Veritas wrote on Apr 26, 2007 11:55 PM:This should be our future. It is interesting how the greens, who would protect our environment, are opposed to nuclear power.

Dave wrote on Apr 27, 2007 6:43 AM:"Reilly, in his address, said the biggest obstacle to nuclear power is the widespread concern about how to dispose of the spent radioactive fuel." What about Three Mile Island? Does Chernobyl ring a bell?

Nukes are Better wrote on Apr 27, 2007 7:11 AM:Chernobyl was brought forth by careless Russians performing dangerous tests on large commercial reactors with no containment building. Ours are drastically safer. Three Mile Island was about the worst that can happen here and nobody was even injured. Let's compare that with oil-related accidents, i.e. refinery explosions, tanker spills, etc. As far as the waste is concerned, when our country gets some guts, they will finish Yucca Mountain and it won't be a problem anymore. As it is, fossil plants put out an enormous amount of radioactive and toxic material right out of the stack. Nukes are safe, clean and reliable.

the environmentalists wrote on Apr 27, 2007 7:42 AM:as usual, are against it. No surprise there. bunch of whackers...

John E wrote on Apr 27, 2007 8:15 AM:I am a hard-core environmentalist and a big supporter of nuclear fission for now and nuclear fusion research for the future, along with conservation and solar, geothermal, coal conversion, biomass, and other energy sources.

If it weren't for wrote on Apr 27, 2007 8:56 AM:polititians in bed with the industry of storing and transporting the waste, we'd probably already be recycling it.

Warner: wrote on Apr 27, 2007 9:01 AM: In its present state nuclear power is unacceptable; however, it appears to be the answer to our problems. We must stop wasting time and develop safer nuclear power plants. We must find a good use for the "hot" waste instead of storing it. We have about fifty years before the little oil remaining in the earth will be to costly to bring to the surface. All other sources are proving to be unacceptable.

Greg in Oceanside wrote on Apr 27, 2007 9:45 AM:While we can all agree, fossil fuels are the source of greenhouse gasses and the cause of global warming, nuclear energy is proven to be one of the best sources of energy to meet our needs. The issue of disposal of spent fuel is clearly difficult, but not unachievable. If we rationally look at the alternatives, it really isn’t rocket science. We have the ability to bury the spent fuel deep in the ground, far away from any potential contact with humans. Certainly the “greens” are pushing for change, they need to stop trying to drive us back to pre-industrial revolutionary times and they need to accept the fact that we’re better off with nuclear energy. Some of us remember the days of the protests and subsequent arrest of almost 1500 people at the Diablo Canyon back in 1981. It’s time we look at nuclear energy with a clearer vision to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and reducing production of greenhouse gasses. This is a cost-benefit decision, and when we look at the benefit it’s pretty clear the benefits are huge. There obviously is a “cost” namely dealing with spent fuel, but again, we have the ability to safely store it in the many uninhabitable places such as deep underground. Lastly, nuclear power plants are some of the strongest structures on earth, are built to sustain just about any natural disaster imaginable, including a direct hit by a 747.

Paul wrote on Apr 27, 2007 12:06 PM:Chernobyl used a graphite moderator - ours don't - that moderator can become unstable, and heat is released uncontrollably. This also happened many years ago to a small nuclear reactor in Arco, Idaho; I believe that reactor was also using graphite as a moderator. This killed 3 or 4 Navy personnel. The control rods were stuck so someone decided to dislodge the jam with a hammer, well it dislodged. The largest problem is the waste. How do you seal the waste? How do you mark it, so that someone stumbling on it many thousands of years from now is notified that this is dangerous? The Japanese have heavily invested and rely on nuclear power plants in their country. And they live in a seismically active area of the globe. I am not aware that they have had any accidents. There have been some very bad accidents in the industrial end in this country. There is a building sealed somewhere in downtown Burbank (someone took a hacksaw to open a container with Plutonium). There are test cells for the nuclear aircraft engine research project sealed in Evendale, OH. In 1956 a fast breeder reactor in Detroit almost went critical. More is technically known today, but life has its risks (just drive the freeways!). Need to manage and minimize the risk.

An Observer wrote on Apr 27, 2007 5:07 PM:When safe and efficient ability to dispose of the nuclear waste is discovered, then nuclear energy is a good deal. Until then why not use nature's energy sources -- sun, wind, & geothermal to a greater degree?

Change in the Tide wrote on Apr 27, 2007 7:25 PM:As more moderate folks become more environmentally aware, and as it becomes apparent that nuclear is a realistic option, the support will grow. Unfortunately, the crazy way-out-there-environmentalists that get the bulk of the attention (just like all the rest of the loud extremists on both ends of the political spectrum) are seen as the leaders in the environmental movement.

Buddy: wrote on Apr 27, 2007 8:01 PM: To Greg in Oceanside: Global warming is a natural, cyclic phenomenon and there is not much we can do about it but stay cool in front of our machines. However, smog caused by burning of fossil fuels and just about anything that will burn, is a man made threat to our health, safety, and comfort. Nuclear energy is the answer, but we must make it much safer. We need to get started right now. I read a letter written in 1778 describing the smoke from wood fires that collected in the LA basin. The man said he could hardly breathe. That shows to go you that we haven't gotten started in all these years.

neighbor wrote on Apr 27, 2007 9:34 PM:We could just send the nuclear waste on a rocket to the sun... but, the waste is actually very valuable... and will get used at some point in the future. Interstingly, there are people in the Palm Springs area fighting against more windmills which they call an eyesore and a danger to birds... shouldn't they be happy that the sky is clear enough to see the windmills and that the birds didn't die from all of the pollution put out by other energy sources! And the #1 arguement for nuclear and solar power is to get us independent of OPEC.