McCain has clearly said, “”Nuclear power, for all kinds of reasons, needs to be part of the solution,” He also wants to “drill wherever we’ve got it.”http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080609/ap_o…
Do you think it worth the risk for a nuclear catastrophe and issue of nuclear waste and accidents?
What Do You Think Of Mccain’s ‘gung-ho”, Pro-nuclear Power Approach Solution To Energy Crisis?
01
21
10'
Category:
Share it:
Horse-feathers. Ninety-nine percent of the earth’s mass is hotter than hot and we can get to it.
Nuclear means bad garbage to deal with. Magma heat doenst have any garbage. There’s some crud in the water pushed down there for steam but nothing that would make babies be born with 5 ears.
Nuclear would be dumb – money-wise – even if there was no garbage problem.
Actually, it was rate increases–not Environmental Concerns that killed the Nuclear Power craze. The end came when Boeing and Alcoa both threatened to move out of Washington State if WPPS got the rate increase it wanted. Those conditions still apply. The last thing America needs right now is MORE energy inflation. Modern Clean Coal technology can deliver power far more cheaply and quickly than a new round of Nuke Construction. And the new solar cloth and solar paint technologies are allowing large users to lock in rates at current levels for the next 20 years.
We could certainly be doing more drilling than we are right now, but it makes sense to balance the need for oil against the needs of Tourism and fisheries. There’s a lot of oil that needs to wait until we have the tech to recover it with minmum disruption.
The most overlooked resource is America’s railroads. Track upgrades that would allow the return of fast freight and the initiation of Bullet train service would annually save hundreds of millions of barrels of oil currently being wasted by the less efficient trucking and Airline industries.
The risks are relatively low if proper precautions are taken (hopefully we’ve learned from Trenoble). Nuclear fuel by all standards is cleaner for the environment. There is a process now by which nuclear waste can be used as nuclear fuel. It’s harder to use it as fuel, but hey, it’s going to be there so we might as well use it.
We have been using nuclear energy for over half a century with few problems. It is the only current cost effective approach to cut back on our use of increasingly expensive fossil fuels. Interestingly Obama’s philosophic brother Carter put the stake in Nuclear power 30 years ago and we are paying for that folly now with 130.00USD barrel prices in oil.
McCain has the EXACT same views as Obama AND Hillary when it comes to energy. Why don’t you go to his site and read policy?
Obama wants change?
We’ll give him change.
We’ll vote for republicans for the first time in our lives.
Hillary Supporters For McCain— because who needs O-Carter?
http://demsformccain.webs.com/
There’s not much risk with nuclear power.
Other countries use it significantly without problems.
Its safety record is outstanding.
It is stupid not to include nuclear power generation into plans for future power needs.
We build Nuclear power plants now, or we build them in 6,7,10 years when the rolling blackouts are a daily fact of life in all major cities in the summer.
Seems to me it makes more sense to build them now.
Hey, isn’t nuclear waste what Nevada is FOR?
(According to McCain’s vote on Yucca Mountain, in any event. So much for states’ rights…..)