May 14, 2005
-- by Dave Johnson
Several of the nation's most prominent environmentalists have gone public with the message that nuclear power, long taboo among environmental advocates, should be reconsidered as a remedy for global warming.Like I've been saying, we're currently dumping the "spent fuel" from burning fossil fuels straight into the atmosphere. It's killing a lot of people and warming the planet.
Except we can't trust this corrupt government to properly regulate the construction and operation of nuclear plants.
TrackBack URL for this entry:
I agree that going Nuke has some core issues and that the previous government handling waste is one of them. I would point out that other governments, notably France have done a much better job. Perhaps outsourcing?
Our backs are up against the wall this time.
Posted by: Balthazar3n at May 14, 2005 3:35 PM
If we deploy enough nuclear reactors to make an appreciable dent in our energy consumption, the likelihood of CATASTROPHIC "accidents" will skyrocket. (When something is predictable with high certainty, can anyone call it an "accident").
Posted by: richard at May 14, 2005 4:12 PM
The NY Times published an article recently pointing out with great skepticism how little using Nuke power would cut back on air pollution from oil; maybe 1 or 2%. It can only be used to make electricity, not put into cars and trucks. Most electric companies are no longer using oil anyway.
Posted by: MJ at May 14, 2005 6:45 PM
How about having the first one built in Washington D.C. If it is as safe as Bush says then there should be no problem with having one right next to the White House.
Posted by: Jane Algozzini at May 16, 2005 5:49 AM
This present "crisis" has been known about for many years. When Carter was in the White House he spoke on this but no one listened to him. He was the only president who tried to do something about the problem and even put solar panels in the White House to encourage others to do the same. Instead of supporting this, the first thing Regan did when he became president was to remove the solar panels. Little to no money has been spent to investigate the use of solar, wind, thermal and other alternative means of power. If every house that was built from now on would have to have solar panels it would reduce the need for fossil fuels. If houses were better insulated it would further reduce the need for fossil fuel. In most european countries, much of the day to day traveling is done on bicycle and scooter. If we made it safer for this fuel efficient mode of travel, many would use them for the short trips instead of using their cars. Again, another decrease in the use of fuel. Windmills are being used to generate electricity but only on a limited basis because of a few complants of them "ruining the landscape". I would rather look at windmills then not be able to see anything because of the dirt in the air. There are alternatives to fossil fuel and we have the means to offer the alternatives that wiil allow a substantial reduction in the need for oil, coal and especially nuclear. So, why aren't we using them and why are we hearing so little about them?
Posted by: Jane Algozzini at May 16, 2005 6:13 AM
Post a comment
Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)