Here is an interesting publication (PDF FILE) by the Oxford Research Group which I highly suggest: Link
The publication argues that (1) nuclear energy is not an efficient way to curb environmental damage due to toxic waste/uranium mining practices/et cetera, and that (2) using nuclear power on a mass scale would further demean the attempt to control nuclear weapons.
I'm just curious what people think. From what I've read on it so far it seems the most logical way to go but a lot of people seem really skeptical about it. Most presidential candidates seem "open" to it but few seem to be really embracing it, while many are really open to using things like ethanol even though ethanol, especially ethanol from corn, isn't nearly as beneficial and could even cause worse problems for our country and world. The only arguments against nuclear power that are understandable regard how to safely get rid of waste and whether or not we'd be able to build enough nuclear energy plants fast enough to make it feasible in the near future to go completely nuclear. But from what I've read neither seem to be major issues and it seems to be the cheapest source of energy; it's renewable and best for the environment save for things like wind energy which aren't really reliable.
Please remember that Campus Progress' terms of use do not allow promoting or endorsing any particular political party or candidate for office. Posts or comments that do this will be deleted.
!
Link
The publication argues that (1) nuclear energy is not an efficient way to curb environmental damage due to toxic waste/uranium mining practices/et cetera, and that (2) using nuclear power on a mass scale would further demean the attempt to control nuclear weapons.