Nuclear and the Presidential Race 08

HomeForumsAlternative EnergyNuclear & Oil EnergyNuclear and the Presidential Race 08

This topic has 13 voices, contains 65 replies, and was last updated by  stavy 669 days ago.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 66 total)
Author Posts
Author Posts

mollyl
February 10, 2008 at 6:42 am

mollyl
February 10, 2008 at 6:42 am

I supported John Edwards until he dropped out of the race, and he was opposed to any new nuclear power plants going online in the States. Now I’ve heard Obama say that he wants to “Look at the idea of new nuclear power plants.” What have you guys heard about this?


timetrvlr
February 10, 2008 at 7:04 pm

I supported John Edwards until he dropped out of the race, and he was opposed to any new nuclear power plants going online in the States. Now I’ve heard Obama say that he wants to “Look at the idea of new nuclear power plants.” What have you guys heard about this?

I haven’t heard that but then I’m a Canadian so I’m not following the candidates too closely. I do know that any one of them will say whatever is necessary to get elected.

I think nuclear energy could be one of the solutions to reducing our carbon emissions and providing more energy. In my opinion, it’s far from the best solution. I would prefer using renewable energy to satisfy our energy needs, but nuclear is cleaner than coal plants.

The biggest reason why we aren’t using renewable energy in North America is because the very powerful coal lobby has a stranglehold on our various politicians. The coal industry contributes a lot of money to political campaigns so the politicians can vie for your vote.


eviesearth
February 11, 2008 at 7:19 am

I have heard that Ron Paul supports nuclear energy. Yes, while nuclear energy does seem like a solution, it still seems scary to me.


tater03
February 11, 2008 at 4:21 pm

I had not heard where he said the he would look into it. But in all honesty I think that nuclear energy should be looked at but not to the detriment of looking at other options. Sadly I think that is what will happen in the end.


rfl1986
February 12, 2008 at 12:43 am

It seems like the powers behind nuclear plants are lobbying pretty hard in light of global warming that nuclear is the only clean way to get energy now. I haven’t followed the American elections much because I’m also a Canadian so I can’t comment on the Presidential race. Hopefully nuclear doesn’t emerge as what most people think of as the only practical solution now as there is a lot of detriment in its use as well.


stavy
February 14, 2008 at 9:54 am

We in the UK are also now looking at Nuclear energy again. It is cheap, clean and efficient. Gone are the days of scary radiation leaks etc. The technology has moved on a long way. Fossil fuels will not last forever.


mollyl
February 14, 2008 at 10:58 pm

I also think that going nuclear is what the world leaders will choose to do, regardless of public outcry.


stavy
February 15, 2008 at 11:20 am

Personally I don’t think there will be such a huge outcry. A lot of the issues regarding this kind of energy have been addressed, and environmentalists are now not so vociferously against it. It is GREEN, not using the planet’s dwindling resources, and costing a lot less once up and running.


eviesearth
February 18, 2008 at 6:30 am

I too have heard the same stav. It does seem that more people are becoming more comfortable with using nuclear.


mollyl
May 2, 2008 at 6:08 pm

That does seem to be the truth that people are not so opposed to nuclear as they once were. There are commercials all over TV stations about how coal is the new green energy source; I’m sure they have worked out cleaner ways to use it buy I can’t believe the green part. Unfortunately, miners keep dying in cave-ins in worrying numbers.


rfl1986
May 4, 2008 at 8:03 pm

It’s very true that a lot of the public stigma attached to nuclear is dying off in light of other concerns. It’s a bit frightening to think that it’s so easy for people to jump ship from one concern to another just because of how problems are portrayed.


stavy
May 5, 2008 at 3:38 pm

This is the thing isn’t it RFL, when nuclear power was first brought online it was the way of the future… blah blah… didn’t take long for the activists to spread the word that it was dangerous, bad for the environment, health impact etc… now once again, we’ve gone full circle and it’s the best thing since sliced bread..

cheap and sustainable it is the way forward, with so many other resources now being exhausted or found to have harmful impact on the planet.

Just think, if the use of nuclear power hadn’t had such a setback in the past, we might now already be cleaner, greener and more efficient…

funny old world…


roguegal
May 10, 2008 at 6:57 pm

But, where are they putting the nuclear waste? Did you ever think about that? Nuclear waste will last for millions of years. That is, unless someone can figure out how to use it as energy. Where are they storing this nuclear waste? Is it safe? Nuclear energy still needs to me made safer than it is right now! You just don’t hear about as much.


serenity
May 11, 2008 at 4:12 pm

I think politicians are finally grasping that the oil they’ve relied on for so many years just simply isn’t always going to be there. They know they need to start looking with more urgency at all the alternatives that can produce energy, and that includes ones put on the shelf in the past, like nuclear.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 66 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.