Leftists/liberals/environmentalists may not support nuclear power because of plutonium. The substance is a menace. It takes 10,000+ years to de-radiate, and terrorists can utilize the waste material to manufacture dirty bombs. Storage of nuclear byproducts is a major issue.The battle lines only make sense if there is a significant business incentive in nuclear power development. I would say there is. Nuclear plants are built by the government, but, private firms are employed to complete the task.There is an interesting alternative to CO2 disposal. Carbon sequestration involves founding underground reservoirs and filling them with some form of the gas. It seems like buring your head in the proverbial sand, but it might offer a short-term solution.I think we (the globe) are in the market for a long term solution to the engergy issue, not half-baked schemes that seek to bury the problem.
Of course there are, in fact, reasonable explanations for why the battle lines have been drawn the way they have - certainly, little things like Chernobyl might plsy a role. Just maybe. I just find it interesting that, from one perspective, you have liberals arguing against clean energy and conservatives arguing for government intrusion into what might otherwise be a free market.
Post a Comment