Maybe he doesn't reach outside his district because even in "liberal" media he is only covered when he is being ridiculed. If he got the coverage Clinton did (with the same respect) he would be among the frontrunners. Alan Lloyd may be content to base his considerations on what Tim Grieve or Tim Russert tell him, but don't act as though the public's view on Kucinich is based on a fair evaluation of his views and policy priorities; that's Bush-level honesty.

The waste is generated all the time. So even if you could get Congress to pass Yucca Mountain legislation (which is not likely) then you would have to transfer waste from all over the nation by train to Yucca through towns and cities across the nation -- month, after month, after month, after month.

DUH.

Estimates suggest that to offset coal with nuclear in a significant way the US would have to build 300 new reactors -- triple what we have now. And at a cost of at least $5 billion each that would be $1.5 trillion. So we "don't have enough" nuclear either.

It's sad to see all these letter writers buy into the idea that nuclear is more "serious" than other forms without having any information. Please back up statements with numbers. Why is nuclear cheaper, cleaner, faster, safer, more abundant than wind energy? Please tell me.

If you believe that the media is following the people, when the previous post in this very blog reports that less than 10 percent of the public can name Kucinich, then I'd think twice about telling other people to get serious if I were you.

1) Taxpayers are liable for nuclear power plants -- no private insurance will cover nukes.

2) As for a more recent example of a problem, how about the reactor in Japan that cracked open a month ago from an earthquake.

Nuclear reprocessing is fraught with problems too. Here's a good resource on Bush's plan for reprocessing:

http://www.foe.org/pdf/gnep_and_radioactive_waste.pdf

As for costs, the link below will show you that wind costs about half as much as nuclear.

http://www.net.org/proactive/newsroom/release.vtml?id=18534

You are right about solar, which is why I didn't mention it.

Yes, I'm sure two prominent environmental organizations are putting out wildly inaccurate information. The fact that your utility company can make money off people who want to feel good about buying wind power is certainly proof of that.

Even if the cost of nuclear isn't double, it can't be less. Remember, getting power of out existing plants is cheaper than the cost of power from plants not yet built (again, $5 billion per reactor -- and that's probably on the low side).

As for the waste, come on. When other sources are already cheaper and faster to build, how are we still debating the acceptability of generating tons of material that will be lethal for eons? Rome lasted less than 1,000 years, and the US looks to be lucky to last half as long. Nuclear power is a dumb idea. It is not serious. This is not Star Trek. This is a real world, with humans that fuck up.

Read the posts buddy. If you have a specific complaint about WIND then put it down. The technology is here, it's cheap, and it's going up around the world.

I AM amazed by all the Salon readers who look at multiple reasons for choosing wind over nuclear and yet still act like wind advocates are some kind of dreamy hippies. Why not bash feminists and gay friendly people too old man?

People who are defending nuclear, explain why it makes more sense than wind. The following are not acceptable answers:

- It's just not there yet (it is, tell me why I'm wrong)

- It's not as sexy as nuclear power from a technological standpoint (why is simple bad?)

- Only stoners/flakes support safe energy, serious adults pollute

I agree that it is more difficult to supply a base load with wind, but it is much better than solar in this respect and can still meet the large percentage of our needs.

And I'll repeat, the number one answer is conservation.

Does anyone read the posts? Nuclear plants take close to 10 years to build and wind can go up in a year. You have it backwards, ejackson, nuclear is too slow.

Who are we?

We invaded Afghanistan because their government asked for evidence that bin Laden was behind 9/11 and we said f-you. We invaded Iraq because their leader told the truth about not having WMDs. So by our own nation's morals, if a nation had the ability to invade us they would have the right. We invaded others based on their leader, not their people, and unlike Afghanistan and Iraq, we voted for our leader -- who has made worse "mistakes" outside of our borders than the leaders of these other nations. We have spent more than most nation's GDP to ruin international relations and bring about the killing of a million Iraqis.

It's tough to apply our own standards to ourselves, especially with Bush as President, but doing so might help Americans understand how and why others view us the way they do.

I'll add that this isn't a "hate America" post. This isn't hate anymore than you hate your uncle for being a violent drunk. We need help. Not invasion from someone else, but peaceful intervention from the American people.

"Heal thyself first."

No one earning $1 billion/yr. could possibly be working 40,000 times harder, or contributing with their labor 40,000 times more service to our nation's well being than someone working a low-paid government job, or service sector job.

In other words, they don't "earn" it, they simply get it.

www.FOE.org