Friday, October 3, 2008

Nuclear Energy: The Middle of Road Energy Policy

People like to think there's an easy answer to our energy problems. The truth is there's not. At the Vice Presidential debate last night, there was talk about how "clean coal" needs support. However according to the article it's unrealistic to capture and filter carbon dioxide. We need to stop looking for the perfect answer and just find the best one, one that is practical and realtivly efficient. Most people don't realize how large scale these energy products need to be to affect any change. We can't pump the carbon back into the ground effectively enough for anything to get better. While Obama believes that we should use clean coal as well as safe nuclear and renewable sources, McCain feels we should drill for oil and explore the options of nuclear and clean coal. From a logical point of view both candidates got it right with the nuclear energy. Nuclear is the most efficient and usable energy source. We should invest in ways to make it safer to store and dipose of waste products because in the long run it will be better for the country. Yes, radiation is a concern futher reseach could find ways to deal with that. Spening the extra money to fund research will be worth it if we can use nuclear power for years to come. Obama suggest soalr and wind energy, which sound like really great plans, use what we'll always have and have less pollutants, sounds perfect. Excpet no plan is perfect. I'm betting the land needed to carry out such huge projects is more than Americans are willing to give. Plus there's a big misconception that the only cost of wind and solar energy is installing the technology, when in fact we'll have to pay the people who's land we're leasing to put windfarms on. In the dark winter when we have no energy, liberals may be wishing they were'nt relying on solar power and when we've pumped the oil wells dry conservatives may be wishing we had a fall back plan. When you consider these somewhat extreme situtations middle of the road nuclear starts to sound pretty good.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/02/debates-on-clean-coal-and-caps/
http://www.martinfrost.ws/htmlfiles/aug2006/clean_coal2.jpg

1 comment:

Mr. Latham said...

Good comment and good article. Watch some of your spelling and grammar but the article does provide a strong argument for coal. I would suggest that we take a look at a counter argument by a special interest group - Green Peace.

http://archive.greenpeace.org/comms/no.nukes/nenstcc.html

Good Job.

Mr. L