I thought McCain scored on one point - energy, by having a clear position on utilizing nuclear McCain seemed more on top of it and Obama was defensive. While Obama has supported nuclear energy, it is tenuous. I suggest the “if it can be worked out” perspective be replaced with a stronger message - “we will make it work – safely and economically” with specifics of doubling our nuclear energy capacity in 10-15 years. This, combined with carbon-free renewable and the strong energy conservation plan will be a winner.
What would we rather have – more coal plants or carbon-free nuclear plants based on modern safety designs and factory production to keep down costs? Those are our real options.
I would like to add my voice of support to the nuclear option for energy independence and solving global warming– nuclear is the only way to produce the quantity of clean energy we need in the timeframe it is needed with minimal dependence on foreign sources. The radical environmentalists, in their successful campaign to stop nuclear energy, may have done more to harm our planet than all of the “greedy” oil barons and industrialists, combined.
While solar and wind sound great, and of course, should be exploited – they are not reliable as our primary sources when it is dark, with too little or too much wind. These unreliable sources can only supplement a “backbone” like nuclear (or today, carbon fuels). Since the unreliable sources require a “backup” the capital costs are essentially double the figures put out by their proponents – building and operating backup plants would simply not be cost effective. However these would be great sources for “extra” power that would allow the nuclear plants to produce hydrogen for transportation when all their power isn’t needed. Wind and solar as a primary source would cover huge (state-sized) tracks of land and require massive amounts of materials (some rare) to produce – the environmental and economic impact of this is hard to predict. Geothermal and others are “interesting” but not ready for prime time – these are great research efforts, not deployment efforts. Conservation efforts are important – but not sufficient, we need reliable alternative sources.
It takes to long: Safe and reliable nuclear plants can be “ordered” from multiple sources today, some American. They can be built quickly (5-7 years) and in mass if the red tape is reduced to what is necessary to protect the public interest for safety. The radical environmentalists are the cause of the cost and time it takes, this is a solvable problem – make our polices protect our energy future. Technologies for smaller “mass produced” plants, such as pebble bed or PWR reactors may also be near term options.
Safety: Modern “passive” reactors are very safe and manageable – even in the face of attack. They don’t “blow up” or spew massive amounts of radiation, even with airplanes running into them. America’s worst accident produced little radiation and has had no measurable effect – the modern passive reactors can not even fail in this way. Compare this with the “safety” of mining coal, drilling for oil or even covering a state-sized piece of the country with solar cells or windmills. We do require the security and safety policies to make sure these complex machines are operated safely and are protected – these are manageable problems. One thing we should do is replace some of our aging plants, which would be done if their replacements were not threatened by the radical environmentalists.
Let’s support a program for responsible use of nuclear in the near to medium term! Lets then use wind, solar, geothermal and others options to supplement production to feed the transportation industry and fuel economic growth. The primary efforts we need to support this are education and policy reform – the power companies will pay for the rest. None of this should be taken to imply we should not deploy other options as well – energy must be a mix, but let’s make sure we have one non-carbon option we know will work. Short term, drilling and natural gas can fill the gap, but a non-carbon option is required to save the planet.
