I received a press release from U.S. Senator Domenici's office this afternoon.

Here's an excerpt I'd like to share with you...

While some biofuels technology, like corn ethanol, is available now to help build that bridge, we must also move forward with advanced biofuels, including cellulosic ethanol, if we're going to get to the other side of the bridge where biofuels, nuclear energy, wind, solar, and other renewables will secure our energy future, free of foreign sources. 

Notice anything odd?

Looks like the good folks at Domenici's office slipped "nuclear energy" into the list of "renewables that will secure our energy future."

You know, it's one thing to champion nuclear energy.  If that's your angle...fine.  We don't agree nuclear holds much promise as a clean, domestic energy source for the future as uranium is a finite resource.  Not to mention, they still don't know what the hell to do with all the waste.  Well, other than tell us they can "safely" store and transport it. 

But to slip it into a press release as a component of the renewable energy framework?  Well, that's just dishonest.  And he knows it!

But I guess when your campaign donors include at least three dozen members of the Nuclear Energy Institute, you have to find ways to make them happy.

I just wonder if Vichi read the story today about how a reactor at the Indian Point nuclear power plant had to be shut down after radio frequencies from a camera interfered with a boiler pump that provides water to four steam generators.

Yeah, that sounds real safe and clean!

Jeff

 

 

Get the inside track on the most lucrative stock plays in today's scorching-hot alternative and renewable energy markets.

Sign up for the FREE Green Chip Review daily e-Letter from alternative energy expert Jeff Siegel.

I am all for inventive and alternative sources of energy. Nuclear can be listed as an alternative, since it is an alternative to our current major source. OIL. But you know what the biggest problem with nuclear energy is? Human error. It is too bad that we can't count on the people that run the nuclear plants to inform the public when there is a leak or a problem. They are more about protecting their business than watching out for the welfare of the environment and the people that inhabit it. Nuclear energy may be a good alternative but the people who control it aren't. Are we ready to put our lives in the hands of those who control those plants? Most of them are way past their life span anyway and yet somehow the EPA is still accepting renewal applications?????? I am not an expert but I have done some research. I would suggest anyone that is pro nuclear do the same. The human risks outway the advantages. Can't say I blame em. If someone was paying me subsidaries and write offs to start up a nuclear energy plant I might support it too. If it would feed my children... no I take that back. I REFUSE to support anything that would potentially wipe my children off this planet or mutate them beyond recognition, whether it be from human error or the waste itself. We have everything we need, the wind, the sun, the water. All can make energy and, combinded, can serve our needs. Why ask for more?

Well said. The trick is to convince the rest of the world that renew ables are viable resources, provide jobs, can be utilized by the ordinary Joe and do the environment minimal harm. When this is finally done, we have arrived. Meanwhile I will ride the stocks to their rightfull place in the economics of the world.

Larry

Yes, I am pro-nuclear. So if you are small and closed minded, you can ignore me. However, the truth is that nuclear fuel rods CAN be recycled. It is called "reprossessing". If you recycle the fuel rods, then there is no end to the supply of energy (with absolutely no green house gas emissions) that you can produce. France recycles all of there nuclear fuel. The U.S. recycles none. Don't ask me why. I have a masters degree from U.C. Berkeley in Nuclear Engineering, so what do I know?