Expanding Nuclear Energy

[Frodo]

I know we had an earlier poll on this topic, but this time I want to break it down by party.

You already know what I think.....

[Frodo]

And by 'expanding nuclear energy', I mean by building new power plants (preferably by displacing existing coal plants in certain regions of the country, like the South and the Midwest) and retrofitting existing ones.

[dead0man]

Yes of course (normal)  Only people that hate the enviroment would vote no.

[Mint]

Yes (Not hysterical)

[CARLHAYDEN]

Frodo,

Your "question" includes two disparate elements.

I favor building more nuclear powerplant to meet our need for electricity.

I would like those who profess as concern for Carbon Dioxide emissions to themselves set an example, and stop emitting Carbon Dioxide. 

[Keystone Phil]

Of course

[Fmr. Emperor PiT]

     Yes, I would love to see a surge in the production of nuclear energy.

[Snowguy716]

Yes. 

Nuclear power is much more efficient at providing energy.  Of course we have to find a suitable place to store spent fuel, but there really isn't anything I can think of that coal power has over nuclear.

[War on Want]

I'm not mentally challenged so yes.

[Senator Ben]

Absolutely.

[The Mikado]

Short answer: yes.

Long answer: slightly qualified, limited yes.

[dead0man]

This is great.  Last time we did this a few on the left were still anti-nuke power (if I remember correctly).  Either ignorance has been fought and defeated or the ignorant are afraid to post in this thread (or I'm remembering wrong).

[AkSaber]

Wow, there's only one no vote, and it's a Republican.

I hope that the high oil prices have made people look into nuclear power and break their preconceived notions about it. 

[Inks.LWC Supports Chuck Hagel]

Yes (R) - I LOVE nuclear power.

[Senator Sbane]

Of course we need to support more nuclear energy and allow other countries to access the technology too. With safeguards of course.

[Frodo]

This is great.  Last time we did this a few on the left were still anti-nuke power (if I remember correctly).  Either ignorance has been fought and defeated or the ignorant are afraid to post in this thread (or I'm remembering wrong).

If only this same level of support was apparent among Congressional Democrats....

When last I heard, they had successfully fought off attempts by Republicans (and a few sympathetic Democrats) to include nuclear energy in the climage change bill currently crawling its way through the House. 

[Magic 8-Ball]

Absolutely.  It should have been done decades ago.

This.

[Daniel Z]

If we can pay for it. Environmentalist get a bad rap for holding back nuclear power (there are many environmentalist who support nuclear power). The relative availability of coal in the US makes it more economically viable than nuclear power, but of course with high environmental cost. There certainly are big benefits to using nuclear power, but the OMG no nukes crowd is not the only thing preventing the expansion of nuclear power.

[dead0man]

Yeah, they are very expensive to build...but that's not why we don't have a bunch of new ones and others that are being built.  It's because the greens used excellent fearmongering for the last 3 decades.  Ignorance can be a very dangerous thing....especially when it can't be questioned because "OMG you must hate the environments!"

[Snowguy716]

Yeah, they are very expensive to build...but that's not why we don't have a bunch of new ones and others that are being built.  It's because the greens used excellent fearmongering for the last 3 decades.  Ignorance can be a very dangerous thing....especially when it can't be questioned because "OMG you must hate the environments!"

OMG you must hate the environments!

In all seriousness, our goal should be to provide the most energy in the most efficient way possible.  Nuclear, hydro-electric, wind, solar, and geothermal are all good, environmentally friendly ways to provide electricity.

[True Federalist]

In all seriousness, our goal should be to provide the most energy in the most efficient way possible.  Nuclear, hydro-electric, wind, solar, and geothermal are all good, environmentally friendly ways to provide electricity.

Drowning a bunch of land is hardly enviro-friendly.  While it makes sense to include hydroelectric generating capacity if you are going to build a dam, building a dam just to get electric power makes zero sense.

[Rowan]

I don't see any reason not too.

[MasterJedi]

Damn straight it needs to be done. Should have been done from the beginning.

[Snowguy716]

In all seriousness, our goal should be to provide the most energy in the most efficient way possible.  Nuclear, hydro-electric, wind, solar, and geothermal are all good, environmentally friendly ways to provide electricity.

Drowning a bunch of land is hardly enviro-friendly.  While it makes sense to include hydroelectric generating capacity if you are going to build a dam, building a dam just to get electric power makes zero sense.

I agree that hydroelectric plants should be built only when the dam is serving another purpose such as flood control or for water supplies, but in many situations the damage it does to the environment is minimal compared to building a coal power plant and then removing mountain tops to get the coal out.

We can't have this idealist "we won't change unless it's going to be perfect" attitude.  You take the good with the bad... but ultimately the one that is efficient and environmentally friendly.

[Countess Anya of the North Parish]

No.