Do you support government funded incentives for energy companies to encourage building more nuclear plants?

Question

Nuclear is cheap in the long run, but new plant construction can run well over 2 billion dollars.

It costs only a couple hundred million dollars to shut down a nuke plant, that is much less than contruction costs- about 10% of what it costs to build it.

Answer 1

I'd rather see 2 billion dollars go to building a new nuclear power plant, which is clean energy for the most part (yes i know about the radioactive waste). I hate hearing how we are spending another 150 billion dollars on this stupid war in Iraq!

We need to do something about cleaning up our environment. Coal power plants expell so many carcinogens. Pretty soon we are all going to have to wear gas masks so we dont all get cancer!

Answer 2

I really don't see it as a bad thing but i do not support it either . I believe our technology is far more advanced then we are told . I believe we are all being duped by the government and the big money making energy company's . I think the government ways of thinking are is far behind times . We can get our money circulating in better ways then giving it to the energy company's and government energy taxes . Its just a time for a change of hands

Answer 3

Yes

"Another reason is that the nuclear lobby has enjoyed a long and profitable relationship with both Clinton and Gore. Al Gore, who wrote of the potential green virtues of nuclear power in his book Earth in the Balance, earned his stripes as a congressman protecting the interests of two of the nuclear industry's more problematic enterprises, the TVA and the Oak Ridge Labs. And, of course, Bill Clinton backed Entergy's outrageous plan to make Arkansas ratepayers pay for cost overruns on the company's Grand Gulf reactor which provided power to electricity consumers in Louisiana."

Exerpted from source

Answer 4

Yes. It is the only alternative we have available that can supply the amount of energy we need to continue our way of life and get off foreign oil as well as reduce pollution. Solar, Wind, Etc. alomg with conservation will help, but these alternatives are much more expensive, and not reliable like nuclear power. The sun doesn't always shine and the wind doesn't always blow.

Answer 5

Why not? We're spending that much subsidizing power corporations for buying wind turbines and ethanol plants.

There is nothing as profitable in this country right now than global warming. I'm just glad I'm making my share of cash from this while the getting is good.

I wonder how you feel knowing that you are funding my SUV?

Answer 6

Yes. The neocons have been subsidizing the coal and oil industry for 25 years. You see where tha tgot us. Time to cut them off and use the money for modern technology, not for building more plants tha tare obsolete 19th century technology just to enrich some special interests.

Answer 7

Yes, but I support incentives to encourage energy companies to build more renewable power plants even more.

Answer 8

I see all alternatives to stop global warming as a good thing. All alternatives to fossil fuels should be encourage with government incentives and speedier permit processes.

Answer 9

Yes. Especially if we want electric powered cars. By far the best way to produce effecient power.

Answer 10

They should close down all Nuclear plants down.
There are many other safer long term power station sources.
Like power from the ocean.
Windfarms.
Adding solar panels to homes in areas where possible.