Let's look more closely at what Benedict Kerry is proposing that we do with our limited funds. On the one hand we could do what he proposes and go nuclear:

- it is by far the most expensive form of energy
- it takes the longest to bring online
- it has the most toxic waste by far that lingers longer than any other toxic substance known to man. Indeed its waste is usually called the most toxic substance in the known universe
- there is no place safe to store the waste we already have, let alone creating huge new stockpiles
- it requires dirty dangerous mines that are a threat to the health of the miners
- it is dangerous to ship nuclear fuel
- every phase of its operation is an open invitation to terrorists
- it promotes nuclear arms development simply by its very existence
- it is one of the largest consumers of water in the United States, especially in arid areas
- being a point source and highly complex it is prone to frequent shutdowns causing stress on the grid
- it has shown to be fault prone, with unanticipated dangers repeatedly threatening nearby regions with massive contamination
- existing plants are constantly venting low level radiation deemed "safe" by industry officials who don't live near the plant
- the Nuclear Regulatory Agency is thoroughly corrupt and was recently shown to be ineffective at regulating the industry
- the corporate culture running nuclear plants is supposed to be a "safety culture" but it was recently shown that it in fact is a "profit culture" placing profit motives before safety every single time
- it has no means for protecting surrounding communities in the event of a breach of the containment facility, which has almost happened several times, which would have resulted in hundreds of thousands of casualties and the loss of large swathes of the country for decades
- it cannot attract private investors or insurers so it would rely on the Treasury to underwrite it to the tune of $50 billion or more

Now, contrast that with wind power:

- lowest cost of common energy sources when secondary costs are figured in
- even without secondary costs accounted for, a large DOE study found that wind power is competitive right now without federal guarantees or long term assistance
- wind power is the fastest growing energy source, without long term federal guarantees
- wind attracts plenty of private funding and most wind farms are private ventures
- it has no secondary costs (health environment security etc) and so it is utterly safe
- it has no toxic byproducts
- it is relatively simple technology
- it is a distributed source so it cannot be knocked out or brought offline
- the U.S. is known as "The Saudi Arabia of Wind" because it has massive amounts of readily available land based wind power
- a massive DOE study found that we could easily provide 20 percent of our energy needs by 2030 for a net of $43 billion above current costs, which is just a drop in the $2 trillion energy bucket
- it has basically zero CO2 emissions, even considering manufacturing contributions
- its footprint is fixed, unlike fossil fuels where you have to constantly tear up new pristine ground
- it does not require mining and all of the toxic byproducts
- it provides farmers a lucrative paycheck (around $8,000 per tower per year rent) meaning that it is easy to site
- the new towers are very large so that the blades turn slowly, posing minimal threat to migrating birds (unlike earlier blades that were shorter and turned at a high speed)
- the Midwest is uniquely prepared to take on the manufacturing requirements of wind power, providing relief for a region devastated by Free Market traitors

I could go on but you get the picture.

peace,
Paul

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]