which have a life of only 4- tp 50 years, when there will be the expensive problem of spent plants. The problem of where to store waste also remains, although France has a recycle program that is currently not condoned in the US at this point. What this will achieve is alot of money in the pockets of the builders and maintainers of these plants and much hif\gher energy costs for the rest of us. Power in Europe is very expensive. And it will not solve the problems with C02 emissions which are threatening the planet. Unlike France, we have abundant clean energy sources to develope in the US..

Wasn't it just a few days ago when some Republicans were accusing President Obama of wanting to turn the U.S.A. into France?

This is just another example of Republcan double standards; "When WE do it, it's OK, when THEY do it, it's wrong," Hypocrites!

It's amusing to watch a high-ranking member of the GOP praising anything done by the French, and, if memory serves, isn't there an entire river in France contaminated with radioactive waste to the point that a person couldn't even eat any fish caught in it?

Of course you would expect the Republicans to advocate an energy source like nuclear, which would make each and all of us dependent on a handful of large corporations, and ultimately benefit the wealthy, rather than advocate a solution such as solar, which would allow each of us to reduce our monthly expenses by installing panels on the roofs of our homes. Sorry, GOP, I'm following Obama's lead by taking advantage of the solar incentives to install the solar panels on my home. When the plug-in electric hybrid cars become readily available in a year or two, I'll be saving on gasoline bills as well.

Alexander brings up a more important point. When you are hyper-focused on only one type of energy (such as wind, solar,etc...) and are irrationally hostile towards other sources of energy (oil, clean coal, natural gas, nuclear, etc...) like many Democrats are, then you are doing more harm to the country than good.

Everyone knows that clean, renewable sources of energy will eventually replace traditional sources of energy; however, that is still in the future. Until we reach that moment when renewable sources of energy can meet the modern demands of Americans, we need to explore ALL forms of energy in the interim. We need to search for oil and natural gas, we need to use more nuclear power, and we need to do this in an environmentally friendly way.

It is possible to research and develop new, cleaner technologies while producing more oil, natural gas, and nuclear energy in the process. Yes, the U.S. can walk and chew gum at the same time. I've actually seen it.

The current administration's approach of "it's our way or the highway" is counter-productive and basically precludes any hope for serious bipartisanship and productive compromises.

Remember Republicans........nu'-cu-lar

The state of Tennessee doesn't seem to be a leader for energy solutions, or a leader of anything. Why does the GOP insist on using dangerous energy sources, such as oil, and nuclear energy?

Sun, wind and water, seem to be the most natural, abundant, and safest means of energy production for our country, and I'm willing to spend a little more money to use it.

I'm not wealthy, either!

Republicans embracing a foreign concept, let alone from 'Old Europe,' moreover, let alone from France. ??? You mean they actually think that some countries can actually do things better than US? Wow. Maybe they are, indeed, trying to stop their slouch toward irrelevance.

Guess the Frenchies just built all their plants since Obamaram took office, because during the eight years of Republican control of Congress and 8 Bush years, they never said ONE WORD about Nuclear being a good idea. Johnny come lately again.
Most amazing is how really out of touch they continue to show themselves. The earth is NOT flat anymore Repubs !

And the nuclear waste goes . . . where?

We can no do things out of Political influence. We need a good preparation to go nuclear, just like the word suggests it is very risky!

not often that i agree with a republicant.
but this is one of those moments.
nuclear power is needed along with solar, wind and other clean energy sources.
nuclear power is scary to some but we do need to get rid of dirty coal wich is by far the worst polluter of our energy sources.

At what cost.? The safety and disposal of nuclear waste is still a great question.
We are destroying our planet with uncensored power and this must be given great attention before implimentation.

OF COURSE the republicans would come up with Nuclear power.. Thats just perfect for them..I think all the plants should be built in ALASKA next to where Sarah Palin lives.. I bet she would just say YOUBETCHA!

That's a great idea Senator Alexander! So.... we can put a buncha these plants in Tennessee, right?

Lets start by building a nuclear plant behind his home.

I am a Democrat and a huge Obama supporter. But I agree 100% that we need to be looking at safe nuclear power. Finally...an ACTUAL proposal from a Republican. I've been waiting for one for months! Woohoo!

And where will we store all the nuclear waste? Sean Hannity's house?

Nuclear power is the only way to go. Clean energy and American made.

Uh, where was this suggestion for the last 8 years. Repubs had controll of both house of Congress and the WH.

But wait, that would have broken the stranglehold that big oil has on the American public.

The shrub, who was neck deep in the oil industry, would never give up corporate profits on Wall Street just to build nuclear plants to help the average American.

What was I thinking?

The US needs to embrace Hydrogen as our new freedom fuel just as the rest of the world is busy converting. The only issue now is who will profit???

nuclear plants= disaster wating to happen coming to your nieghbor hood