My point is that there is no silver bullet to energy needs. A full spectrum of options will be needed to solve our electricity needs. I saw the article you spoke of but is it realistic? No. There are a host of reasons that it will probably not work and why every energy projection for the next 30 years still only includes 3-5% renewable energy technology.

Additionally, solar and wind are not immune to ecological footprints. All energy production will have some form of negative effect on the environment. I'm not trying to advocate that nuclear power should be the end-all solution. I'm just trying to say that there are options and nuclear should be one of them.

It's sad though that people jump on the "radioactive waste" bandwagon to protest nuclear power instead of trying to understand it better. It's much more manageable than people think and interestingly enough, is 100% contained whereas other forms of energy production are not.

We need to be open to all options and stop living in this dream world that we can come up with some super solution to our energy needs.

According to these statistics, it's about 5% by 2030. Other independent groups put the projections at the same amount. The significant portion of our power consumption will come from coal and natural gas. I have not seen the 20% you are referring to.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/forecasting.html

Again, I'm not trying to say that wind and solar should not be explored, but I think you are overly optimistic (and are people who write about these forms of production) in the estimates or what can be done for energy production by 2030. We will need more options to discuss and I believe if it becomes more economically viable than it is now, it could be part of the solution.

As far as controlling nuclear waste, there are options other than what we are currently doing. Reprocessing is one but having a repository to store waste from a once through nuclear cycle is possible. There are also many details that are glossed over when talking about waste. One, as you used, is that the "ten-thousand year hazard" or as others use is "million's of years" is not completely accurate. In fact, the radioactivity from something that has a half-life of 10,000 years is not as dangerous to you as ones with half-lifes of 40 years. Radioactive waste from a reactor contains several different elements with several different half-lifes. Actually, about 95% of reactor waste is uranium 238, which is usually referred to as "depleted uranium", which has a variety of uses. Separation of materials through reprocessing is an option that I wish our government would support, but proliferation issues aside, it is not economical to do it at this time.

The issue is not clear cut as some want to make it and as I have shown somewhat, the information is not easy to understand for the majority of the population. I believe the potential exists for nuclear to be a sustainable, relatively clean energy source for our future needs.

In any case, there still exist a fundamental problem in how people view the waste and the inability to compare it to coal, which produces over 50% of our power yet is the largest greenhouse gas producer. A simple analysis of China shows that coal is a major source of power generation there. Additionally, the amount of toxins that come out of a coal plant are just as hazardous to human health as reactor waste. Actually, I would argue more since they are released into the air and reactor waste is controlled. Coal power is really the issue people should be protesting, not nuclear. Ideas like carbon sequestration, while not a solution, are moves in the right direction while we invest in more reliable long-term forms of energy production.

All in all though, we probably should be debating how to reduce and eventually marginalize transportation energy production, which for all purposes is entirely run on oil. In addition to contributing to the green house effect, oil also has serious flaws in terms of economic security.

So yes, I am a proponent of nuclear power in some respects but I feel that it is not the primary area where the global warming debate should center. Reducing our Coal and Oil use are far more important. I am open to how we do that, but I think nuclear power should be part of the debate.

I think too many of us have lumped "fervent support" with "radical" lately. If people really believe in someone, it's hard for them to not fight for them every chance they get. Sure the Judas thing might have been a bit much but I think we need to remember that all supporters, on both sides, are human beings. Emotions have been and will run high but they are intelligent and know what they are doing.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/5/13/122819/705

I think it is telling about the demographics that she is getting and where they are.

Why she is ahead so much in WV and KY makes perfect sense.

I'll be watching the popular vote, that's really the only metric Clinton has to make her case to supers.

Quit calling voters morons. The power of their vote weighs just as much as yours. Instead of putting people in places like WV down, you need to be reaching out to them to try and understand why they vote the way they do. If you need justification for this, look at how we treat/treated supporters of President Bush.