Finally...a Democratic Presidential candidate who isn't afraid of discussing nuclear energy.

[calteacherguy]

I'm liking Richardson more and more everyday. He just released the most detailed and aggressive energy plan of all the candidates running, and after a little research I've found that he understands that if we are to be serious about global warming, we need to focus on science and not hysteria when it comes to clean nuclear power. I'm impressed. His focus on on maximizing renewables...and he's got a serious plan to do it, but he's also realistic and understands the limits of renewable energy in addressing the crises now.

Q. What is the future for nuclear power? (Florida Sun-Sentinel.com)

Richardson: The future in nuclear power is one that has to be on the table. The nuclear option has to be on the table -- not, however, at the expense of investments in renewable energy and technologies, which I believe hold more promise. But because nuclear power emits hardly any greenhouse emissions, and because its technology is improved, you have to look at it as an option. My worry is that there will be such a rebound in nuclear energy that we will not do the necessary investments in renewable technology and distributed generation and fuel cells.

And nuclear power still has to resolve problems in waste, cost, safety, although its safety is improved. And nuclear power still has a lot of problems with the public, which the needs to explain, which it has not done so adequately. Politically they've sheltered themselves with one party. So they need to build alliances with environmental leaders, with local officials; they sort of sit in a bunker. But it should be on the table.

http://aaenvironment.blogspot.com/2007/01/bill-richardson-global-warming-nuclear.html

Edited for spelling as usual.

[MH1]

1. I'm not a fan of nuclear power, but I like the way Richardson is talking about it.

I am okay with it being "on the table" as long as the issues are acknowledged. Although I am skeptical, I realize I don't know all there is to know about it.

He gives a higher priority to renewable energy technology and has an aggressive plan for promoting those technologies. So, all around I like what he is saying.

[calteacherguy]

4. I'm not a fan, either.

That's the kind of mentality we need to get away from. The problem with the current administration is that they are fans of big oil and nuclear energy, at the exclusion of everything else (except for insignificant token moves here and there).

The danger of nuclear energy is that "fans" of it would not push renewables. It doesn't have to be that way. We need to be more scientific about an energy policy to address global warming, and far less political.

[rurallib]

2. Senator Dodd held an energy forum in our area on Cinco de Mayo

and said almost exactly the same. He got a cool reception by the ultra lib crowd, but I thought he made some practical sense.

[dsa]

3. maybe when he builds a reactor in his hometown

i might take him seriously.

[calteacherguy]

5. Nuclear plants are safer than coal-burning plants.

Which would you ban first, coal or nuclear? Coal burning kills thousands every year from the air pollution.

[peacebird]

9. umm - is this the classic "Kill 'em now or kill 'em later" question? nuke waste after all

no known safe disposal method is there?

[calteacherguy]

14. Yes, there are safe disposal methods, but there are not for billions of tons of coal

pollution in the air causing lung cancer and other horrendous diseases.

We need to face reality. The planet is in crises. Are we serious about global warming or not?

[peacebird]

19. of course - but nukes are not the answer, unless you work for a traditional electric company

and want to maintain your hold over energy and profit.

[PuppyBismark]

8. They can build one in my town

It is most certainly time to seriously investigate the feasibility of nuclear power. It is one of those issues that needs to be openly and rationally discussed. With the technology advances available today, we should be able to build safe plants that address the needs for clean power.

[calteacherguy]

12. "openly and rationally discussed"

Thank you!

[IA_Seth]

13. We have one here!

And I dont even have any mutations yet!

Seriously, I dont think nuclear tech is the way of the future, but I do think it should be relied upon moreso than coal. I'd support money toward nuke tech to get away from coal pollution.

[peacebird]

6. nukes are not cost efficient and we have no safe way to deal with waste

Had the govt spent the dollars it wasted propping up nuclear energy on solar or wind instead then we would have extremely inexpensive alternative fuel sources now.

[calteacherguy]

17. They are more cost efficient than "clean" coal. Or do you prefer dirty and cheap coal?

That sounded a little bit sarcastic I know, but it's a fair question.

Dealing with nuclear waste is a thousand times safer than dealing the with waste from coal burning plants. You have to make a choice, at least in the present time: coal or nuclear or both. Less nuclear means more coal and more coal means less nuclear.

[peacebird]

7. nukes are not cost efficient and we have no safe way to deal with waste

Had the govt spent the dollars it wasted propping up nuclear energy on solar or wind instead then we would have extremely inexpensive alternative fuel sources now.

[calteacherguy]

10. Let's not talk about "had...then we would haves."

Let's talk about now.

[peacebird]

18. ok NOW if we invest in solar, wind and renewables we will be better off than if we throw more

money at nukes.

And why not talk about what we should have been doing all along anyhow? Try learning from the mistakes of the past - ie: throwing money at nuclear energy instead of renewables.

[jab105]

11. Nuclear is expensive, government subsidies are the only thing keeping it viable (it is EXPENSIVE)...

Government has been trying to get nuclear working since the 1950s...
ANd, Its not so much when it's working, yes, of course, it's cleaner than oil and coal - though getting the uranium ore out can be pretty dirty.

The bad part is what to do with high and low level nuclear waste afterwards...right now, most high level nuclear waste is stored in house (at the nuclear power plant)...low-level is stored at two federal dump sites (transported there I might add) cause no one wants a nuclear waste site near them, in other countries, low-level radioactive waste is dumped in a variety of places, even the ocean...

High level waste should be stored for up to 10,000 years...the question becomes...is it worth it?

And, as the nuclear facilities get older - most have a life of about 40 years - what do you do with them, and all the high level radioactive waste that they are currently storing...encase it in concrete? fance it off for 10,000 years? Yucca MOuntain (transportation is fun since most nuclear facilities are in the east I'm sure)...

There are much better options...it just isn't a long term solution!!

[dsa]

15. good summation of the problems with nuclear power

having to store the waste for millenia and keeping it from leaking out and contaminating water or food supplies is the biggest problem in my book.

unfortunately, solar and wind power are not that great of options either. they might work in limited applications but aren't practical on a nation-wide or global scale.

[greenman3610]

16. IN my climate talks, the nuke question always comes up

I point out that although the last congress approved policies that
would guarantee the construction costs of the first half dozen or
so new nuke plants, no one is biting.
Nuclear power remains popular in controlled economies like
France, China, Scandinavia, and of course Iran and North Korea.
Free markets seem to shy away from nuclear based on its less than
stellar operating record, the long lead times before payback, siting issues, and
strong competition from more efficient cogeneration, combined heat and power,
including gas turbines, fuel cells, and renewables, as well as conservation
techniques.
I am convinced that we will solve the nuclear waste problem, for reasons
of national security if nothing else. I hope it doesn't take a major terrorist
attack on a nuclear waste above-ground storage site to make that
happen.
There also remains the problem that we have an administration that
has threatened to start world war 3 if someone we don't like builds a nuclear
plant. Certainly a clarification of this policy is in order if we are
to take the nuclear path.

[LWolf]

20. Until science

can provide a way to utilize nuclear power without any radioactive waste to store, to transport, to leak, nuclear power is off my table.