All Posts Tagged With: "nuclear power"
Not Much Faith In Alternative Energy Schemes To Reduce Oil Dependence
Energy Policy and Democrat Congress’ Inaction Pushing McCain Ahead of Obama
Voters believe electric or hybrid cars and nuclear power plants are more likely than solar or wind power to significantly reduce America’s dependence on foreign oil. Bio fuels such as ethanol are seen as even less likely to help. Just 37% believe electric or hybrid cars are Very Likely to have such a positive impact. Thirty-two percent (32%) say the same about nuclear power; 25% are that optimistic about solar power, and 22% say wind power can accomplish the goal.
While none of these alternative energy sources are seen as overwhelmingly likely to reduce dependence on foreign oil, roughly two-thirds or more say each is at least somewhat likely to reduce U.S. reliance on oil from afar. Just 17% believe that such fuels are Very likely to reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil. Another 36% say they are somewhat likely to do so.
Forty-seven percent (47%) of Republicans say that nuclear power is Very Likely to help. Just 18% of Democrats share that view. Republican presidential candidate John McCain has called for the building of more nuclear power plants.
Democrats are more confident than Republicans when it comes to electric cars, solar power and wind power, all alternative energy proposals endorsed by Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama. For unaffiliated voters, it’s a little of each, with electric cars and nuclear power seen as the most promising alternatives.
Sixty-one percent of voters say Congress should immediately get back to Washington DC and OK more offshore oil drilling. They also believe McCain’s priority is to find more energy sources while Obama’s is to reduce the amount of energy the United States consumes. That is one reason McCain has caught up to Obama nationally and leads in some polls.
Greenpeace Founder Quits, Calls “Pop Environmentists” Obstacle
Patrick Moore, Greenpeace co-founder, has become a harsh critique abruptly leaving it after leading the group from 18-years because of what he calls “pop-environmentalism.” Specifically he cites fellow directors who without any formal science training labeled nuclear energy “evil” while going on to chemicals and biology and genetics. He calls it “pop-environmentalism” that uses misinformation, fear and sensationalism to deal with people on the emotional level rather than intellectual level.
Moore favors nuclear power because of its low cost ($1.68 per kilowatt hour) and reliability. Moore says natural gas cost three times as much (and where most of the electrical cost increases have come from); wind cost five times as much and solar ten times as much. Moore calls solar power completely ridiculous.
Mooreexplains nuclear waste recycling reduced it by 90% makinh it disposal manageable. He wonders how many Americans know half of the U. S. nuclear energy comes from dismantled Russian nuclear war heads? He speaks of a nuclear renaissance to replace coals fired power plants, and debunking the misbegotten idea nuclear reactors produce weapons which they do not. Moore labels the environmental movement an “obstacle.”
Excerpted and edited from NEWSWEEK, April 21, 2008, page 42.