One thing that surprised me a little was that no one seemed to think that expanding nuclear power was a good idea for working towards energy independence.

That's going to have to change. Candidates will start singing a different tune as oil prices surge higher in the next few years.

Brian A.
I'd rather be cycling.

Not that I was expecting much, but these bozos were really depressing. None of the three front-runners will agree to a full withdrawal from Iraq, and Clinton, who's ahead of the pack in poll numbers, voted just yesterday for the awful Lieberman-Kyl bill that serves as a pretext for invading Iran.

Why would any Democrat want to vote for any of these three Republicans-in-Disguise? And why is Clinton ahead in the polls, when she's the most Republican of the lot?

Why would anyone in their right mind be promoting nuclear power? Not only is it the world's most expensive way to heat water, it produces highly dangerous waste products that are incredibly difficult to store and provide ideal materials for terrorists. Plus, operating a nuclear power plant with any degree of safety requires highly specialized skills, something the thoroughly dumbed-down American workforce can no longer supply.

Other than that, I guess it's great. As Dick Cheney once put it, aside from Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, it's just hunky-dory! Which is like asking Mrs. Lincoln, "Well, other than that unpleasantness at the end, how did you like the play?"

Would promoting nuclear power anger (some, most?)environmentalists beacuse of the waste issue, thus alienating a base in the primary?

That seemed to be the gist of it. Clinton wanted you to know that she voted against Yucca Mt. and has been fighting Yucca Mt.

I have mixed feelings. After all this time, you'd think we could have come up with a way to use it safely (and maybe some other way to capture the energy besides boiling water).

But apparently we haven't, and the waste lasts forever. Look what an environmental disaster Oak Ridge and the White Oak Creek are. Do we really want to multiply that X 100 or more?

Kucinich said we could build five million windmills with parts off the shelf that would power the entire U.S.

Richardson and Kucinich also both mentioned a "green economy" to create jobs to engineer solutions and build technology to get us off oil (Kucinich mentioned a WPA type program and called it Work Green or someting).

Rather than promote "alternative" energy, I think we have to promote "decentralized" energy production and conservation. The problem with solar energy is that is can't be controlled by a Utility corporation.

Wind energy is similar.

I could back nuclear if we had a solution to nuclear waste other than burying it in barrels that have a shelf life and will deteriorate and release it at some future date.

I think we have to promote "decentralized" energy production and conservation.

Bingo. Solar panels on every rooftop would darn near run us. Tap off some for hydrogen generators to store it for night and running our cars and jet airplanes and we're good to go.

But you're right, the utility companies can't control it, so they don't want it.

What they need to be doing is looking at their business model and the "shifting paradigms" (to quote an overused phrase from the go go corporate 80s) and start thinking about how to transform their business.

Such as getting into the solar panel and hydrogen generator manufacturing business, the home/commercial solar/wind financing, installation, and maintenance business, and so forth.

Nukes are way too expensive, to start with. There's a reason why nobody has been willing to invest in a new one for over thirty years now, even after all the federal subsidies, tax breaks, and liability indemnification has been given to the power industry on a silver platter. Nukes are just not cost competitive in the "free market." If that's not true, where are they?

Safety: Nuke plants probably could be safe enough if the price is even higher, but we like to cut corners in this country because it's all about the bottom line. Has the food industry taken safety steps to ensure against e. coli or mad cow disease? And there's always some risk of a big safety issue or a terrorist target.

Pollution and GHG: Mining uranium is dirty and hazardous. We still don't have a long term waste solution. Nevada is fighting Yucca Mtn tooth and nail.

It kills me to hear that nukes don't produce CO2. Mining and transporting uranium fuel is very fossil fuel intensive, as is the transport and whatever else (TBD) needed to store and dispose of the waste. Of the few articles I've seen that are honest about nuclear power not being CO2 free, the estimates I've seen are that it is maybe 40-50% less CO2 producing than fossil fuel plants. That's still pretty good, but it's far from zero and doesn't eliminate the other problems.

Also think about how concrete and steel intensive a nuclear power plant is. I wonder how much GHG are emitted in the construction of a plant before it even goes on line. I don't know, but it's got to be enormous. It would be interesting to figure how many homes could be made self-sufficient on renewable sources just for the cost of the plant.

Speak of the devil.

Regarding wind power, it also has some major drawbacks. The windmills used out West are massive and can be seen for miles. They are placed on ridgetops to capture the wind of course. I've heard they are a major killer of birds also. Do we want the viewscape of the Cumberland Plateau, the Chilhowee range, etc. marred by huge windmill farms? I believe Sen. Alexander has already proposed if not passed legislation restricting windmill farms in the Tennessee Valley, but I'm not sure.

Everybody I've talked to loves seeing the wind turbines. Granted, there's a limit if they really take over, but we're hardly there yet. The bird risk is there, but it can be minimized with proper siting.

Meanwhile, most people including Lamar and Jimmy Duncan seem to completely ignore the health risks and prodigious GHG emissions from dirty coal plants like Bull Run and Kingston.

Kucinich said we could build five million windmills with parts off the shelf that would power the entire U.S.

Okay, that's 100,000 windmills in each and every state. Just where in the heck are we going to put all those windmills? An example of why Alexander has opposed these things dotting the mountains in the Tennessee Valley.

Don't many European countries (like France) get most of their energy from nukes? I believe they also have beeter storage and re-use solutions.

Nukes in the US, in the TVA at least, broke down over safety and financial concerns. I believe TVA is back to moving those plants forward.

Of the realistic alternatives, is nuclear better than coal fired steam plants? I suppose hydro is good, but that's not an option everywhere.

Don't many European countries (like France) get most of their energy from nukes? I believe they also have beeter storage and re-use solutions.

OMGWTFTGIF!!!1! CBT's advocating socialism!!!

____________________________

I'm a guy in a Reagan mask -- and I'm running for President!

The links here (link...) and here (link...) don't pan out to what national polls are saying. I'm not a Democrat, so I'm aksing those here that are, do you feel like Hillary is being forced on you? If so, why?

Mr. Neal, maybe you could run these polls again. Is there a national syndicate of blogs that can connect for a larger sample?

Nuclear Energy = Socialism....well, in Andy's world I guess.

Nuclear Energy = Socialism....well, in Andy's world I guess.

So, you're not familiar with the French socialist government and how they have socialized their nuclear power program from generation to disposal?

____________________________

I'm a guy in a Reagan mask -- and I'm running for President!

When I am watching these debates (this one I only watched about five minutes), I always wonder why people don't like Joe Biden. I grant you he is a bit of a smartass, he been in politics a long time, and he is definitely not perfect. He also seems intelligient, fairly flexible, to have an understanding of the middle-class, able to discuss foreign and domestic issues with knowledge and caring. I even feel like contributing to his campaign. Maybe I will.

Surely the methods of government control are not necessary to implement the methods used for re-using rods and storing waste.

From today's KNS:

(link...)

From today's KNS.

That's not good news. For a tiny fraction of the cost of one nuke plant TVA could invest in lowering our consumption through efficiency and conservation so that a new plant is unneeded. It's called "negawatts" and it's the cheapest "energy source" by far. Look it up for yourself. California has reduced it's energy consumption continuously over the last 30 years and they have an economy (GDP, etc.) the rest of the states can only envy.

Fortunately, there are many huge hurdles yet for TVA's misguided big nuke scheme.

Destroying their land by digging coal out of the ground and destroying their health by putting it into their air is still the stupidest thing humans do.

Surely the methods of government control are not necessary to implement the methods used for re-using rods and storing waste.

Waste storage is as much of a political issue as it is a technical one. Maybe more so.

____________________________

I'm a guy in a Reagan mask -- and I'm running for President!

So, you're not familiar with the French socialist government and how they have socialized their nuclear power program from generation to disposal?

...

Don't many European countries (like France) get most of their energy from nukes? I believe they also have beeter storage and re-use solutions.

Nukes in the US, in the TVA at least, broke down over safety and financial concerns.

Gee, I wonder why. I thought we and our "free market" capitalism, as most promoted by conservatives, are superior to the rest of the world's, especially those froggies.

Maybe because we're too tempted to scam everything for profit and political power?

Anybody want a "Heckuva job, Brownie" in charge of buillding a nuke plant? The level of incompetence in this country is pretty scary, even once we get beyond the current administration. TVA's (mis)adventures are a great example. I could probably go for nuke power except for this.

I like Edwards, then I don't like him. I adsmire Hillary and would like to see a competent woman in the White House, but then sometimes seeing what a player she is I mistrust her. What's up with Obama. He never looks comfortable and never has anything unique to say. If he has something as spedcial as Oprah and others keep saying, he sure isn't showing it. It's like he's running for VP under Hillary. That could be a winning ticket.

Biden is cool, a real maverick and very smart, and he seemed pretty together on the issues last night. Richardson seems like a comfy guy, a lot of intellectuals I know are impressed, but he always looks like he just woke up after a nap on the couch. And, wasn't he the one that quipped that he wasn't as "blow dried" as the others? Ouch. I thought that was a cheap shot.

Kucinich impresses me with his keen perceptions, but I can't see him in the White House. Gravel does say things that are true that the others won't. His bluster kind of turns me off though. He ends up landing in my oh-oh-whacko category.

I wish solar was the solution. We had a couple of wind turbines in my town. Pretty really from a distance, but noise complaints up close. The bird danger seemed to be debunked. Occasional windfarms seem prudent. They don't have to be everywhere.

Nuclear waste and possible accidents make me wary of that route.

Certainly we can find ways to use less electric power. I love wood heat and wish I had room for a wood stove in my house. Passive solar in home construction is also intringing.

I like the idea of creating "green" jobs. We ought to be leaders in this field.

It would be great if we could generate enough solar and wind energy to power everything. Unfortunately, we can't. With increased efficiencies, we can generate significantly more solar electricity, and more wind electricity, but there's still going to be a large gap with demand.

Coal or nuclear--pick your poison.

Brian A.
I'd rather be cycling.

regarding wind farms/wind turbines, the suggestion has been made that they are ugly, but they aren't nearly as ugly as the haze that makes you wish you could stop needing to breathe for the day. They aren't nearly as ugly as mountains with their tops blasted off. They aren't nearly as ugly as buried nuclear waste that our children or grandchildren get to find one day. I'd rather see the mountains with wind farms than not see them through the smog or see them only in pictures because they are all gone.

How did humans survive so long without electricity??????

that the big news coming out of the debate is that the leading Democrat candidates appeared to waiver in their opposition to the war and the determination to end the conflict and bring the troops home. It seemed that way to me and to the several commentators I heard or read post debate. I skipped Fox but I can imagine what they made of it.