Friday, June 24, 2005

More comments on news

Bush recently spoke up in support of nuclear power plants. I think this is a good thing. Americans in general are far too afraid of nuclear technology, and by preventing the development of nuclear power plants we force ourselves to rely on greenhouse gas-emitting fossil fuels, including oil from the Middle East. I wish that we could support the production of nuclear power plants without having to offer investors government-sponsored "risk insurance" as Bush has suggested, but considering the way certain people have used lawsuits and other forms of interference to block the production of nuclear power plants, I don't see any better way. If lawmakers can think of something else that is equally likely to work and less burdensome on taxpayers, more power to 'em! But something has to be done. I may tease France about some of their political views, but they've been productive enough to build 56 nuclear power plants in the time that the United States has been too afraid to build even a single one.

3 comments:

Mary said...

(first, I hope i don't comment too much... If I'm becoming obnoxious, let me know. I personally find this a fairly easy way to talk with you, when it seems like I hardly have time to see you anymore, and in this type of a forum we discuss more than the typical chit-chat, which is cool... anyway)

When you choose to blog on things relating to the stewardship of the environment, I will mostly likely respond, as that is the main topic of my continuing education.

Nuclear Power. As a resource, I am not against it. It does have a lot to offer. My biggest concern with nuclear power is the waste. Currently the United States we do not have a good way to dispose of the waste from nuclear power plants. When nuclear power was first developed, it was advertized as being "Too cheap to meter," because over 90% of nuclear waste can be recycled and purified to use again. However, the process to recycle and purify is so dangerous to the person purifing... that the United States never developed a purifing station. Because of that, the Nuclear waste that they never counted on having, is building up at an alarming rate. And the trick is where to store all this hot stuff. Currently the Idea is to bring it out west. Utah/Nevada. "There's noone in Utah that'll mind more radioactivity, Heck, we did testing there years ago and they didn't mind." The plans for the Underground storage facility in ... Drat, I forget the Indian Reservation name, sorry.... anyway, there, it doesn't fly with me. There are few recourses if anything goes wrong. Not to mention it's a great target for a dirty bomb... The current waste plan has many gaps. Its not good enough. and until we find a way to dispose of it properly, It shouldn't be just Utah's problem. If Bush figures out a decent way to store the waste, I'm all for building more. Until then, I think he ought to figure out what to do with what we've got!

said...

I think this is a great way to keep in touch. I've been criticized by people who prefer other methods of communication, but I really like this. And I'm really glad to see your comments. They've been well-thought-out and thought-provoking. You always make good points.

So did France figure out a safe waste disposal plan? Or do they just have scores of radioactive dump sites?

We've got pretty much the same outlook on this: figure out where the problems are, fix the problems, and then get a better power solution. I'm just more focused on the goal, and you're more focused on overcoming the obstacles. Both are important.

Mary said...

Thanks. I'm glad you like my comments.

I don't know how France is doing it. I'm not sure what their plan is.