Both Clinton and Obama agree nuclear energy needs to be kept on table.

[calteacherguy]

Here, Clinton says nuclear energy needs to be part of the energy solution:

http://neinuclearnotes.blogspot.com/2007/03/senator-hillary-clinton-on-nuclear.html

Here is a statement by Obama:

As Congress considers policies to address air quality and the deleterious effects of carbon emissions on the global ecosystem, it is reasonable – and realistic – for nuclear power to remain on the table for consideration. Illinois has 11 nuclear power plants – the most of any State in the country – and nuclear power provides more than half of Illinois’ electricity needs.

But keeping nuclear power on the table – and indeed planning for the construction of new plants – is only possible if the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is vigilant in its mission. We need better long-term strategies for storing and securing nuclear waste and for ensuring the safe operation of nuclear power plants. How we develop these strategies is a major priority for me.

http://neinuclearnotes.blogspot.com/2005/05/senator-obama-climate-change-air.html

I'm really happy to see both our front-runners are keeping a realistic, pragmatic, open mind to nuclear progress. We cannot address climate change with renewables and conservation alone. What we need is a President who will invest heavily in renewables and conservation, push strongly for more fuel efficient vehicles, and revive the U.S. nuclear energy program. It's only then that we can rid ourselves of our addiction to oil and all it entails.

I decided to do some research on Obama's and Clinton's views on nuclear progress, and I'm really happy to see they are not knee-jerking to the far left. Many, many leading envirnomentalists understand the need for nuclear progress as part of the solution to address climate change and lowered air quality.

Thumbsup for both Obama and Clinton on this one.
:thumbsup:

[bbinacan]

1. I agree and we should

follow the French model.

[calteacherguy]

2. Edwards is totally backward on this, by the way.

He says he will never build any more nuclear energy plants under any circumstances. He panders to the radical left at the expense of reality, science, the environment, and our national security.

[zalinda]

3. I don't agree

I think nuclear energy is problematic at best. Not only does it take a long time to built one and millions of dollars, there is ABSOLUTELY NO WAY to get rid of the waste. It's dangerous, as we learned with Chernobyl and concentrates energy making all in one place. I think with the technologies that we are devising now and in the future for wind, solar, wave and alternative fuels, it is the best we can do. I don't trust nuclear, if a plant goes down, we are in big trouble. I would much rather have a lot of small generators that one big generator.

zalinda

[calteacherguy]

4. It's the only way we can have a significant impact on carbon emissions.

I agree with you on everything you say about wind, solar, etc. We need to develop those forms of energy to their fullest as well.

Climate change is the greatest threat we face.

[DCKit]

5. If anyone could be trusted to design and build a nuke plant....

Without a bloated budget, cost over-runs and inherent design flaws, I'd say "Let's go!" But they give the contracts to companies like Bechtel and all of the above are guaranteed.

There's too much fraud built into the system and far too little competition.

[dionysus]

6. if it is done safely, nukular power isn't all that bad.

it's only when you have unsafe plants and poor waste management when it becomes dangerous.

I still like wind and solar, but if the increasing population keeps demanding more energy... you've got fossil fuels vs. nuclear to choose from unfortunately.

[Dawgs]

7. Agree. Edwards has been very disappointing on climate change.

[JDPriestly]

8. Wow! I oppose nuclear energy.

The problem is that we do not know what problems people will be dealing with in 200 years. If humans still exist on earth, if animals still exist on earth, will they know where we have hidden the nuclear waste? How do we prevent the nuclear waste from harming future generations?

We simply do not yet have solutions to the nuclear waste problem. Until we do, we should reject the proliferation of nuclear energy. Nuclear energy is particularly dangerous in areas of the world with few resources and in nations in which education about and understanding of technology are limited to the elites. Does that describe the U.S.? I suspect it does.

[calteacherguy]

10. Climate change is the greatest threat.

We have to address it with everything we've got.

[JDPriestly]

12. We can fight climate change without nuclear energy.

And we can help the American economy if we opt for solar, wind and other alternative energy sources.

[calteacherguy]

13. No we can't.

Yes, we can help the American economy and the climate by developing wind, solar, etc.

No, climate change cannot be effectively stopped without putting nuclear progress into the mix.

[fed-up]

9. Are you volunteering to store the waste is YOUR backyard?? nt

[calteacherguy]

11. Climate change is a greater threat than the challenge of nuclear waste. nt

[Tellurian]

14. Automobiles are the greatest contributor of carbon emissions to the atmosphere

"Automobile exhaust has weight. The report estimates that two mid-sized vehicles emit more than nine metric tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) a year into the atmosphere, where it blankets the Earth, trapping the Sun's heat close to the planet."

http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/jun2006/2006-06-28-03.asp

Nuclear energy is not a solution to carbon emissions. Electric cars and synthetic fuels would drastically cut carbon emissions. Coal and Nuclear energy are unsatisfactory alternatives to oil and gasoline sources.