Comments on: Is nuclear the answer for energy needs?

By: RC

RC — Tue, 23 Feb 2010 00:12:49 +0000

I think the best answer may actually be in fusion technology, but not in the traditional sense. Take the time to Google “Nuclear Fusion Reactor”. I think we ned to spend more resources researching this promising form of energy. The best thing is there is no harmful waste produced from such a reaction. Just my $.02

By: tim

tim — Mon, 22 Feb 2010 21:40:28 +0000

Nuclear energy is a short term answer to a long term problem. The main issue raised not only in the article but in reality is were to put the waste. Nobody wants it in their backyard, so why do it. Wind and Solar energy are becoming a more long term solution. While Ohio doesnt have the prevailing winds that places like the plains have, solar energy is something that can be used to lower energy costs.

My house has solar panels and we have never had any major issues. While the upfront cost can be expensive, the cost that we are saving over time is and will be significant.

We need to get away from the idea that Nuclear Energy is a viable option. Geothermal heating and cooling are great ideas for individual home owners, also using energy efficient windows, lighting will cut down on energy costs.

Nuclear energy will never be 100% safe, there are too many variables. I dont see the reward from the great risk we would be taking.

By: John C. Davidson

John C. Davidson — Mon, 22 Feb 2010 17:12:35 +0000

It certainly beats putting windmills all over the countryside and praying for moderate winds to prevail. God forbide if another hurricane arrived, they may take flight.

By: ALUMNI

ALUMNI — Mon, 22 Feb 2010 16:50:39 +0000

I think that if we can expose the Rockefeller—-Standard Oil—-Sierra Club—-anti nuclear connection, then we can move ahead with nuclear power—-economically.
Hey Mount Vernon News! Any commentary?