(may be broke/outdated!)
In order to lessen our dependence on oil. From what I understand, it is impossible to find any spot on Earth that would be seismically inactive for the next 10,000 years. Aren’t the Democrats just pandering to the Nevada vote? This should not deter the development of nuclear energy, as waste can be stored if it is “vitrified” (encased in borosilicate glass.)
Unspillable.com is your gateway into to the intriguing world of energy mysteries, revolutionary fuels, and the science driving alternative energy solutions. Delve into the depths of covert agendas and unexplained phenomena surrounding energy sources while uncovering the latest advancements in renewable technologies. From debunking conspiracies to exploring the cutting edge of sustainable energy, we’re your go-to resource for unraveling the secrets shaping our energy landscape.
© 2024 All Rights Reserved
5 Responses
Its really sad when France produces more energy from nuclear power plants than we do. We need to get on board and start building more plants.
Hey, even Bush has tried to push for Nuclear energy plans. But I think he has been blaming Congress for not moving forward with it.
It takes 15-19 years to get back what we put into with a new plant. Solar, wind and waves are the best and fastest bet.
Huckabee has some really great ideas about lessening our dependency on Foreign oil. Check it out:
http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Mike_Huckabee_Energy_+_Oil.htm
Finally, someone asks a real question about the campaigns. Too bad I haven’t had the chance to research this one yet. But as far as I know, most Democrats are pushing to make oil more affordable, while most Republicans are urging to let the market do its job, so from the looks of it, we’re probably not going to see too many alternatives from either side, including nuclear.
I do know that Mitt Romney is concerned with environmental health, and along with Giuliani, they’re both concerned with global warming. The democrats are very passionate about the environment and the dependency on foreign oil, but they lost their best candidate in this area, Bill Richardson, who was at the top of my list. Richardson has been on governance boards for energy related corporations, including an offshore drilling company, plus he was Clinton’s Secretary of the Department of Energy. So there you have a few factors to consider if any of them are running mates.
But I wouldn’t count on nuclear energy. It’s a very sufficient source however it’s costly and hazardous. I think our smartest candidate will look for the next best energy renewable power source, and not the next best place to bomb, or else we’ll be paying $5 a gallon (which is less than Europe).