Now that the Dem's contest is down to two, it turns out Obama is cool to nuclear energy (but sees it as a necessary tool to practically reduce greenhouse emissions), while Hillary is blatantly against it.
So, I wrote her campaign the following. Feel free to write her something similar! While I doubt she'll actually change her mind (appealing to the strongly anti-nuclear Democrat cross-section) I feel they're clearly in the wrong on this one.
The letter follows:
I am a scientist who is working on solving our Nation's energy crisis, and hold an advanced degree in nuclear engineering. My aim in writing this message is to strongly urge Senator Clinton to reconsider her stated position regarding the (non-)use of nuclear power.
In order to practically reduce greenhouse gas emissions, we need a consistent supply of baseload power. Currently, nuclear power is our only meaningful candidate for this necessity. Certainly, renewables and conservation can and should be employed to their fullest.
However, it is a practical necessity at this point to enable a replacement of the current baseload power provided by fossil fuel (coal and oil) burning plants with a "greener" source: nuclear power.
Transitioning the US nuclear fuel cycle to one which involves reprocessing of current waste, which is more than 98% perfectly usable fuel, would dramatically reduce the amount of material required for long-term storage while ensuring a long-lived fuel supply for the US and the world.
Similarly, investment in longer-term energy options, such as nuclear fusion (via support of the domestic US fusion program and our international commitments to ITER) will contribute to solving the problem in the long term.
We simply cannot solve the problem through renewables alone -- especially if we do what needs to be done and supplant our existing fossil fueled baseload power with a CO2-friendly replacement.
Sincerely,
Michael Bongard
University of Wisconsin-Madison
No comments:
Post a Comment