The only down side I see to her is she constantly makes the remark, that is what she want, shes going to fix it, then throws in as an after thought that this is what Dennis wants too...sounds like shes running for president which would be good but shes speaking for her husband...
Billions of tax dollars go to subsidize the nuclear industy. Nuclear Power is not cost effective.
We are talking untold thousands of tons of highly radioactive materials that if leaked into he environment will be killing people a millions years from now. Nuclear waste is in all practicality "forever".
Splitting atoms to boil water is not wise.
Go solar, geo, hydro, wind, bio, invest the billions in renewable energy .
I think something must be said about wind and solar power as well. Coal mining not only pollutes in the short term, but is not efficient and coal is a limited resource. Nuclear power provides much more power than coal but also carries the heavy side effect of nuclear waste, which unlike one person stated DOES stay around for a long time. Solar power is a hefty starting investment but after that, it provides steady reliable power. And wind is also a very good way!
Nuclear power will work, and in fact is about the only thing that supply enough energy with the minimal amount of pollution. What is the point of going back and talking about the distant past. Environment is a concern, I agree. It must be run by the government maybe at first, but it works.
Nuclear power is one of the better solutions out there to completely replace coal power plants. It's a step towards a more high tech society. Imagine the opportunities that could lie in a nuclear powerplant town instead of a coal mining and/or generation one.
Coal gassification has developed to the point that it is cost competitive and has almost 0 emissions. Check out what the DoE has to say about it. The U.S. (and Canada, I suppose) has 400 years of coal-power potential. It's the ideal bridge fuel (with new gassification technology to keep it clean) while solar and wind tech catch up to demand.
Remember that if something is highly radioactive it decomposes quickly, and if something is not, it will last longer. Claiming that nuclear waste is going to be around forever and be damaging due to radiation is a bit false. Also, reprocessing of nuclear waste is something in research that will hopefully reduce the waste. The companies mining the uranium are getting away with social and environmental crimes, stricter laws should be inforced on them.
Much of the nuclear waste is being recycled as DU tipped weapons! The "rapid" break down of radioactivity is measured in thousands of years. Forget that! Strip mine coal and restore the landscape afterward. The technology alread exists for both. And coal gassification technology enables us to burn coal with next to 0 emissions. And how about creating carbon sinks to slowly get rid of carbon dioxide that has been captured and sequestered.
I agree with you comments, and I'll have to check out what you said about the 0 emissions. But from what I understand the amount of emissions (start to finish) for nuclear is much lower than coal due to the high energy density of uranium. Uranium mining & processing is co2 intensive too but I believe it ends up being less.
The way we get rid of the nuclear waste is very efficient and the nuclear environmental footprint is almost nothing next to what are coal plants are putting not only in our air but in our oceans and rivers. We do store these 2nd generation "blocks" you could say underground in mountains but being that they are sealed in concrete which kills the radiation from escaping it's tomb as they use to salt to form the block into a cocoon . - Look it up! It's the future.
The French get 80% of their energy from nuclear power... where in the F#$! to they put their 'spent' fuel?? Is their truth that this stuff can be recycled? (links?)
Please people buy your Kucinich bumber stickers on your cars NOW...you can do a search for magnetic bumper stickers try "Carry a big stick". We've got to get his name out there on our cars and do it early...now..please help.
The only down side I see to her is she constantly makes the remark, that is what she want, shes going to fix it, then throws in as an after thought that this is what Dennis wants too...sounds like shes running for president which would be good but shes speaking for her husband...
manque15 4 years ago
Elizabeth hit the nail on the head. The unsolved problem — even after decades of trying — is NUCLEAR WASTE.
belmont162 4 years ago 3
Billions of tax dollars go to subsidize the nuclear industy. Nuclear Power is not cost effective.
We are talking untold thousands of tons of highly radioactive materials that if leaked into he environment will be killing people a millions years from now. Nuclear waste is in all practicality "forever".
Splitting atoms to boil water is not wise.
Go solar, geo, hydro, wind, bio, invest the billions in renewable energy .
No One but Kucinich in '08.
nowellian 4 years ago 4
No One But Kucinich In '08 <3
AMEN! <3
MusesMetaphorium 1 year ago
I think something must be said about wind and solar power as well. Coal mining not only pollutes in the short term, but is not efficient and coal is a limited resource. Nuclear power provides much more power than coal but also carries the heavy side effect of nuclear waste, which unlike one person stated DOES stay around for a long time. Solar power is a hefty starting investment but after that, it provides steady reliable power. And wind is also a very good way!
Termite551 4 years ago 3
Nuclear power will work, and in fact is about the only thing that supply enough energy with the minimal amount of pollution. What is the point of going back and talking about the distant past. Environment is a concern, I agree. It must be run by the government maybe at first, but it works.
themountainviewguy 4 years ago
Nuclear power is one of the better solutions out there to completely replace coal power plants. It's a step towards a more high tech society. Imagine the opportunities that could lie in a nuclear powerplant town instead of a coal mining and/or generation one.
Shadyhunter04 4 years ago
Shadyhunter:
Coal gassification has developed to the point that it is cost competitive and has almost 0 emissions. Check out what the DoE has to say about it. The U.S. (and Canada, I suppose) has 400 years of coal-power potential. It's the ideal bridge fuel (with new gassification technology to keep it clean) while solar and wind tech catch up to demand.
kathleenkain 4 years ago
Even though I'm being kind of critical of this vid, I'm definetly a kucinich supporter, sadly I'm Canadian, lol.
jojothekingofall 4 years ago
holy shit I am too!
ranma187 4 years ago
Remember that if something is highly radioactive it decomposes quickly, and if something is not, it will last longer. Claiming that nuclear waste is going to be around forever and be damaging due to radiation is a bit false. Also, reprocessing of nuclear waste is something in research that will hopefully reduce the waste. The companies mining the uranium are getting away with social and environmental crimes, stricter laws should be inforced on them.
jojothekingofall 4 years ago
Much of the nuclear waste is being recycled as DU tipped weapons! The "rapid" break down of radioactivity is measured in thousands of years. Forget that! Strip mine coal and restore the landscape afterward. The technology alread exists for both. And coal gassification technology enables us to burn coal with next to 0 emissions. And how about creating carbon sinks to slowly get rid of carbon dioxide that has been captured and sequestered.
kathleenkain 4 years ago
I agree with you comments, and I'll have to check out what you said about the 0 emissions. But from what I understand the amount of emissions (start to finish) for nuclear is much lower than coal due to the high energy density of uranium. Uranium mining & processing is co2 intensive too but I believe it ends up being less.
jojothekingofall 4 years ago
The way we get rid of the nuclear waste is very efficient and the nuclear environmental footprint is almost nothing next to what are coal plants are putting not only in our air but in our oceans and rivers. We do store these 2nd generation "blocks" you could say underground in mountains but being that they are sealed in concrete which kills the radiation from escaping it's tomb as they use to salt to form the block into a cocoon . - Look it up! It's the future.
fxm8kr 4 years ago
The French get 80% of their energy from nuclear power... where in the F#$! to they put their 'spent' fuel?? Is their truth that this stuff can be recycled? (links?)
Dennis in 08!!!!!!!
bhaub 4 years ago
Dennis and Elizabeth are beautiful souls. Kucinich 08!
DonJohnMWBD 4 years ago 3
It really is scary times and just seems to be getting worse.
To me Dennis is our best hope for a better future!
nowellian 4 years ago 2
Please people buy your Kucinich bumber stickers on your cars NOW...you can do a search for magnetic bumper stickers try "Carry a big stick". We've got to get his name out there on our cars and do it early...now..please help.
joyville2 4 years ago 5
Economic footprint, good way to illustrate the impact of mining uranium.
jkzupin 4 years ago 5