leogodin.net

I’ve long heard that nuclear power is too expensive to be a viable solution to our energy problems. However, with Oil at $140+ a barrel doesn’t the equation change? It’s interesting that both McCain and Obama give at least modest support for Nuclear energy. McCain seems to see nuclear power as the long term solution while Obama support is somewhat tepid in that he sees nuclear energy as part of a larger solution. Even long time environmentalist Nancy Pelosi now supports the option of exploring nuclear energy.

It appears that nuclear energy may be the answer to our energy problems. With advances in battery technology coming fast and furious we are in a position to harness electricity for transportation as well as using electricity for traditional uses. However, there are many opponents of nuclear power who fear that nuclear waste will cause pollution or that nuclear meltdowns could cause massive damage to the environment.

I believe the last nuclear power plant to be built in the US was designed in the 70s and built in the 80s. Technology has made huge leaps and bounds since then. It seems reasonable to me that many of the problems we faced in the past could be overcome today. Issues like how to handle the waste created by a nuclear power plant and the safety and stability of the plant have modern day solutions.

My question to Newsvine readers and writers is if we were to see nuclear energy as a long term solution to our energy needs, how long would it take before we see a significant impact if we started planning new facilities? Also, how expensive would nuclear energy be compared to various other forms of energy: oil, solar, coal, hydroelectric, geothermal energy, etc… Please do not let this become a debate of blaming political parties for today’s energy problems. I’m really interested in rational discussion of where to go from here.

Here is a video from one of the Democrat debates.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjDmyToTYBE
From Barack Obama

“I actually think we should explore nuclear power as part of the energy mix. There are no silver bullets to this issue”

From John Edwards:

I do not favor nuclear power

From www.johnmccain.com:

John McCain Will Put His Administration On Track To Construct 45 New Nuclear Power Plants By 2030 With The Ultimate Goal Of Eventually Constructing 100 New Plants. Nuclear power is a proven, zero-emission source of energy, and it is time we recommit to advancing our use of nuclear power. Currently, nuclear power produces 20% of our power, but the U.S. has not started construction on a new nuclear power plant in over 30 years. China, India and Russia have goals of building a combined total of over 100 new plants and we should be able to do the same. It is also critical that the U.S. be able to build the components for these plants and reactors within our country so that we are not dependent on foreign suppliers with long wait times to move forward with our nuclear plans.

A quote from Nancy Pelosi
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2007/02/08/pelosi-reconsiders-nuclear-power/

The technology has changed, and I bring a more open mind to that subject now,” she said at a House Science and Technology Committee hearing. Legislation to mitigate global warming is a priority for the California Democrat, and nuclear power - touted as an emissions-free way to generate electricity — is gaining traction as a way to improve the environment while meeting the nation’s growing demands for power.