Is nuclear energy the panacea that John McCain claims will solve our energy woes? I apologize if I sound edgy here, but the *idea* of building up to 45 nuclear plants and then dumping the waste into the deserts of Nevada--doesn%26#039;t exactly sit well with me at the moment.

I was a baby when Three Mile Island went critical and only 12 years old when Chernobyl blew.

But for the billions of dollars and *years* it will take to bring a lot of these %26#039;reactors%26#039; on line (let%26#039;s assume that they get built with a complete disregard for environmental purposes here by all parties involved--including the sanity of the American public), we could instead use that money to revitalize our nation%26#039;s power grid and failing road system--so that we can institutionalize a network of operating solar power and wind-turbine stations that would be a better solution and help curb our own energy problems.

Why isn%26#039;t McCain thinking along these lines first and foremost?

Additional Details

2 months ago

Because raping and pillaging the planet for fossil fuels, and dumping wastes that will only toxify more of our living environment--isn%26#039;t going to make our problems go away that much faster.

Best Answer

Nuclear Power produces waste that must be disposed of; and it just doesn%26#039;t disappate or vanish into thin air. Burying them in the desert or anywhere else is not going to make them go away. They will be there millions if not billions of years in the future. Each year we keep up with this folly, we only add to this poisonous byproduct.

Solar and wind power has got to be made affordable for home and business owners. The installation and utilization of these products, would and could vastly cut the dependency on /need for huge nuclear and coal burning facilities.

Building more energy conservative housing and products, is yet another step towards energy conservation. Education of the public in general of products and building practices that will cut energy usage, is a very necessary step. Getting everyone proactively involved in conservation is mandatory.

Oil is another problem, but one that is multifaceted. Remember, Crude oil not only goes into the refining process for gas, deisel, heating fuels. There is a huge petro-chemical industry that relies on crude oil for its existence and those products are everywhere in our lives. The range from plastic bags, to packing materials, to compact disks, to the plastic case on your printer, ipod, tv, shoe boxes, and on endlessly. When those items break or wear out, where do they wind up -- IN THE LANDFILLS, where the slowly, agonizingly slowly leach out their poisonous compounds into Mother Earth and the underground water reservoirs. However, those who invest in and speculate in Crude Oil futures are making huge fortunes at our expense. They sit in places of power and are not loathe to give up their control over our lives. Personal knowledge and investigation

Asker's Rating:

Tell me about it.

Other Answers (7)

• I read somewhere that solar power and wind turbine are actually MORE damaging to the environment.
  
  They need a lot of space and require a lot of digging up of earth and removal of trees and so forth.
  
  .
• %26quot;Why isn%26#039;t McCain thinking along these lines first and foremost?%26quot;
  I suspect McCain is probably sane although way too far left for me.
  
  Your solution of solar power grids and wind power wouldn%26#039;t make much of a dent in our power needs.
  
  You are incorrect or simply exaggerating for effect our %26quot;dumping%26quot; into the deserts of Nevada. The waste is expensive to dispose of but you are exaggerating the dangers. It is more lack of will than lack of technology or disposal areas.
  
  I suspect you benefit by the so called rape and pillage of our planet. There is a saying. Those that have no food have one problem. Those that have lots of food have lots of problems. I suspect you have lots of food.
• %26#039;Sorry. There isn%26#039;t one......at least to your commentary on the permutations of your original question. To answer your original question: no,neither off shore drilling nor nuclear power will solve our energy needs. What we really need is a tecnology that can produce energy more efficiently and in greater amounts than is currently possible...such as fusion. Barring that, the best we can do is increase the efficiency of the technology already available, and learn conservation. I see empty cars running in parking lots, one passenger suv%26#039;s, and commercial establishments with their front doors open and the air conditioning turned up to the point that you need a sweater to feel comfortable. A great deal of research is being done to increase the efficiency of solar cells,(such as thin film cells), and nuclear power isn%26#039;t all bad. The French reprocess their nuclear waste and reuse it. Mass transportation in this country is a joke, and I see homes with four cars for four people. McCain isn%26#039;t thinking about these things because they aren%26#039;t politically expedient, and because they would take years to accomplish in a myopic culture that demands instant gratification......And speaking about %26quot;billions of dollars%26quot;, the war has already cost well over 330 billion dollars (at my last hearing). Does anyone realize what we could%26#039;ve done with that money? That%26#039;s 38 million dollars an hour, and counting. Imagine what we could do to the road system,the power grid,wind power,solar power, mass transportation, and, though off the subject, universal health care. To paraphrase old Will, %26quot;...but man, proud man...like an angry ape plays such fantastic tricks before high heaven as to make the angels weap.%26quot;
• France gets about 80% of its electricity from nuclear power and they have no safety problems. There is no reason we can%26#039;t do the same. Most knowledgable anti-nuclear activists today understand and admit that safety and waste are solved problems, but they still oppose nuclear power for fear of proliferation. It isn%26#039;t much of a problem for reactors in the U.S or France. But it is a different story in North Korea or Iran. So are you opposing reactors in those countries too or only in the US?
• I can%26#039;t answer for the way McCain thinks. I doubt McCain can tell you how he thinks. Nuclear energy is no panacea. There is a plant in California that was built on an earthquake fault because the fault was not known at the time it was built. We are assured by the government that it is safe and of course that is where we must put our faith (God help us). If you want to know the safest and cheapest source of energy in your area, talk to the people of the Native American tribes where you live. Solar, wind, water or whatever, the Native American is closer to Mother Nature and can give you the correct information.