Re: Obama on nuclear energy
Posted by
Douglas Roberts-2 on
URL: http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/Obama-on-nuclear-energy-tp2639434p2639530.html
I'm curious why you think our future energy needs can be met without nuclear energy. Do you have any references to forecast energy budgets for the US which define energy usage in coming decades, and the corresponding energy sources and delivery infrastructures for meeting those demands?
It's one thing to say "I don't like nukes," but another thing entirely to claim that US energy requirements can be met without fission nuclear power sources. Some justification for your position, please?
--Doug
On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 9:19 AM, peggy miller
<[hidden email]> wrote:
Below is link showing Obama's support for nuclear energy. I was sorry to see it stated so clearly, because I remain believing that we can proceed without nuclear energy (unless it is developing cold fusion, which he does not state in his speech), using wind, solar, geothermal, hydrogen. I continue to see no reason this is not possible, and deeply fear, having sat through countless hearings on Capitol Hill about the potential threats of nuclear fission power plants, the inevitable error of human management, and the inability to protect the toxics from leakage over their 500 million year life span. These systems remain of a similar threat today, with toxic wastes still unresolved, and meltdown capabilities remaining. Such solutions therefore should not be part of the equation in my opinion.
But wanted you to see the link, whatever you think on the subject.
Peggy Miller
Highland Winds
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at
http://www.friam.org