When you look at the number of nuclear power plants in China and India, we can't afford not to pursue similar alternative energy sources. If we do not, it would do immense harm to the manufacturing industry in the Midwest.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
India, in particular, is looking to develop nuclear power for domestic, commercial use, and we should work with them. This is a good deal for both countries.
The trend in the world right now is - not just in developed countries, but in developing countries including China and India - there is a movement to build more and more nuclear plants.
If a power station were to be built down the road, I'd prefer a nuclear plant over an oil burner, and definitely over a coal burner. We simply have to lessen our consumption of fossil fuels.
Humanity has nearly suffocated the globe with carbon dioxide, yet nuclear power plants that produce no such emissions are so mired in objections and obstruction that, despite renewed interest on every continent, it is unlikely another will be built in the United States.
Nuclear power is here to stay, and we need to support a strong domestic uranium industry.
The nuclear approach I'm involved in is called a traveling-wave reactor, which uses waste uranium for fuel. There's a lot of things that have to go right for that dream to come true - many decades of building demo plants, proving the economics are right. But if it does, you could have cheaper energy with no CO2 emissions.
Let's stop big government energy mandates like cap-and-trade, and instead trust the American innovator to make us energy independent.
The idea that the growing demand for energy worldwide can be met with energy from nuclear power is nonsense.
I understand that in some industries, the input cost of energy is a major factor in whether an industry is going to locate in the United States or go elsewhere.
If our nation wants to reduce global warming, air pollution and energy instability, we should invest only in the best energy options. Nuclear energy isn't one of them.