So, let's talk energy policies!

UserGoogol said:
What are you talking about? Barack Obama supports nuclear power, he just stresses that there needs to be more efforts to keep it safe, which seems entirely reasonable.
Click to expand...

After doing some research, I'm inclined to say that you're wrong here. I don't see how anyone could claim that Obama supports nuclear power. He himself has stated that nuclear power is not "optimal" and that he is not a proponent of it. When he does speak directly about the issue, he criticizes nuclear energy for being unsafe. As I mentioned before, I don't see any indication that he will pursue creating new nuclear plants if elected. In fact, he says there is "no future for expanded nuclear power" until we address certain safety concerns.

I'm not going to judge if this is good or bad policy (though I have my own opinions), but I think it's a stretch to say that he "supports" nuclear power.
 
Pookster said:
One of his big concerns is waste disposal. You don't typically have such long-term hazardous waste issues from other power sources. It's not a trivial issue if you're talking about a number of new plants.
Click to expand...

If only there were some place, like a mountain, with stable geology where all the waste could be stored safely............what, there is such a place and the same environmentalists who say nuclear power needs to solve the waste problem oppose the creation of this place? Isn't that a coincidence?

What if there were some way of reprocessing the waste.....what, there is.....and those same environmentalists oppose that? Well, I'm sure that isn't by design. Surely a fluke.
 
Nuclear power isn't a bad option. We can deal with the waste and it doesn't result in green house gases.


It's really the only technology that we have that can really replace much of our energy demands in a CO2 free way. If global warming is really this big looming disaster that we must stop now at all costs, more nuclear power must be part of the solution.
 
Travis said:
If only there were some place, like a mountain, with stable geology where all the waste could be stored safely............what, there is such a place and the same environmentalists who say nuclear power needs to solve the waste problem oppose the creation of this place? Isn't that a coincidence?

What if there were some way of reprocessing the waste.....what, there is.....and those same environmentalists oppose that? Well, I'm sure that isn't by design. Surely a fluke.
Click to expand...


My State of South Carolina has been dealing with the issue of radioactive waste disposal for decades now. We have had one of the few low level radioactive waste landfills in the country. The debate over whether to keep it open or closed over the years was very heated. The players from on both sides of the issue involved both political parties. Again, it's not a trivial issue. It's truly a "not in my backyard" issue (among others) that knows no political or ideological boundaries. Based on experience, I suspect it's much the same with what you're referring to as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom