Given the way governmental entities contributed to the problems of past nuclear power plant construction, it is only fitting that the federal government share substantially in the investment risk. Building nuclear plants is in the nation's interest.
This is amazing nonsense, IMO. It was "government entities" (or government sponsored entities, i.e., university research) that invented the entire nuclear industry in the 1920s through the 1940s or so, when the major theories were created, discoveries made, and technological advances made. Meanwhile, the government and the companies that were their partners were covering up how dangerous radiation is. And how much environmental damage had been done over the years (see, for one especially egregious example, the the history of the Hanford plant, used to enrich uranium and make plutonium during WWII and after--the government didn't even begin to come clean about environmental degradation until the 1980s, and many of the affected areas were populated by the people who worked on nuclear projects and were super patriots proud of the work they did during WWII and the Cold War during the arms race; it will cost far more to clean up the mess than the entire Manhattan Project cost).
If the same money was put into wind and solar power and research, we would be far better off. If only because they don't cause the same waste or potential environmental problems. People are only defending it because the basic research has largely been done, and it is a vested interest. Otherwise, it wouldn't even be an issue as it which (if any) type of alternative energy the government should support.
My opinion is obvious. We need to do it on both environmental and security/energy independence grounds. |
