Nuclear better than carbon
The experts will kick around a number of “alternative” energy sources, such as hydro, wind and solar power. Of the three, the environmentalist won't allow any new dams from which to get power, they oppose tidal turbines, and they don't like wind turbines because they are unsightly and kill some birds. That leaves solar, which, at least in Western Washington, is a non-starter.
Why has no politician, from the president on down, had the intestinal fortitude to name the one totally carbon-neutral source of electricity: Nuclear power? France gets better than 75 percent of its power from nuclear power plants. And those plants, just like the nuclear power systems in U.S. submarines and aircraft carriers, have operated with perfect safety for many, many years.
It isn't good enough to replace coal as a fuel with “clean burning” natural gas, or oil. Any time a hydrocarbon burns, carbon dioxide is a byproduct. We must wean ourselves away from fossil fuels, such as oil and natural gas to make electricity. Those resources are far too valuable as motor fuels and industrial/chemical and pharmaceutical feed stocks.
Isn't it ironic that the nation that developed and first used nuclear power is now too afraid to use it for peaceful purposes?