I came across this article and found it pretty interesting. I would like to know some of your thoughts about using nuclear energy. I know it's not specifically about family policies but I argue the point that a nations stance on energy sources influences families directly through cost, such as: utilities, gasoline, propane. From an environmental viewpoint, those costs can also be associated with decreasing air and water quality through pollution.
I am personally a huge fan of nuclear energy. It is also the most cost effective clean energy source available with todays technology, even more so than wind farms which require extensive maintenance to even keep them operational. The argument against this is that nuclear plants are expensive to build, which they are very expensive to build, and that they are not clean because of nuclear waste. However, opposition to these arguments include the long life of power plants (i.e. they are expensive but they last a very long time) and by expanding development of Fast Neutron Reactors (FNR power plants) nuclear waste can be dramatically reduced and potentially decrease current nuclear waste stock piles. This is possible because FNRs use the nuclear waste from other nuclear power plants as fuel turning it into almost pure plutonium (commonly referred to as military or weapons grade plutonium). The plutonium waste from FNRs can then be recycled (numerous times), this form of reactor is also much more efficient that traditional reactors. The down side is these reactors are even more expensive to build than traditional reactors (although they are also more resistant to over heating, i.e. safer) and people don't like the idea that the byproduct is military grade plutonium, event though it is recyclable and can be disposed of safely once it has been recycled numerous times. (See http://www.world-nuclear.org for more info)
If through nuclear reactors electricity can be made inexpensive enough it would solve most if not all of the United States dependence on oil, this is a contradiction from the article. He states that oil will still be required for cars and such but he is not entirely correct. By making electricity less expense the expansion of hydrogen vehicles instantly becomes a viable option. Although companies like GM have pushed for hydrogen vehicles for decades (Honda, Toyota and others also make hydrogen vehicles), the push for these vehicles has been slowed by the costs of hydrogen production. While hydrogen is the most abundant element, making up almost 2/3 of all matter. The difficult comes from extracting hydrogen, while easily extracted form water it requires large amounts of electricity. Thus, high energy costs and energy being produced from environmentally damaging methods does nothing to encourage hydrogen vehicle production even though their only byproduct is water vapor.
