I have been following the 2008 election very closely, as it seems we are at a very pivotal time in US history. I for one, am excited. With regards to our current energy crisis, it seems to me that there is a logical solution to clean energy and to reduce dependency on forein oil. Nuclear energy could power our country, without emitting harmful greenhouse gasses or deadly radiation which coal plants spew into the atmosphere.
That said, I want to know what the Democrats have to say about nuclear energy. I cannot find it mentioned anywhere on Obama or Clinton’s campain sites, whether they are for or against nuclear energy. If they are against it, why? I am looking for a good argument as to why we should not greatly increase our use of nuclear energy. I am Republican, and an aspiring nuclear engineer. I got into the field to do my part to help our country in crisis. I may not agree with you, but I respectfully want to hear the Democrat argument for my own education. Sources?
I understand the argument of other forms of energy, and it sounds great in theory. From my study of photovoltaics I have found you would have to cover the entire state of Arizona in order to power our country on solar. Windmills are great, I love them; but the fact is the current costs and energy that goes into making them takes 15 years or more to recoup. Nuclear is the NOW solution. I am not sure if you are accurate in saying it is centralized, current plans are to contract private businesses into nuclear energy production. As far as disposal goes, it was the Carter administration that shut down plans to recycle the waste, opting instead to “safe guard” it. In my opinion, “security threats” are a scare-tactic. We have a lot of other, worse security threats to worry about than spent nuclear fuel. Thank you for your input, and for the info.
