5 November 2007

Nuclear power

Looking at the candidate's position on nuclear power, most except for Mike Gravel and John Edwards are for it. I especially like Gravel's response and I fully agree: No matter what the cost, wind power seems to be the "silver bullet" that everyone keeps saying doesn't exist. It's clean and is feasible using current technologies. In Hillary's case, she seems to be for nuclear power on the odd days of the week and against it on the even days. Her talk of some magic technology that is right around the corner (because, after all, we're Americans) seems to be the easy out for presidential front runners--a strategem stolen from the Shrub playbook. Why deal with energy issues when some technological fix--cold fusion?--is going to invented (and implemented on a mass scale) any day now? Anyway, here are some of the clips: you be the judge. In particular, notice Hillary's waffling on the issue.


BadTux said...

There's significant problems with wind power though. Wind power is not reliable enough for baseline (you only have power when the wind blows) and is not uniformly distributed around the nation. Wind power kills lots of birds in places like Altamont Pass where large wind farms have been placed, and, finally, wind power lacks the energy density necessary to power a modern industrialized nation. While it makes a dandy peaking source (as does solar), something else has to provide the baseline, and that, for the foreseeable future, leaves nuclear as the only possibility that doesn't add to global warming.

-- Badtux the Energy Penguin

Karlo said...

Good points. I need to read more on this. I did read The Party's Over a few years back and I remember the author (and others of same ilk) emphasizing the fact that oil's a pretty wonderful energy source that's going to be hard to replace.