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.
RE: Introducing the First Steem-Powered US Senate Campaign