If is a good question and will likely be talked to death. I remember three mile island and Chornobyl meltdowns. The three mile island situation was only a close call and the US building standards are much tuffer than those in the Ukraine. Never the less currently 20% of our electrical power comes from nuclear power plants.
Ok, lets be hypothetical for a moment and say that Sen. Obama gets elected. We are not going to see any of his alternative energy ideas come to fruition for possibly a decade. I am still not sure what other ideas he is talking about so it is impossible to even give a time line.
If McCain gets elected and his plan for nuclear power takes off then we could increase our power capability 20% nationwide. Needless to say their would be many jobs provided and this could happen quickly.
So let look at this objectively, maybe we should go ahead with both ideas. Short term power needs can be meet and we need to be committed to long term alternative power development. A blend of both options might be what is best for everyone. When the proposed nuclear power plants near the end of their life expectancy the alternative power options should be ready to go. We are now implementing the second stimulus package and I am not sure if this will even help as many of the loan program guidelines have became so difficult most people will not qualify for a home loan.
If we where to start building the proposed nuclear power plants this would create thousands of jobs both on the job sites and the in factories building parts for the nuclear power plants. This could get people back to work and help the nations power issues. This will allow time to develop practical means of alternative power sources. This could be a great thing to help get our people working again. Just like the interstate highway system of the past.
Why does this sound so simple?