Yikes

I'm all for reducing our dependence on fossil fuels, but this is not the way.

Nuclear power is not clean. It might not produce greenhouse gases, but the thermal pollution is considerable and we have no good long-term strategy for waste storage.

The current strategy seems to be to dump it on less populous, poorer states. So Massachusetts or Texas get to use the energy, and Nevada and Kansas get to store the toxic waste (although, to be fair, the waste from the Pilgrim plant in MA is currently being held on-site while they figure out a permanent site. Nevada is a proposed site, but until they get the details worked out, they are just storing the waste in a spent fuel pool. This "temporary" storage facility holds 30x as much nuclear waste as Chernobyl. So if you've been wondering why Boston keeps flirting with Cheyenne...).

We do need to come up with a plan to solve our energy needs (or dramatically reduce these needs) without dependence on foreign oil and without pumping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, but this is just scary. Once again, the soi-disant Left needs to grow a pair and speak out.

Nuclear power is an "alternative energy source" the way Pearl Jam is "alternative rock."