TV Schedule

Nuclear Donating Big To Obama and Clinton



  3. JanforGore
  4. related topics
And yet, we are to believe they are candidates of change? That they care about the environment? Nuclear energy is not "green." It is an antiquated dangerous form of energy that has seen its day. It is only because of the rise of concern over the climate crisis that certain lobbies have been trying to push it into the green column in order to make a profit from it. And Obama and Clinton are helping them in their quest to do so at the expense of this planet. Subsidies to the nuclear industry could be used to bring innovative and truly visionary alternate energies to the fore that would reduce our dependence on oil in much cleaner and safer ways. This is very discouraging to see and tells me that Obama, who talks about change in his glossy abstract speeches means only changing the person living at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. It doesn't mean changing the way business is done. Any candidate who truly believes in addressing climate change and in fighting terrorism is not for nuclear power, period. It is bad enough that Republicans push for nuclear energy and antiquated methods proven to be unproductive in progressing us towards the future. I expected better from Democrats, or at least, those who call themselves Democrats.
JanforGore

5 responses // Nuclear Donating Big To Obama and Clinton

  • Whilst nuclear might not be green, it is an effective way of replacing coal-fired power plants, producing more energy than they can. Nuclear power is a method of affecting climate change as it produces no carbon waste. Granted nuclear waste is dangerous, but it's a good stop-gap to meet energy needs until renewables have had the time to mature.
    gingerchrismc
  • No it isn't. It is amazing to me how people always repeat the same lines anywhere you go about nuclear but never back it up. Do you realize the amount of carbon wasted from the point of extractiing the uranium (which is also a finite source I might add) to the point of it's creation through the building of the huge nuclear plants that expend tons of carbon? The huge amounts of water wasted in the process which cannot be feasible in parts of this country now experiencing significant and prolonged drought? And yes, the potential for disaster regarding the emissions and storage of toxic nuclear waste? Look up Indian Point and what people are trying to do to keep that plant from renewing its license because of all the thousands of fish it has killed and the pollution it has caused to the Hudson River.

    Nuclear is not the way to go even to "transition" because I can assure you that those making money from it do not plan on "transitioning" to anything else anytime soon and that is simply not a feasible option either. Those in Congress who give them subsidies still only prolong what must be done now as we are running out of time for that "transition." Neither nuclear or coal are viable sources of energy now and any candidate who takes hundreds of thousands of dollars from the nuclear lobby is only beholding to them without really caring to be forceful in seeing alternate energies come to the fore.

    Nuclear, coal, and corn ethanol are all supported by Barack Obama and the other candidates as well because above their socalled calls for "change" they are still beholding to the very status quo that puts profits before real sustainability. And I won't even get into the the dangers of nuclear falling iinto the wrong hands, not to mention the fact that our nuclear plants are outdated with in many cases unqualified staff that fall asleep on the job and security that is lackluster at best. It's time for nuclear to meet the dustbin of history, and if Obama and Clinton cannot say that because their allegiance to their big donors is more important then they are no better than the Republicans on this issue.
    JanforGore
  • I know the amount of carbon used to generate nuclear electricity. It's about 4 grams per kilowatt hour.

    This is officially audited and includes the upstream energy use in uranium mining and manufacture in six countries. Look at EPD Content, section 3.4 in the attached link. http://www.environdec.com/reg/021/index.htm

    Compare to coal at about 900 g/kWh or gas at about half of that figure. Wind and hydro also come in at about 4 g/kWh. Solar significantly more, but still far below the fossils.

    To say that nuclear power is not low carbon is to mindlessly repeat someone else's campaign slogans and skewed research.
    Number1BadBoy
  • No, to say it is safe is to mindlessly repeat someone else's skewed research and campaign slogans. But of course, you didn't address the toxicity of it compared to others. That of course would negate your whole argument. And politicians and lobbyists trying to shove nuclear down our throats state it emits NO carbon. Looks like you then proved them liars.
    JanforGore
  • So you're admitting I was right about carbon?
    Number1BadBoy

Add your response

Login/Registration is required to add a response.