I'm going to want a lot of feedback on this diary. Please recommend so that we can get some intellectual discussion on this matter. I read in an editorial in today's Birmingham News that Jeff Sessions and Pete Domenici want to earmark federal funds to license first two nuclear recycling plants. The author of this article contends that we are discussing recycling spent fuel and this has nothing to do with nuclear waste. I think that the jury is still out on how Democrats should handle the new nuclear discussion.
click here to read full editorial
This discussion comes on the heels of Jeff Sessions taking a week long energy tour around the state of Alabama. Now I certainly cannot hide my disdain for Jeff Sessions, nor my support for his presumed opposition this fall State. Sen. Vivian Davis Figures. One of my diaries on this race
However, I want to get into a serious and honest discussion of this nuclear recycling discussion. I do not want to attack Sessions on this idea before I get some more facts and Figures and support(no pun intended). We have not used nuclear power recycling for about 30 years because of proliferation and safety issues. So what besides too much of an dependence on oil has us in this position where we must move in this direction.
I do have a few problems with moving quickly on this. The article by William Reed, who I have no idea who he is oterh than past president of Southern Compamy SErvices and current chairman of Systems Control INc, says that we need to research but that we don't need to drag our feet
Research is needed to resolve lingering questions about spent fule reccling, particularly whether the separaton of plutonium could contribute to the proliferation of nuclear weapons.... In order to avoid the possibility of an indefinite delay in the resumption of U.S. Recycling, Sessions' bill would allow the licensing process to begin before research on new recycling technology is completed."
I understand that the Yucca Mountain repository has been a disaster and cannot hold much more waste. That makes sense to me. But are we definitely going in the direction of nuclear power and recycling that is my question.
I also have issue with the belief by Mr. Reed that more nuclear power is needed because the more environementally safe alternatives
"solar and wind energy -are too intermittent, not available on days when the sun isn't shining or the wind isn't blowing"
Granted Alabama is not going to be one of the top twenty producers of wind-energy. This does benefit Alabama as the nuclear recycling plant would bring thousands of jobs to this state. However, Jeff Sessions was one of only 8 Senators to vote against adding the Clean Energy Act to the housing bill, which provided a one year extention of the Protection Tax Credit. click here to see how others voted
Now it is my understanding that most states have wind resources that can be developed. And it is also my understanding that by 2030 wind provide 20% of our energy demand. article on wind association website
Certainly wind and solar power are much more environmentally friendly and do not cost as much to implement recycling. I don't want to accept the fact from a Senator who is consistently one of the worst on environmental issues that recycling is our only option without learning more. Sessions ranking by League of Conservation Voters
My first inclination is that this is another policy that is not really as environmentally friendly as is being offered. I have several issues with nuclear power in general. I also ask that we continue to study how we can alleviate a lot of the energy crisis with a more thorough and responisble mass transit plan. I know my candidate Vivian Figures is certainly looking at mass transit plans.
Click here to donate to Vivian Figures