A year ago, I'd fully agree..... now I have doubts....
Our nation needs honesty, the truth...I do not know if nuclear is in fact the best way to go...all kinds of conflicts....does anyone "tell the truth" ?
Did they ever ???
And I do NOT see what "liberal" or "conservative" policys have to do with a choice of power generation ....
I favor coal, but can the pollution be controlled ?
I'd like to think that it can..
I'm not exactly sure what all this eviroidiot talk has to do with reducing the deficit, especially when enviromentalism is a major cause of shipping jobs out of America. Seems enviromentalism is a means of increasing the deficit, raising unemployment and destroying the economy. Even some producers of "green" products and technology outsource because they are either not profitable or suffer major loss of profits by working under the EPA here in America.
Nuclear is currently the most enviromentally friendly way of mass power generation. Around 1969, someone did design a coal plant that was actually more efficient than nuke and was able to remove particals from emissions. But, alas, building these plants was too expensive, so other than a test plant, none were built. Also, while it was clean for many particles that fall out of coal emmissions, it was not "clean" for others, such as CO2, the big boogyman of current enviromentalist. Nuke plants are also very expensive and have to built to very exacting standards, not to mention they don't go well in Geologically unstable areas.
Geo-thermal is nice also, but you have to have volcanic like ativity in the area to tap it. Would be really nice if we had more of these areas, but alas, we don't have enough. I am all for building what we can though. One possibly bad thing is that if the area actually becomes volcanically active, a volcano might wipe out your plant. But, like the yellowstone area, if it has a full scale eruption, it will wipe out most life on earth, so we won't need those power plants afterwards anyways. Oh, almost forgot, geological venting usually comes with a fair amount of that nasty CO2 also. This is the best option for places like Iceland, Hawaii, etc. Why someone near to a place like Hot Springs Arkansas is building a coal plant instead of a Geo-Thermal plant is a mystery to me, unless they just don't have enough venting to run a plant.
What does "conservative"/"liberal" have to do with it? Well, most of the enviromentalist and anti-nuke people are also liberals. They don't want nuke, they don't want coal. They want wind, which is unreliable at best, cannot and will not ever be able to meet our needs or solar, which sometime down the road in the future will supposedly meet our needs, at least during the day. Never mind the leftovers of chemical processess to build solar panels and batteries to store it for nighttime use.