« Scott Peterson and reverse racism | Main | Will Yahoo or Google buy a newspaper? »

April 28, 2005

Comments

Increasing our use of Nuclear Power is probably the only thing that I agree with President Bush on. Many people argue that this is a huge risk with what happened at Three Mile Island. However, the accident at TMI has been investigated thoroughly and the cause of the accident was due to a panic reaction that has since been eliminated due to redundant procedures built into every nuclear power plant in the US. In actuality all the workers at a nuclear plant could get up and leave and the plant would shut it self down if things got unusual (rods drop). I have a physics degree, I've attended workshops on the topic and I even was involved in operating a small reactor. Most of people's fears about nuclear energy are that a 1 in a billion chance of something happening is too much of a risk. All I can say is that we live with a lot of other higher risk problems that would be much more devistating (i.e. infectious diseases stored at the CDC). As far as the waste I think Yucca Mountain is a great place to put it. The only thing that I critized President Clinton on was his unwillingness to open up the repository. Nuclear is definitely one of the cleanest energy sources. Don't worry you can trust a Pro-life Democrate. Oh by the way conservatives, prolife means your against the death penalty and unecessary wars.

What about Pebble Bed reactors?

Try increasing the price of food to prevent people consuming more. Then we'll talk about the wonders of the market on control of price of oil.

Driving, with few exceptions, is a necessity, not a priviledge. You take away a person's car, and no matter their education and experience, you imprison them in a minimum wage job.

Intervention in the form of grants to cities to develope rail systems that are much needed would be a far better solution than anything Bushco proposes.

Mr. Cooper, I agree with you that driving has become a necessity for most jobs, which is why I am disturbed that our courts don't treat it that way. According to the courts, driving is just a privilege that state can take away without real due process.

But this has absolutely nothing to do with nuclear power. Or even much to do with the price of gas. Even if gas rises to $5/gallon, people will find it better to drive to work and pay for the gas, even people in minimum wage jobs (which are usually close to home anyway).

This is a late comment, but I cannot resist. In the longterm nuclear power has a great deal to do with driving because the two best alternatives to cars (our largest oil consumers) are hydrogen cars & rail, both of which require abundant electricity. It would be rather hyprocritical if the power plants were to merely be powered by another fossil fuel.
Driving is a neccessity, but not as much as we do. There's alot of driving which could be replaced by mass transit and a lot of cars which are ridiculously inefficient. Higher gas prices can fix this, but we should not leave it up to volatile market forces. Instead we should have a steadily rising gas tax. Not only would the economy be able to plan ahead, but the rising cost of gas (which is inevitable) would be used to build mass transit & alternative power, not more Saudi palaces.

The comments to this entry are closed.