Tuesday, September 18, 2007

Should Democrats Embrace Nuclear Energy?

For Daily Kos diarist bryfry, the answer is yes:

Now is the time for Democrats to champion real solutions (note: that's plural; there are more than one solution) that don't require fossil fuels. Nobody is saying that efficiency, conservation, or renewables should be discarded. On the contrary, they are absolutely essential. But to leave out nuclear energy -- the one energy source that has proven itself in the US, in France, in Japan, and is today proving itself in over 400 currently operating reactors worldwide -- is simply ludicrous.

Democrats should say yes to nuclear energy. Now is the chance to provide real answers to one of the most important questions of our time: how will we live and where will the energy come from? The opportunity is too great to pass up.
For more, read this Boston Globe op ed from John Dyson and Matt Bennett.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Please, nuclear is not safe since it leaves
radioactive refuse, in many instances in places
that don't want it or are so poor and willing to
accept it. Where will you be in 25,000 years
to see if the systems determined to last,
didn't break down? Also given our world of
terrorism, why not build more targets?

MIT determined that two geo thermal plants
could be built within a few years...one on each
coast, at the cost of 2.9 billion dollars that would
produce 24X the amount of electricity currently
used. This is a minimal cost compared to its
production, as well as having no deleterious
effect on the environment now or in the
future. I know they say it can make faults
more vulnerable, but how about not building
on one, such as occurred with previous
nuclear plants. Nuclear plants have been gone for 30 years for a reason. It is like resuscitating
Frankenstein. We don't want them, they are the
dinosaur of the past. Give true green a chance,
and new industries that promote the well-being
of our citizens. Green and nuclear are an
oxymoron, outrageous that you would support
this issue.