Should nuclear progress be kept on the table as part of our energy policy?

[calteacherguy]

Both Clinton and Obama believe nuclear energy need to be kept on the table as part of the solution to global warming and our addiction to oil, along with a strong commitment to research, science, and all forms renewable energy. I have provided more informatiion and links to their views in another recent thread.

John Edwards says he would never approve the building of another nuclear power plant, ever.

[Selatius]

1. The option of building nuke power plants should be considered as a fail-safe option.

If the transition to a renewable-energy based economy proves inadequate to meet geopolitical realities in the world or takes too long to address environmental issues of global warming, then the consideration of the construction of several nuclear power stations could be seriously discussed.

In short, don't build nuke power plants unless you can't meet your goal of getting off fossil fuels and altering the environment with greenhouse emissions.

[calteacherguy]

2. It's not "if it proves inadequate"

It will be inadequate to address climate change. We need to face reality, and quickly.

[Basileus Basileon]

3. On the table? Too weak for me.

I want more nuke plants ASAP. I also want expanded investment in renewable clean energy, but every day without another nuclear plant is another day a coal plant is belching CO2 into the atmosphere.

[calteacherguy]

8. I agree with you totally on that, but at least they are better than Edwards.

Do you know Biden's position?

[yourout]

4. One of the very few things I disagree with Edwards about.

Years ago I read about some Nuclear Plant design that the catalyst for the reaction was suspended in the coolant so a coolant loss would just shutdown the reaction. And it produced far less waste than a conventional one.

Anyone else heard of it? Wish I would have kept the article.

[DemBones DemBones]

5. The problem with nuclear power is the radioactive wastes

that have to be stored somewhere and will remain dangerous for a very long time so they must be stored safely.

This country's track record for storing chemical hazardous wastes has been lousy and the storage of nuclear wastes always includes transporting it by train or truck across the country. Trains and trucks get in wrecks and if one carrying nuclear wastes does, it will be a major problem.

Of course, I've pretty much concluded that we'll be going back to a pre-industrial economy and lifestyle by 2200, if we survive that long without some idiot in some government deciding to start a nuclear war. I'm not very optimistic about Homo sapiens proving it deserves its species name.

[bunnies]

6. Do any of those who vote "yes"...

Live near a nuke plant? I'm just curious. Because getting the evacuation booklet every year is not particularly comforting. Especially when you live in a zone that says "No Evacuation Possible". If someone blows it up... Im dead. Who wants to live with that knowledge? This is a photo from close to where I live:

Think about it.

edit: clarity

[calteacherguy]

7. Climate change is a threat to the entire planet.

Nuclear energy can be done safely, as has been proven in the U.S. and worldwide.

We have to face the threat from climate change seriously, and soberly.

[BeyondGeography]

9. Yep, Indian Point in the NY area

The main concern for me re. nukes is waste disposal, with security second. Man-made climate change and the dramatic need to reduce greenhouse gases is beginning to trump those concerns for me.

That said, nukes should never be put to the service of producing more fossil fuels as in northern Alberta, where they are planning to use nuclear power to help oil production of the black-tar sand pits, where it takes a ton of energy ($30 in cost per barrel produced) just to turn a solid into a liquid. :crazy:

[RaleighNCDUer]

10. you get evacuation booklets every year? Lucky you.

I'm 12 miles downwind of a a nuclear plant that everyone pretends doesn't exist. With the prevailing winds coming from the SW, an accident at Shearon Harris would blanket the capitol city, but I've never heard of any evac plans, warnings, anything.

Perhaps Edwards, having dealt with the big power companies professionally, understands that they cannot be trusted.

I'm not reflexively paranoid about nuclear power, but I do have to worry about the corporations that control it in this country.