Ron Paul on Nuclear Power?
Posted February 5th, 2008 by Sacramento_Jeff
output
What is his position? I have tried to find some things but nothing convincing.
Bookmark/Search this post with:
No, I think he eats high energy granola bars.
And chocolate chip cookies.
Nuclear is barbaric...
God is still in control...
Nuclear is old news--fusion is the future but for now--plasma generators @ 30,000 degrees, hot-air turbines like in austrailia, hydrogen, solar, wind, and tidal are the way to go although, fusion really is going to take over being 1,000,000,000 more efficient than nuclear!!!!!
I dunno man.
Last time I checked fusion was something like negative 40% efficient (Not the process itself obviously but the current amount of energy harnessed).
Hydrogen is just a fancy battery, solar isn't cost effective in most places, and I worry about the ecological effect of tidal power on a large scale(Though it's possible my concerns are unfounded.). Off shore wind power looks pretty promising though I haven't looked into it too much.
A Ron Paul Administration...
would work to ensure that no preferences or favorable legislation is given to industries so that the marketplace can compete fairly for the technology that leads us into the future.
Competition is a beautiful thing when Government stays out of it.
----------------------
If you vote, you deserve the government YOU voted for.
If you vote uninformed, you deserve the government you GET.
If you don't vote, you have no opinion that matters.
Ron Paul for President 2008
nuclear best hope?
As much as I hate to admit it, nuclear power is likely to be our best hope for the future and i suspect Dr. Paul knows and understands that too. For example if we wanted to convert most of our country to wind and solar power i found research that indicates that there is not enough affordable oil left in the ground for energy to produce the necessary solar panels and wind farms. Its literally too late and just not possible. There is plenty of oil and energy available for individuals to convert their homes to solar and wind but not everyone would be able to. Many scientists therefore agree that nuclear is the only way to go although we have to figure out what to do with the radioactive leftovers beside dumping it our our so called enemies. Ultimately i agree that states should handle the regulation issues individually rather than the federal government and i believe Dr. Paul also thinks along those lines from the comments he has made.
After musing this over
I agree with state oversight.
A lot of people are fearful of nuclear power. There are allot of myths. A little education should cure that.
It should definitely be debated more.
I am a nuclear junkie
But I think their needs to be government over site to protect peoples property and health. I do not know if this is a complete free market issue. It would need to be fairly regulated.
I am coming from a background in oil transportation and chemistry.
I do not pretend to comprehend completely how free markets could get this to work safely.
I would live by a reactor too. Nuclear power is the safest most efficient energy we have. We would have unlimited energy supply that is extremely clean and environmentally friendly.
For government oversight...
...to be Constitutional, it would be done at a state level. I'm sure Dr. Paul would agree with that.
Actually.
I think I'd feel much safer if my state were in control of regulating nuclear power than if the federal government was. Looking at the federal governments track record, if you gave them that responsibility we'd probably end up with various three eyed animal sub-species in no time.
What about federal regulations
We regulate a lot of things on the federal level. For example Merchant Ships.
In a truly free market
Individuals are allowed to make decisions that affect their own lives, in any way and not affect anyones else's in a negative way. ie., if you decide to build a Nuclear reactor, you'd damn well insure it's safety.
Get government out of the way
His position is that the market should decide energy issues and the government should get out of the way. Abolish the Department of Energy.
I have also heard him say that he thinks nuclear power is probably a good thing and that the government has prevented its development, but it is for consumers and the market to ultimately decide.
He said recently
He would remove legislation preventing new plants from being built, but he would also remove the subsidies that encourage this energy source or that energy source.
Let the market work.
Um..
Unofficially.. I've seen him on a clip once saying that we should explore it more.. that it was a good source of energy. I think he actually lives by a reactor...lol.