Comments on: John McCain makes a simple case for nuclear energy http://liberalconspiracy.org/2008/10/27/john-mccain-makes-a-simple-case-for-nuclear-energy/ Left-wing news, opinion and activism Sun, 12 Feb 2012 16:37:12 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3 By: Rochenko http://liberalconspiracy.org/2008/10/27/john-mccain-makes-a-simple-case-for-nuclear-energy/#comment-23104 Rochenko Wed, 29 Oct 2008 14:39:02 +0000 http://www.liberalconspiracy.org/?p=1501#comment-23104 In what sense? If none of the next generation of nuclear plants are going to be up and running before 2023-ish (with a complete replacement of current capacity not being possible before the second half of the 2020s), how is building them going to help the shortfall which will exist "within 15 years"? In what sense? If none of the next generation of nuclear plants are going to be up and running before 2023-ish (with a complete replacement of current capacity not being possible before the second half of the 2020s), how is building them going to help the shortfall which will exist “within 15 years”?

]]> By: ukliberty http://liberalconspiracy.org/2008/10/27/john-mccain-makes-a-simple-case-for-nuclear-energy/#comment-23054 ukliberty Tue, 28 Oct 2008 16:17:41 +0000 http://www.liberalconspiracy.org/?p=1501#comment-23054 <blockquote>I’m unsure about nuclear power. If it really was the super-safe panacea to all our energy needs, why does the nuclear industry spend so much trying to mislead us?</blockquote> It seems to me that the nuclear industry and the anti-nuclear industry are more concerned about what furthers their respective agendas than our energy needs. The problem is that if nothing is done we will lose 30% of today's electricity generating capacity within 15 years. The difference between the two sides is that the nuclear industry has an answer.

I’m unsure about nuclear power. If it really was the super-safe panacea to all our energy needs, why does the nuclear industry spend so much trying to mislead us?

It seems to me that the nuclear industry and the anti-nuclear industry are more concerned about what furthers their respective agendas than our energy needs.

The problem is that if nothing is done we will lose 30% of today’s electricity generating capacity within 15 years. The difference between the two sides is that the nuclear industry has an answer.

]]> By: Aaron Heath http://liberalconspiracy.org/2008/10/27/john-mccain-makes-a-simple-case-for-nuclear-energy/#comment-23030 Aaron Heath Mon, 27 Oct 2008 22:37:31 +0000 http://www.liberalconspiracy.org/?p=1501#comment-23030 Indeed. I suppose, over the past few months, we have gotten used to McCain constructing his policy in step with his goals. In one breath he's the most stringent supporter of W (when courting the GOP nomination), and in the next (when trying to capture the hearts of America <em>en masse</em>) he's emphasising his differences with Bush 43. --- On the wider issue, I'm unsure about nuclear power. If it really was the super-safe panacea to all our energy needs, why does the nuclear industry spend so much trying to mislead us? Indeed.

I suppose, over the past few months, we have gotten used to McCain constructing his policy in step with his goals.

In one breath he’s the most stringent supporter of W (when courting the GOP nomination), and in the next (when trying to capture the hearts of America en masse) he’s emphasising his differences with Bush 43.

—

On the wider issue, I’m unsure about nuclear power. If it really was the super-safe panacea to all our energy needs, why does the nuclear industry spend so much trying to mislead us?

]]>