Thanks for sharing your platform with us.
Doesn't your pro-nuclear energy policy contradict your overall position as an advocate against BIG GOVERNMENT?
NOBODY wants a nuclear waste facility in their vicinity, yet we have a system in the U.S. of stockpiling radioactive waste at nuclear power plants all over the country. This incredibly dangerous government policy can not be made safe against unpredictable natural disaster.
Most nuclear reactors are built next to the sea for cooling. The Fukushima Nuclear Disaster vividly illustrates what can go wrong when a reactor is hit with a tsunami or earthquake. Surrounding areas are rendered unsafe for humans for thousands of years. The cost to clean up Fukushima is $187 billion and growing.
You've said, "the market should decide energy policy and that means cutting corporate welfare subsidies to all forms of energy." You mentioned BIG OIL. Does your policy also apply to nuclear? Will you be seeking to eliminate the government-subsidized insurance nuclear power plants receive?
No insurance company will insure a U.S. nuclear power plant because it's too risky. BIG GOVERNMENT has made taxpayers the unwilling insurers of the nuclear industry. If this hidden insurance cost was priced into nuclear power, the cost rise would put the nuclear power industry out of business overnight.
As an advocate against BIG GOVERNMENT, how do you justify your support of BIG GOVERNMENT forcing hazardous radioactive nuclear waste storage upon unwilling local residents while propping up the nuclear power industry with free insurance that can cost taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars?
One more thing, Fortune reports that In the UK, Wind is Already Cheaper than Nuclear.
That's why I am a big proponent of Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor (LFTR) technology: safer, cleaner & cheaper than the traditional Light Water Uranium Reactors we commonly think of when we think nuclear. You wouldn't need government subsidies. You just need government to get out of the way to let private research and investment do it.
Learn more here: http://energyfromthorium.com
Thank you for joining us here on Steemit. As an irish national i cant vote in your elections but have a big interest in US politics as unfortunately it effects all of us. I like your honest answers to the above. But i wonder what is your stance on Citizens united and on the major problem, (as i see it) of cooperate money in politics?
Thanks for the follow-up. Will you directly answer these two nuclear power policy questions?
Do you oppose the U.S. government continuing to provide free insurance to the nuclear power industry?
Taking into consideration that all U.S. nuclear power plants are also long-term storage nuclear waste dumps, do you oppose constructing nuclear reactors in communities that object to hosting a nuclear waste dump?
LFTR nuclear power, the power plant technology you favor, doesn't actually exist yet. To take LFTR from prototype to commercial reactor will cost billions of dollars in R&D, see Business Insider, http://www.businessinsider.com/thorium-molten-salt-reactors-sorensen-lftr-2017-2.
In the wake of the nuclear power financial disasters of the Westinghouse bankruptcy and the Fukusima meltdown, private investors have no appetite for nuclear power. Development of LFTR technology is subsidized by the U.S. government under a plan that will build power plants in a communist country (China) where anti-nuclear protesters can't stop construction. See Fortune http://fortune.com/2015/02/02/doe-china-molten-salt-nuclear-reactor/.
Is this the way forward you support?
By the way, the site you referred us to, http://energyfromthorium.com, belongs to Kirk Sorensen, the president of Flibe Energy in Alabama. LFTR development depends upon this one U.S. company (of unknown assets according to Crunchbase) and the U.S. DOE. When, if ever, this technology will be ready is unknowable. May not be prudent to pin national policy on the hope it succeeds.