Second, while we invest in renewable energy sources like wind and solar, we must also take advantage of nuclear power, our single largest contributor of emissions-free power. Nuclear power needs to be a core component of electricity generation if we are to meet our emission reduction targets. We need to jettison cumbersome regulations that have stalled the construction of nuclear plants in favor of a streamlined permit system that maintains vigorous safeguards while allowing utilities to secure financing for more plants. We must also do more to encourage serious investment in research and development to find solutions to our nuclear waste problem.
Incidentally, the first point is that they agree that global warming is real – and the third point is that the Kerry-Boxer climate change bill is a good opportunity to enhance energy security. And there’s a fourth point about not exporting jobs overseas. You can read the article for all that. They’re good points all, but even with our slant, we’d have to say the nuclear provisions are by far the most noteworthy because they indicate what Kerry and Graham find necessary for the legislation to fulfill its goals.
If there’s any downside at all, it’s that nuclear energy is given such a key spot because Kerry and Graham think it might be a harder sell that its renewable cousins. We’ve shown many times that polls (and from firms like Gallup) indicate that nuclear really isn’t that tough a sell. But that’s okay – Kerry and Graham do make the case, they’ve declared themselves publically, and they’re key to the legislation. We’ll take it with bells on.
A true bipartisan barn burner.
We feature Sen. Kerry last week. Here’s his co-writer, Sen. Lindsey Graham.
Comments
Unless we stop entertaining such OBVIOUS horrible unworkable ideas and get serious we're not going to make any progress on climate change or nuclear power expansion.