France gets 80% of their electricity from nuclear energy.
The founder of Greenpeace supports the use of nuclear energy to help America's electricity needs.
But, Dems won't even consider using nuclear energy to help America get away from supporting the Saudis. Dems insist we use corn.
Are the Dems trying to destroy America economically?
http://www.terrapass.com/blog/posts/2006/04/greenpeace-founder-goes-nuclear.html
2007-11-26 03:13:44 · 10 answers · asked by How Big is Your Govt Check 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
I dont really know what the argument is. I know that very bad things could happen if a nuclear reactor screwed up, but that rarely happens. I'm generally more liberal (be really most likely libertarian) , but I support nuclear energy.
I doubt they are trying to destroy the economy, in fact that is a very stupid thing to say...sorry bro. You cant drive a car on nuclear energy, but you can on corn. (which does create it's own problems, but no need to go into that now).
2007-11-26 03:21:54 · answer #1 · answered by Snowboard Zombie 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Why does a rustic the place gas is 8 cents consistent with gallon want nuclear ability? ok, only kidding. it rather is ingenious thinking to undertake nuclear ability because of the fact oil will ultimately run out and Iran has no hydro-electric. the massive concern, of direction, is weapons. If there's a assure that the reactors will basically be sluggish-breeders then no subject, yet with Iranian secrecy around the undertaking there is apprehension in the west. whilst Iran says "non violent purposes basically" and in the comparable breath announces the obliteration of alternative international locations, then needless to say the disparity would be observed. a protracted time in the past the U. S. and Soviet Union discovered a painful lesson related to nuclear standoffs. Its an particularly intense priced interest and no-one wins.
2016-12-10 06:28:55 · answer #2 · answered by golub 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yep, and unfortunately, we have 55,000 metric tons (2200 lbs = 1 metric ton) of nuclear waste from CIVILIAN Power (Dod/DoE not included). But the catch is, we have nowhere to put this waste and Yucca Mountain will only store ~ 77,000 mt...
Now, too bad we don't utilize Breeder Reactor technology, but the fear of terrorism precludes that notion.
I am more intrigued with solar, tidal, wind sources, which combined with conservation efforts, would supply our electric needs as well as being limitless and clean.
2007-11-26 03:28:17 · answer #3 · answered by outcrop 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
um.. no... we just don't like the idea of extra toxic waste sitting around at even MORE nuclear reactors... especially when there are OTHER OPTIONS. Nothing against nuclear if we had better storage/disposal.. but seriously... would you want that sludge buried in your backyard? well neither does anyone else.. so it just sits on site and cumulates... whereas with corn... (ethanol).. we just produce water.
Plus, with ethanol you are talking more about transportation (at least in the short term) and with nuclear you are talking more about lighting your house.
2007-11-26 03:21:37 · answer #4 · answered by pip 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes. Nuclear energy is very useful. Dems just say that Chernobyl will happen again in the U.S.
2007-11-26 03:21:27 · answer #5 · answered by Sain 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Dems don't want such cheap power.
Nuclear energy would make one more corporation that is unable to fund their spending habits (by putting oil out of business).
Ron Paul wants to let the free market decide.
The free market would choose Nuclear (as it would have in the '80s).
Ron Paul, hope for America.
2007-11-26 03:30:13 · answer #6 · answered by abyssal_nuclei 3 · 1⤊ 2⤋
I think that's misleading. Green Peace<>Democratic. The problem with Nuclear energy is the NIMBY syndrome (Not in my backyard). It's the same problem we have with oil refineries and airports. Everyone wants more of them just not in their backyard.
2007-11-26 03:21:19 · answer #7 · answered by Holy Cow! 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
They are trying to destroy the strength we have in any way possible. They want us to be dependent on the UN in every possible way, including energy and defense.
2007-11-26 03:24:06 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
as long as Dems can tax everyone...put themselves in line for big pay raises every year..via the public sector..why would they want anyone to do well?..this is all retribution for not voting their way the past several elections..
why not ask George Soros how much money he has earmarked towards OIl speculation?...driving up the price of oil so we all look toward the Dems and him in 2008?
The Gov't employee should not have a vote in the general election..it is a conflict of interest
2007-11-26 03:20:34 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
I think there are many ways of making us go green. Anything is better than oil
2007-11-26 03:22:22 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋