"It's almost as if many of the Senate's pro-nuclear voices are more interested in securing pork for favored companies than finding a cost-effective way to steer the country away from fossil fuels."

Ya think?  I dunno, Brad, a legislator's personal political advantage doesn't ever take precedence over a policy proposal's relative rationality does it?

Brad it just boggles my mind when I hear people cheer for nuclear as if it's this low-cost hanging fruit panacea for our energy problems. I was just listening to a panel discussion on the Diane Rehm show and one of the panelists blovated about why we should build lots of nuclear and then said that investing in renewable energy production was too expensive! The complete logical disconnect and contrarian vew of the Right towards renewables really bugs me when they don't give a real, hard factual reason to invest in renewables the same way they've legitimized subsidizing the fossil fuel and nuclear industries. I guess this has more to do with lobbying and pork largesse as logic.

As much as I think nuclear should be part of the mix, letting the market meet the demand isn't the way to do it. Federally funded and run nuclear facilities would make nuclear energy more feasible but until enough plants are on-line, we should be going full throttle implementing renewables.

As for the cap and trade bill, I think it needs to be coupled with a carbon tax on other areas other than energy consumption. If the carbon tax is added onto high-carbon emission goods that would further facilitate a reduction in carbon emissions and by market response, producers would make less-energy intensive products. It's basically a tax on embodied energy. But the tax is implemented gradually and tie it to efficiency improvements so those who lag behind get penalized for not moving fast enough.

I have to agree with Brad on this one. I consider myself very pro-nuclear power, but I don't think it should be promoted to the exclusion of all other sources of power. Renewable sources of electricity are the real low-hanging fruit; exploit them widely, then use nuclear to make up the difference.

I am a third on this one, with benjamin81 and Bradford. Nuclear power will contribute added energy but it should not be subsidized. Let there be equality on the playing fields of power.

The regulations should be relaxed along with the removal of subsidies. Most of the exorbitant cost of nuclear plant construction comes from the expensive and asinine permit process.

Modern thorium reactors are so safe it would take a violation of the laws of physics to cause a meltdown and the waste has a half life of 30 years. We have come along way since the reactors of old. The government should model acceptable designs that could be mass produced instead of relying on an individual multi million dollar permitting proses.