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.