01-19-2004, 09:53 AM
I don't see these two efforts being mutually exclusive. Raising public awareness on the issue of conservation is a good thing, but no amount of conservation is enough to shut down the traditional power plants. Nuclear power should be part of the solution.
The absurdity is that the groups who most strongly lobby for the U.S. to do better at complying with emissions standards and cut down on fossile fuel comsumption come from the same political frame of mind as those who destroyed the future of nuclear power in the U.S. decades ago. They want to choose 'none of the above' to a question that needs a real answer.
The thing about conservation promotion is that it's easy to convince people that conservation is a good thing, but it's very hard to convince people and businesses to make any specific sacrifices in order to conserve energy. With nuclear energy, just convincing the public that it's a good idea would go a long ways.
The absurdity is that the groups who most strongly lobby for the U.S. to do better at complying with emissions standards and cut down on fossile fuel comsumption come from the same political frame of mind as those who destroyed the future of nuclear power in the U.S. decades ago. They want to choose 'none of the above' to a question that needs a real answer.
The thing about conservation promotion is that it's easy to convince people that conservation is a good thing, but it's very hard to convince people and businesses to make any specific sacrifices in order to conserve energy. With nuclear energy, just convincing the public that it's a good idea would go a long ways.