Discussion on:

How the U.S. should embrace nuclear energy

I totally agree! Nuclear is not only safe, as proven in submarines, satellites, all over the out lands of Russia,( the ones that were not stolen), (NO, not Chernobyl). Look to France, Europe et al, and their safety history. I'm sure the OTHer elaphant in the room is used fuel rods. Technology will reuse that, too.The ONLY real problem I see is Cooling. I don't want our rivers to be the cooling medium. Other than that..GO FOR BROKE!

I totally disagree. Too many people today were born too late to remember Chernobyl or Three Mile Island. It's not a matter of if an accident happens (or the spent fuel makes it into the hands of the terrorists), it's when! No energy is worth the price we'll have to pay in the face of an accident or attack. Since when did we start following the lead of France?

Nice film clip, but I have a question for the speaker: What is your opinion on spent fuel recycling, use of plutonium and breeder reactors? Do you believe we should go that route? Or do you believe nuclear is ok as long as its strictly a once-through fuel cycle?

I think the biggest risk with nuclear energy is the extremely large carbon footprint associated with mining Uranium. We should be able to get to the point where the only way we're getting energy from underground is through Geo-thermal technology.

20 yrs, try 200,000 years. It can't ever be economical with the open ended expense of waste sequestration. How about the contamination of the North Sea with France's waste. They've even dumped Nuke waste off of Somalia's coast. Do you trust the corporations to abandon short term gains over long term damage?

This is a fool's bargain. It is not economical even without the waste problem, it is the most heavily subsidized energy source that ever existed.

20 yrs, try 200,000. Nukes can never be economical with an open ended waste sequestration problem. Nuke waste has been dumped in every body of water in the world.
This is a fools bargain, nukes are nor even economical without the waste problem, it is the most heavily subsidized industry in our culture. Do you really trust the corporate world to take the long view on this issue?

This video gave us no new information and appears to just be a plug for investing in nuclear power, hosted by an entreprenurial investment company.

"Let's see....get promo materials out on nuclear energy at that greenwash conference so we keep that marketing contract with the nuclear corp. boys--check!

Send some money to ZDnet to broadcast a sound bite to spread the word even further--check!

My job for today is done. Call for reservations at the golf course--check!"

The point made here makes sense. But private investment will
not come without a comprehensive legislation at the federal
level. As of now, upfront costs are still too high. Also, it would
take a lot of education and outreach to restore nuclear's image
as a dangerous, NIMBY source of energy.

Learn more about the ongoing debate and key players here:
bit.ly/bGwbSy

Luca,
www.poweringanation.org

Nuclear electric power provides very little energy at very high fossil fuel and carbon costs. A situation known as low EROEI.
The complete incompetence of the US government regarding energy has put us to the edge of collapse if it is not too late. A massive tax and spend on a low EROEI energy system will mean the end of the US for sure.