Nuclear energy is not cost effective unless you do away with most of the safeguards. Then comes the question of what to do with the waste, and how do you secure it from terrorists?
2007-01-23 00:35:17
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anarchy99 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
That is probably the only thing the French have done right. Nuclear power can be extremely safe AND economical. Standardize the design and you have something that is safe and cost effective. But today no two plants are alike. Each requires specialized parts and a team that works on one cannot necessarily work on another. Our only nuclear mishap occured because humans messed up. The problem was not in design. It was lack of PROPER training. We do need to get away from fossil fuels for electricity production. And I don't really have a problem if Democrats want the government to take over electricity production and distribution. But IF they do go that route I want to see them turn a profit. I don't want another Amtrak. There are a lot of things that can be done to get away from fossil fuels. And all will have some impact on the environment in a negative way. But right now we have said you can't to this and that because it will harm the environment and kept on burning fossil fuels. Didn't that 'harm' the environment?
2016-05-24 00:25:56
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
The hypocrisies evident in the environmental and energy debates are staggering. Below are 2 examples.
Reduce dependence on foreign oil, but don't exploit our own resources to do so until alternative energy sources become a viable reality.
Reduce emissions related to coal producing energy plants, but don't exploit alternative sources like nuclear energy.
I won't go to the extreme of calling anyone an idiot. I do believe that we should do everything we can to help the environment, including exploring alternative energy sources. I just think that we have to be realistic and many feelgood environmental solutions do not meet this simple criteria. The main problem in my opinion though is lobbying. It is not in the interests of big oil to allow open research on alternative energy sources and as such they spend enormous amounts of money to curry favor with legislators to keep this from becoming a reality. Democrats will tell you it's Republicans, Republicans say it's Democrats. No matter who is at fault it is the American public who is suffering for it. This comes in the form of higher costs and a foreign policy which is too often driven by attempts to control the flow of this commodity in general.
2007-01-23 00:11:58
·
answer #3
·
answered by Bryan 7
·
2⤊
0⤋
Before you get paranoid about China's nuclear pogrammes, read this first:
G W Bush just recently signed a Nuclear Cooperation deal with India. Under the terms of the deal, the United States would give India access to U.S. nuclear technology and conventional weapons systems.
Who's to blame if someday such technology fall into terrorist's hands?.
2007-01-26 23:35:35
·
answer #4
·
answered by roadwarrior 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
And where are all the Nuke plants the Republicans have built in the last 6 years? They had control of the House, the Senate AND the White House, didn't they?
Where were all the proposals to build nuke plants while Bush is giving Big Oil millions in taxpayer-funded subsidies they dont need? How many billions of dollars per quarter does Big Oil need to steal from the US customer, before you stop playing the blame game and start working the for US VOTER??
2007-01-23 00:16:51
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
I don't think that "libs" are behind the nuclear freeze. Perhaps they were at one time, but nuclear power could be one option to get us toward energy independence. It's the older generation, that heard of 3 mile island, Chernobyl, etc., that are afraid of nuclear. And then we compound the problem because we don't recycle our fuel (for fear that it will be re-enriched for bombs) and because we don't have any place to store it. Solve some of those problems, and we can get moving toward nuclear again.
(Remember GOP has lots of oil interests back there not really that interested in us moving away from fossil fuels en masse.)
2007-01-23 00:18:05
·
answer #6
·
answered by Perdendosi 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
Here, here do not blame the liberals. That is to general. I am a liberal and I see some problems with nuclear waste but I think considering all of the known alternatives that we need to build more nuclear plants. ourselves. Fossil fuel plants are a danger to the environment in their own right. I do think we need to proceed, full speed ahead with caution, but we need to proceed. I say go ahead and build the plants.
2007-01-23 00:08:55
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
4⤊
0⤋
Why would we want to start an arms race with China? And HELLO, France is like the size of Wisconsin, of course they'll use nuclear energy.
2007-01-22 23:58:55
·
answer #8
·
answered by Theophile 2
·
3⤊
0⤋
Not just liberals. It's the NIMBY crowd. Everyone want power, no one wants to live near a plant. Look at Ted Kennedy and the windfarm. It would have ruined his ocean view so he used his senate power to kill it.
2007-01-23 00:02:41
·
answer #9
·
answered by zombiefighter1988 3
·
5⤊
1⤋
Can't speak to idiots or smart. Fearful perhaps. Without justification, perhaps.
2007-01-22 23:58:46
·
answer #10
·
answered by MT C 6
·
1⤊
1⤋