Michael Purvis posted a comment on my May 13, 2008, blog: "McCain Newest, Boldest and Most Powerful Proposal: Nuclear Energy." He asked a fair question calling for an answer that can be an entire treatise. I choose to skip the quantitative analyses but instead give a reply based on my own philosophy. This might not satisfy a level of objectivity some readers require, but will hopefully have them entertain the possibility of doing things differently. With hope comes the audacity for change.

Michael Purvis said, "[Part 1][P]lease explain how this ties in all three of those things. [Part 2] [A]nd so you know, nuclear energy is projected to be twice the cost of gas prices today. [Part 3] [D]on't just spout off something without knowing anything[.]"

Reply to part 3: To chastise anyone for expressing a political opinion that maybe disagreeable to certain readers is to attempt to chill the freedom of expression, a right provided under First Amendment to the United States Constitution and an integral part of a vibrant democracy.

Reply to part 2: Nuclear energy is not free energy. The projection of cost at twice that of gas prices today does not account for the growth in demand for the commodity by an increasing world population tomorrow. Nor does the projection account for the lives lost and will be lost fighting for it, it being practically the sole commodity that fuels progress in modern civilization and preserves creature comfort that everyone seems to take for granted and demand.  Moreover, the price of gas does not reflect the cost to the environment.

Reply to part 1:

a) National Security. When a country is energy independent, young soldiers need not be sent to war to fight and die for it. A country is less secure when wars are being waged, causing resentment or hatred.  A country is less secure when its very survival depends on a source that someone else owns, resulting in leadership decisions that are motivated by fear, and perhaps by greed as well.

b) Economy. A country that depends on the mercy of others and on the low cost of energy for its survival cannot have a stable economy. Oil producing countries can turn on or off the oil spigot or raise or drop prices at will. Citizens of a country who rely on oil will not likely feel secure in their lives when one day the prices of necessities rise sharply, perhaps as a result of terrorist bombings or earthquakes destroying most of the oil production facilities in the middle-east. Nuclear power generators, while not risk-free are, by comparison, more insulated from the unpredictability of foreign governments and Mother Nature. They are programmed to shut down automatically when the earth starts to move, and are more easily protected from terrorists since they are situated in the country building them and guarded by its citizens needing the energy generated.

c) Environment. Production of nuclear energy, like crossing a street, has risks. They can be minimized, but not eliminated. Nuclear energy, unlike burning oil or coal, does not emit gases that alter the environment.  Nuclear energy may or may not be the safest energy option when all of the risks are taken into account, it is certainly a different one that has the ability to generate a lot of power with environmental benefits.