There should be an, "all of the above", option.
150 sites? Source please.Also the 150 or so storage sites are excellent targets for terrorism.
Why should a nuclear waste facility be an excellent target for terrorists? Simply isolate them and guard them...not that hard to do.
Why does it even matter? Navy battleships are also an excellent target for terrorists. Should we get rid of battleships, or stop building more? Maybe we could let the terrorists decide our energy policy for us? That seems like the logical conclusion of your argument.
Solar and wind energy account for a measly portion of America's overall energy consumption.  Solar and wind energy suffer from engineering and distribution problems that render them incapable of operating efficiently on a large scale. That's a fact.Sez you.
 - Electric Power Annual - Summary Statistics for the United States
How much energy will this new investment produce? Please provide a credible link.In west Texas there building ****loads of solar and windfarms.
Nuclear for sure.
It's by far the most efficient and cost-effective.
To those worrying about the waste:
All of the nuclear waste produced in powering the entire US for the next 20 years could fit in a hole that was 18 yards on each side.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/archiv...post1057575155 (Gore begins huge public campaign to go green)
People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.
Richard Littlemore | Nuclear Energy: Expensive, Dangerous, Not Cost-Effective
Amory Lovins and Imran Sheikh have penned a new report on nuclear energy as a fossil fuel option, concluding that nuclear is still dangerous and complicated, not particularly reliable, creates a pollution problem that lasts for many millennia and is therefore a waste of money that could be spent more productively on renewable energy.
Perhaps most devastating to the free market fans, Lovins and Sheikh note that "nuclear power plants are unfinanceable in the private capital market because of their excessive costs and financial risks and the high uncertainty of both."
"During the nuclear revival now allegedly underway, no new nuclear project on earth has been financed by private risk capital, chosen by an open decision process, nor bid into the world’s innumerable power markets and auctions. No old nuclear plant has been resold at a value consistent with a market case for building a new one."
"Richard spent 20 years in daily newspapers (the Ottawa Citizen, the Winnipeg Tribune, the Vancouver Sun), before turning his hand in 1995 to freelance journalism and public affairs. He wrote the David Suzuki Foundation’s first public information package on climate change in 1996, was vice-chair of the Greater Vancouver Regional District's Air Quality Committee in 1996 and 1997 and sat as a delegate to the Canadian government's (failed) Kyoto Implementation Process from 1997 to 1999."
Don't see anything that qualifys him in the group above.
"In addition to his DeSmog endeavours, Richard is a regular speech writer for many business and academic leaders and is a senior counsellor and the lead writer at James Hoggan and Associates.
OK speech wrtitter? nothing that qualifies him here.
"Most importantly, he is a parent to three teenage boys who, like all children of their generation, deserve to inherit a world uncompromised by climate change."
Thats a pretty bold statement considering climate change has been going on ohhh... since before life existed on the planet?
"Richard Littlemore has been trained by Al Gore as part of The Climate Project, an initiative designed to educate the public about climate change.
OK so the man is a green nutbag trained by manbearpig himself.
Great source for evidence against nuclear power you got here.
Last edited by Black Dog; 08-18-09 at 05:11 AM.
No Lives Matter
Hydro and geothermal are excellent sources of power, but they require certain geographic conditions so you can't build them everywhere. Wind and Solar can be built in many more geographic conditions, but don't have a consistent power output. Nuclear can be built anywhere but requires uranium for fuel, as well overhead in dealing with disposal. Coal and oil have nasty pollution and oil is far more useful in others areas.
Overall the goal of energy policy should shift to creating the cleanest energy source with low recurring costs and as few foreign dependencies as possible.
I see this best accomplished by using a mix of energy sources. Solar is optimal for the bulk of peak energy uses but obviously can't operate at night without massive energy storage capability. Nuclear is useful for its reliability and that we can get its fuel from Canada and Australia instead of less friendly countries. Wind, hydro electric and geothermal are supplementary, but you might as well build them when practical.
I am not convinced that nuclear, all things considered, is much more cost effective than wind. Estimates I remember put it at around 8-9 cents/kWh. Onshore wind is about 6-9 cents/kWh assuming a load factor of around 25%. Main problem with onshore wind is most of the best sites are far away from the population centers, increasing connection costs. Offshore wind solves that problem, but is more expensive per kWh, even with higher load factors, although right now a limited supply chain inflates offshore costs in the US significantly.
No renewable sources can compete with either gas or coal at current fuel prices without factoring in carbon cost. When you do factor carbon cost coal gets quite expensive, leaving gas. Gas will overtake coal as the number one source of electricity in the US by 2020/25. However gas prices are volatile for political reasons.
As for the others, solar is still experimental and hydro and geothermal are limited, but should definetly be built where possible.
Seeing how I only got one vote, I went for wind.
We all live under the same sky, but we don't all have the same horizon