Not too long ago, we reviewed a report that looked at nuclear energy (and other energy sources) as biodiversity agents. This had to do, in part, with the amount of land a facility needs to function. Nuclear energy and fossil fuel plants use relatively little, wind farms and solar arrays quite a lot of land . Based on an objective and transparent analysis of our sustainable energy choices, we have come to the evidence-based conclusion that nuclear energy is a good option for biodiversity conservation (and society in general) and that other alternatives to fossil fuels should be subjected to the same cost–benefit analyses (in terms of biodiversity and climate outcomes, as well as sociopolitical imperatives) before accepting or dismissing them. Writer Barry Brook, who collected 75 scientists to endorse his paper, is interested in land use as it impacts flora and fauna. Biodiversity concerns do not get as much play as they might – and, when they do, it annoys many when land is withdraw...
In an interview on "Meet the Press," Sen. Barack Obama (D) was asked by host Tim Russert to discuss his position on Nuclear Energy.
Comments
Wins prize for most nonsensical answer yet.
Actually it's a very good answer for nuclear power, given the constituency that Obama is currently courting. If he is elected, he can "discover" the already-running design licensing process (approving standard designs, rather than designing each plant). He can "discover" that nuclear power has a safety record second to none. And he can "discover" that Yucca Mountain is a reasonable solution to waster, especially if it has its license at that point. All of which could allow him to push forward with nuclear power expansion.
Yes, nuclear in the US has had a nasty cost control problem from the 70s to the 90s and the long term destiny of spent fuel is the other big issue, still wide open and in need for some serious decision making.
That Obama can correctly identify those issues and doesn't descent in incoherents about radioactive leaks means we're in a much better shape than with any past presidential candidate in the last 25 years, Republican or Democrat. Admittedly, the bar is pretty darn low...
The fact that Excelon Corp. is one of his biggest corporate donors may have something to do with it :>
I think this is the wrong place for a general political discussion.
I liked McCain, that guy whose conscious opposed Bush's tax cut, who argued against torture as a wrong policy on ethical and factual grounds - torture produces bad intelligence. I don't want to see 3rd Bush term.
Recent nuclear revival is caused by real needs for more power in the times when fossil fuel prices soar. No administration can stop that. I am certainly suspicious of Clinton's intentions, but even she'll have to realize that even with grand solar plan we'd need more nuclear. Much more indeed.
Therefore I think the best candidate is Obama, he is of the least antinuclear among democrats, and I agree with Joffan that 'change is going to come' ;-)
-t- (not the other anonymouses)
Let's stick to nuclear power or this board will become a mess...
"The thing about being in the middle of the road is that you wind up getting hit from both sides."