2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumSo where do the candidates stand on new nuclear power plants?
I am firmly against nuclear power.
I know Bernie is against it.
What about Hillary and O'Malley?
Anybody?
Skwmom
(12,685 posts)http://us.arevablog.com/2009/04/14/maryland-gov-martin-omalley-on-nuclear-energy/
There is a video but there was also a transcript:
Transcript
Im very much in favor of nuclear energy and I believe that the sort of technology that is now being employed in Europe, and by the French in particular, is something that needs to come to the United States. Certainly, over the short term I believe it holds a tremendous amount of promise and I think that we need to catch up. I think were way behind the ball on nuclear energy and I hope that well have a third reactor thats modern and that is safe and is state-of-the-art in the foreseeable future in Maryland.
Response to Skwmom (Original post)
Skwmom This message was self-deleted by its author.
aidbo
(2,328 posts)As a non carbon-emitting source of power, I'm for nuclear.
There are better ways to do it than most of the old old old plants we have now or like Japan's Fukushima Daiichi.
Maybe this will come up in the debates.
I think O'Malley will do well in them. It will be good for his name recognition too.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)The whole process of mining to disposal of waste is carbon intensive.
And the thousand year life of the waste is a deal killer. Who are we to dump the waste on future generations?
Wind and solar are hardly carbon intensive, produce very little waste, and the waste is not deadly for thousands of years.
That's why Bernie is against nuclear... and the fact that nuclear power and nuclear weapons go hand in hand is just one more reason to get rid of and be done with making any more large scale nuclear options an option worth considering.
And I would be against expanding nuclear power the way we're doing it now.
But there are ways to mitigate all those issues. And Bernie's stance on nuclear isn't going to keep me from voting for him.
I'm lucky enough to live in the NW where we benefit from cheap and abundant hydro power (which has its own issues) but if we want to decrease coal & oil power across the nation, we need to make up the difference somehow. I just see smart nuclear as a good way to do that.
And policy that encourages research into new & better ways of powering our lifestyle while not harming the planet is something I believe in.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)That is a fantasy that has no historic bearing.
Nukes are not safe, will never be safe, and are the most costly form of electrical production.
There is a damn good reason insurance companies will not insure nuke plants and indeed, have clauses in individual home owner policies that exclude damages from nuke plants from being insured.
The dream is over. Done, Kaput. The dream of 'nukes are safe' has turned into a nightmare.
aidbo
(2,328 posts)But your statement that insurance companies will not insure plants is inaccurate.
In the US at least, they are required to have insurance to operate.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price%E2%80%93Anderson_Nuclear_Industries_Indemnity_Act#How_the_law_works
Molten Salt reactors are one option that is getting renewed interest because of their relative safety.
It sounds like you've made up your mind, though.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)So am I.
No idea about Clinton.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)Clinton has said in the past, back during the 2008 campaign, that she was "agnostic" on nuclear power.