Reader comments
My view: Nuclear energy is the only way to break America's dependence on oil

As usual, Huck, the one-trick pony, sees any topic only as a vehicle to bash those evil environmentalists. Ah, well, all's right with the world.
I would have to say that radioactive wastes fit the description of "noxious effluents", and I think the good people of St. George and Chernobyl would agree with me. However, for the sake of argument, let's assume that the U.S. has an excellent system for storing lethal radioactive residue, say in Yucca Mountain (which I actually think is the best place for it discussed yet. We already have a problem with the waste generated to date, and we have to put it somewhere.) Even still, I would have one major objection to nuclear power plants: in this age of missiles, they are completely indefensible military targets. All that China would need to do is put one cruise missile into each nuclear power plant, simultaneously destroying the centralized ability to generate electricity, and converting the surrounding landscape into a radioactive no-man's land.

Amen, brother.

Nuclear energy never became 'too cheap to meter' - the plants are very expensive to build and maintenance costs are high. As to safety incidents, Mr. Huck forgets to mention the recent releases of radioactive water in Japan. These plants are built by humans and operated by humans and are vulnerable to human error.

And just like most forms of energy production there is the problem of waste disposal. No one has come up with a foolproof means of disposal and no one wants the waste in their backyard

If it was all as simple as Mr. Huck states - a conspiracy with the environmentalists and the other power producers.

I remember a Mike Shelton/Orange County Register cartoon from the late 1970s (when Jane Fonda was leading protests outside the San Onofre power plant). It shows a protestor in front of a "No Nuclear Power" banner, asking where to plug in his electric guitar.

If not for kooks like Fonda, the Arab Oil Embargo of 1974 would have been the last time an oil crisis hurt the US economy. I disagree that the Iraq war is about oil, but things would be easier if the Mideast didn't have so much influence on the world.

It should also be noted that only one country has ever been subjected to nuclear war -- Japan -- and that country has 52 nuclear power reactors running, with 3 being built and 8 more in planning stages. (source: www.japannuclear.com) Their economy can't survive without it.

One other hidden benefit of nuclear power is the need to purify vast amounts of water for cooling, one reason that so many plants are on the seashore. In a country which is so short of clean water, it is almost criminal to simply pump all of that clean water back into the ocean (thank the anti-nuke kooks for the law requiring that, even though they knew that water can't be radioactive).

There are a lot of really good reasons for us to use nuclear power, and none to keep going the way we're going.

This guy's running for MAYOR????????? Of what planet?

While I don't agree with every position Rainer Huck takes, he is certainly right about nuclear power. If we had actively persued its development years ago instead of listening to the naysayers, right now we could be living in a nuclear powered society.
Just think, no carbon monoxide, or other nasty biproducts of fosil fuel emissions. Our environmental concerns would largly disappear.
Visualize driving your nuclear powered car with 300,000 miles on it into a nuc-garage who would replace the self contained, case hardened, titanium covered engine weighing about 150 lbs with the latest model containing enough nuclear fuel to go another 300,000 miles.

"Nuclear energy is the only way to break America's dependence on oil." Nonsense! Sixty percent of imported petroleum goes to gas. Cars burn gas, not electricity, so while nuclear power has some merits (e.g. lower carbon emissions and local provision), the best way to break our dependence on foreign oil is to have government quit encouraging automobile transportation.

While there is no question that we need to find alternatives for fossil fuels, I am far from convinced that nuclear is the answer.

To this day we still have never found a satisfactory solution to how to dispose of nuclear waste. Are any of you volunteering to store it in your back yard? Anyone truely convinced that man has developed the technology reliable enough to store nuclear waste even to it's half life?

If Hick, I mean Huck, is for it, you know its Utarded and regressive. Its his signature stance. Mayor? Hicksville, maybe....

I suppose I hadn't better use the "N" word because it is so frightening to the "N" phobes out there. Remember zero death or injuries from commercial or Navy "N" reactors in the past 50 years. As far as waste is concerned with fast breeder reactors and on-site reprocessing all but 3% of the fuel can be reprocessed and the remaining having a decay rate that would leave it no more radio active after 500 years than concentrated uranium ore. With countries like Iran and North Korea having "N" material, "N" proliferation is no longer a factor.
If we are to break the addiction to oil, it will require plug-in electric cars and that will require at least a hundred more plants(we already have about a hundred). Don't forget the rest of the world is going ahead in a big way with "N" power. France for example produces over 75% of its electrical needs from "N" power, and of course China, Japan, and others are moving forward with dozens of new plants. It seems in this case that environmentalists are on the side of the coal producers and oil companies.(renewables will never be able to supply the large amount of power necessary) If you are still afraid, perhaps you should talk to some of our Navy folks that sleep and work a hundred feet or so from a reactor. All of our aircraft carriers but one, and all of the submarines are "N" powered. The worst we have "to fear is fear its self"

I'd like to endorse the comments of Yosarian above; "Nuclear energy never became 'too cheap to meter' - the plants are very expensive to build and maintenance costs are high. As to safety incidents, Mr. Huck forgets to mention the recent releases of radioactive water in Japan. These plants are built by humans and operated by humans and are vulnerable to human error.

And just like most forms of energy production there is the problem of waste disposal. No one has come up with a foolproof means of disposal and no one wants the waste in their backyard."

No one that is except "Energy Solutions", a company that wants to profit by importing radioactive trash from around the nation to Utah. I suppose I am too cynical for the day, but I would look closely at the companies that are paying for Mr. Huck's campaign for mayor. Could it be that his op-ed is influenced by a desire to hop aboard the nuclear waste gravy train?

So nuclear reactors may be a temporary solution for dependence on foreign oil. But before our nation invests hundreds of billions in new nuke plants I'd like to see the nuclear industry come up with a feasible means of dealing with waste that can poison an entire environment for 10,000 years.

Strongly disagree.