Nuclear Power
The recent congressional vote for arctic drilling would not have been necessary if we had maintained a commitment to developing nuclear power as an energy source. Of course, in the wake of Three Mile Island, we had a number of setbacks that were unavoidable. One had to expect high levels of hysteria, finger-pointing and inevitable mistrust of industrial information - and with good reason. But we still have to get all of the hysteria and misinformation behind us so that we can seriously reconsider nuclear energy as one way of getting free of Middle Eastern dependence. It is time to recognize what even France understands, which is that nuclear energy is the cleanest, safest and least expensive way to get beyond oil dependency. In our case, we also have hazardous things that happen to economically disadvantaged people through the emissions of coal burning.Right now, the only practical choice to move away from fossil fuels is nuclear power. Solar power, wind power, bio-energy may all have a place, and may get more useful in the future, but right now nuclear is the only option we have. Nothing else even comes close.
posted by Dave Justus | 3/21/2005 01:10:00 PM
2 Comments:
I'm in favor of more nuclear power plants, although I recognize until we get technology like hydrogen fuel cells or powerful, rapid-charging batteries, we won't be able to replace oil as the power source for our cars.
I fear that if leaders pushed for more nuclear plants now, people would be more afraid, thanks to the current season of 24.
That is true, but a lot of oil is used for purposes other than gasoline and I believe we could dramatically reduce or dependancy just by this method.
I also submit, that cheaper power would spur development of fuel cell vehicles.
Post a Comment
<< Home