Nuclear energy

One of the key issues surrounding the nuclear energy debate is the proper disposition of spent fuel rods. There are numerous concerns that encompass this issue, from radioactive contamination to nuclear proliferation fears, and about the only consensus that experts can agree on is the sheer complexity of the problem.

According to the Charlotte Observer, a group of ostensible environmentalists will hold an expensive fundraiser for Barack Obama in their posh home in the Myers Park neighborhood of Charlotte. I quote:

The invitation-only fundraisers will be at the Bonwood Drive home of environmental activists Bob Perkowitz and Lisa Renstrom. A "general reception" costs $1,000 a person. A "host reception" costs $2,300.

Perhaps these ostensible environmentalists should research Obama's record on the environment before raising money for his campaign. Exelon, a nuclear energy giant in Illinois, is Obama's sixth largest donor. In fact, Exelon employees have donated over $269,100 to his federal campaigns and over $194,750 in 2008.

It was an ambush by power company viewpoints at the National League of Cities' Energy, Environment, and Natural Resources Policy & Advocacy Committee this afternoon.

Working from the assumption (see dissenting opinion below) that current renewable energy technology is insufficient to provide a reasonably cost-effective solution to the incredibly high demand for electricity, I thought it was time we talked a little bit about the practicality of our situation.

Dissenting Opinion: it's a faulty assumption, because there's no way to accurately quantify the economics and technological breakthroughs a radical increase in society's demand for residential Solar systems could bring about, but I'll let Steve continue with this discussion. For now.

Progress Energy will postpone the addition of a new reactor at their Shearon Harris nuclear power plant in southern Wake County. They will attempt to achieve the same results through "aggressive conservation".

Nuclear is the most dangerous and deadly source of energy. I truly hope the public remembers Chernobyl before endorsing this alternative fuel.

There are many reason I have read for an against nuclear energy and in my opinion the cons far outnumber the pros. However aside from the fact that there are no failsafe Nuclear Systems these are my three main concerns:

1. My first concern is the danger of terrorists attack which is with us today, and I am afraid will be an issue which will be with us at least thru out this century. If terrorist would happen to get into the facilities at Yucca Mountain today the entire west coast would be made uninhabitable. There is NO DEFENSE THAT IS FULL PROOF. In fact a well placed missile would do the trick. And as of this moment we have no effective missile defense system. May I remind you that the world now has a few more unstable and dangerous countries with missiles and nuclear weapons. We also know the break up of the Communist Soviet Union allowed much radioactive and nuclear material and weapons to go unaccounted for. We don’t know who has these “lost” weapons.