Morales Proposes Health Insurance Benefits… For Herself  |   Home  |   Weigh In On State Tartan

Nuke Global Warming

My column for the West Bend Daily News is online.  In it, I advocate for more nuclear power.  It’s called, “Nuke global warming.”

Here’s an interesting tidbit that didn’t make it into the column… a coal power plant releases more radioactive material into the environment than a properly functioning nuclear power plant.

Posted by Owen at 1537 hrs
Politics + Politics - Wisconsin + Technology

1. I couldn’t agree more.  Look at Europe!  They’re all about nuclear.  There’s no reason we can’t be, too. 

   I’m all for conservation and efficiency.  Better gas mileage, fewer cars even.. but there’s no way we can seriously reduce greenhouse gas emissions and reduce our dependence on fossil fuels unless we go way nuclear.

   Posted by scott on November 20, 2007 at 1612 hrs
   
   
   

2. I always find it amusing when the greens compare US policy to EU policy on nearly every issue, except for this one.  They love to wax on about the forward-thinking governments of Amsterdam, the Netherlands, or Belgium - as if any of those are even a fair comparison to the size and population of the US. 

   Wind, solar, soybeans, and the like are all fine as a part of the energy mix.  But there is simply no substitute that can produce the magnitude of energy like coal or nuclear.  And if they despise coal-fired power plants, what’s left?

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 20, 2007 at 1622 hrs
   
   
   

3. We shouldn’t fear nuclear energy.

   Where are the presidential candidates on this issue?  To my knowledge the only one supporting more nuclear energy production is Obama.

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 20, 2007 at 1624 hrs
   
   
   

4. It isn’t just coal, there is production of many materials in the US that produce more toxic waste than the nuclear waste itself.

   This is an older chart, but here is a comparison.

   Posted by Sandi on November 20, 2007 at 1627 hrs
   
   
   

5. Props, nukes are the new green. Now, granted, a number of folks back in my home state of New Mexico might disagree… As they end up the prime dumping ground for the waste… But hey! No bigger wildlife preserve than Chernobyl!

   

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 20, 2007 at 1638 hrs
   
   
   

6. According to the LA Times:

   “Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.), Barack Obama (D-Ill.) and Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) - all presidential candidates - support legislation that would cap greenhouse gas emissions and provide incentives to power companies to build more nuclear plants.”

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 20, 2007 at 1645 hrs
   
   
   

7. ...a coal power plant releases more radioactive material into the environment than a properly functioning nuclear power plant.

   I don’t have a knee-jerk reaction against nuclear—but the reality is, nothing stays “properly functioning” forever. Nothing.

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 20, 2007 at 1725 hrs
   
   
   

8. Right on, Owen!  Let’s put the engineering professors at UW on task to find a way to re-use the nuclear waste and then there will be no argument against using nuclear.  If they can perform stem cell research miracles not once but twice, they can solve this issue as well.

   If the waste issue can’t be solved, put the spent fuel in Nevada.  Nevada won the right to “host” the waste fair and square and there is no good reason not to put it there where the sun don’t shine!

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 20, 2007 at 1750 hrs
   
   
   

9. I could not agree more. I was a member of the fusion society back in the 60’s and 70’s when Hollywood succeeded in scaring all sorts of uncomplicated people. One addition for Owen’s column is the fact that pebble reactors can still extract quite a bit of energy from the spent rods. Maybe it’s good that we didn’t send them all to Yucca mountain. If the new carbon bogeyman can help us get back on the nuclear track, I’m all for it. Now if we can start cranking out the hydrogen during low demand times, we can turn our attention to cars. The biggest downside of a petroleum economy is the geopolitical dangers of enriching and counting on the Mideast.

   Posted by Charlie Hillman on November 20, 2007 at 1759 hrs
   
   
   

Commenting is not available in this channel entry.