With the ongoing "energy crisis" (the media's words not mine) in this country, both houses of Congress have been in debate as to what is the best solution to the problems of rising energy costs, dependence on foreign oil, the global warming theory, and sustainability.

Many supposed solutions raised by Congressmen and Senators seem to be mostly gimmicks. For example, McCain's proposed gas tax holiday. While this seems to be a dead issue at this time, it generated a lot of buzz a few months back. Currently the big buzz generator is offshore drilling. This is another proposed solution that presents no feasible, long-term changes in energy policy.

Yesterday, July 24th, the junior senator from Georgia, Johnny Isakson (R), made a statement (video, text) on the floor about an amendment he has proposed to an energy bill which would allow for the resurgence of nuclear power in the United States. I believe this to be a good solution to potential energy problems foreseen in the future.

Many other nations have created a level of energy independence through investment in nuclear power. Given the leaps and bounds that the technology has made since the 1970s, further investment in such technology could only result in greater efficiency and even less risk of meltdown.

Is nuclear power a good route for the nation take toward energy independence? I don't think it is feasible to rely on coal-burning power plants for another few decades. Likewise, it doesn't seem feasible to take the Gore route and build hundreds of wind farms in the next several years. If nuclear isn't the best option, then what is?

Compulsory public service on stationary bikes ftw.

I was watching a JP Morgan analyst yesterday talking about this. There is a lot of rhetoric against nuclear power, but at the end of the day, everyone in washington knows that it is really our only viable option for energy independence.

I have no reply to this silliness.

The people that rail against it tend to cite examples of the dangers which are preposterously out of date. E.g.: Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. I think the technology behind nuclear power is at its most viable here and now.

Working good in France.

In my area, water wells near the closest plant are testing positive for radiation.

How high, because there's a big difference between testing positive for radiation and harmful amounts of radiation.

Also, if this is the worst accident in nuclear power in France you can come up with, I'd say that 1/40th of the annual limit isn't so bad. That is probably less than an X-ray.

Not trying to be jerk, but we did just have this discussion in another thread.

I'm not going to argue with you about this since I don't care much one way or the other. I was simply pointing out that nuclear isn't as clean or as safe as the thousands of TV commercials would have you believe.

When I lived in Vegas I was one of the few residents that was actually for Yucca Mountain assuming the state was smart enough to make bank off becoming the nation's trash dump. Only problem is, nuclear waste was to be delivered via trucks rolling right through the center of the city on the way to Yucca Mtn. Anyone who has driven in Vegas knows what a butt-stupid idea that is.

On the plus side it'll be nice to not need a night-light when taking a piss in the middle of the night.