The advantages of nuclear energy TODAY'S EDITORIAL August 5, 2005 To enhance America's national security and energy security over the long term, it is imperative that the United States expand its use of nuclear power. To this end, it is encouraging that the nuclear power industry has enthusiastically welcomed the incentives contained in the energy bill that Congress has just approved. The need for more nuclear power plants is straightforward. Annual electricity demand in the United States is expected to increase by 50 percent by 2025, according to the Energy Information Administration. The forecast assumes that huge increases in the use of greenhouse-gas-emitting fossil fuels will be necessary to meet this demand. Electricity generated by coal-fired power plants, for example, is expected to increase by more than 45 percent, rising from less than 2,000 billion kilowatt-hours in 2003 to nearly 2,900 in 2025. Electricity generated by natural gas, another fossil fuel, is expected to soar by nearly 125 percent, rising from less than 650 billion kwh in 2003 to more than 1,400 in 2025. The United States has adequate supplies of coal. Over the long run, however, much of the natural gas needed to meet its projected electric-power role will have to be imported from overseas. In fact, in order to prepare for America's increased dependency upon foreign natural gas, a major provision in the energy bill gives the exclusive authority to approve import terminals for liquefied natural gas to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, rather than state governments. As it happens, Russia and the Middle East (particularly Iran and Qatar) control nearly 70 percent of the world's proven reserves of natural gas, whose electric-power-generating price has increased from $2 per thousand cubic feet in 1995 to nearly $7 this year. Meanwhile, Russian President Vladimir Putin has signaled his intention to cartelize the natural-gas market in the same way OPEC has established a cartel for oil. In an era when national security is inextricably linked to energy security, it would be counterproductive for the United States to become overly dependent on overseas natural gas, whose supply is controlled by nations that do not have America's best interests at heart. Worldwide uranium supplies, on the other hand, may not present comparable problems. Given the fact that no nuclear power plants have been ordered since 1973, the Energy Department's electricity forecast understandably assumes that "no new nuclear units are expected to become operable between [now] and 2025." However, it would be a travesty if the trends in America's electricity output followed the forecast's fossil-fuel path. The emission-free benefits of nuclear power, which generates no greenhouse gases and has markedly improved its safety record and efficiency, are too substantial to forego. On the efficiency front, the industry has raised its capacity-utilization rate from 70 percent in the early 1990s to 90 percent in recent years. That improvement alone has had the equivalent impact of adding 18 1,000-megawatt nuclear power plants. This dramatically improved efficiency has been responsible for nuclear power's ability to retain its 20-percent share of the nation's growing electricity output without building new plants. However, efficiency improvements are approaching their natural limits, and new nuclear power plants will be necessary in order for the nuclear industry to retain its vital share of output. Environmentalists should applaud the fact that emission-free, nuclear-generated electricity annually avoids the release of nearly 700 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent in the United States. In 2003, according to the EIA, "83 percent of total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions consisted of carbon dioxide from the combustion of fossil fuels, such as coal, petroleum and natural gas." Carbon-dioxide emissions from the U.S. electric power sector, which have increased 27.5 percent since 1990, today comprise nearly 40 percent of total U.S. energy-related carbon-dioxide emissions. Emission-free nuclear power each year also avoids releasing into America's air more than 1 million tons of nitrogen oxide (a pollutant that contributes to ozone and smog) and nearly 3.5 million tons of sulfur dioxide (a major pollutant that damages plants, reduces crop productivity and causes irritation of the eyes, nose and throat). Thus, any increase in the use of nuclear power would ipso facto reduce the emission of greenhouse gases, including pollutants, from levels they would otherwise reach. The nuclear-power industry believes that several important incentives included in the recent energy bill could increase nuclear's role in future electricity output. In an effort to jump-start the industry, one provision would offset the financial impact resulting from construction and other delays for which the industry is not responsible. This offset would be worth up to $500 million for each of the first two reactors and up to $250 million apiece for the next four. Ideally, this provision would precipitate a race to qualify for the incentives. Other incentives include production tax credits and loan guarantees for advanced-design nuclear plants, as well as $1.25 billion in funding for a prototype Next Generation Nuclear Plant project. Considering the national-security implications related to our dependence on imported oil today and imported natural gas in the future, these incentives are well worth their nominal cost. Other industrialized nations prudently use nuclear-power to generate much higher percentages of electricity: France, 78 percent; Sweden, 50 percent; South Korea, 40 percent; Germany, 28 percent; and Japan, 25 percent. The nuclear power industry should take advantage of the incentives so that the United States can join those nations.
I agree, don't like to with texxx, but I do.. The problem is the storing, transporting and monitoring of spent fuel-rods and the radioactive hazards that they bring about. That said, nuclear energy will be our stop-gap to fill in the holes from fossil-fuels
I hope it will help. We don't need any meltdowns and leaks like happened with Rocketdyne in 1959 and again in 1964. Back then they didn't even notify the public. In fact many residents of the area and almost nobody elsewhere in the US is even aware of this. Since then there were problems with the clean up, there has been rocketfuel contamination in the ground water and other problems with them too. Nuclear energy may be safe, but only with the thoughest and most intrusive government regulations and safeguards.
Whoa! A time when I actually agree with bigtexxx and the French, since the French love nuclear power plants. Shake it off.
The prevalent ignorance here is truly astounding. Contrary to bigtexxx's assuring claim and comforting words, the track record shows nuclear power and nuclear devices at U.S. facilities do NOT have a safe history, at all. You may only remember the 1979 Three Mile Island nuclear accident due to its much publicized notoriety. In fact, there have been many more nuclear accidents resulting in deaths, injuries, and economic losses. A simple googling reveals historical facts most of you have little idea of. To focus on the topic, I only post the accidents related to nuclear power plants, and processing, storage, shipping and disposal of nuclear materials. [For other nuclear related accidents, click here. Keep in mind this list only contains the information that is accessible by the general public. If you believe U.S. government has the virtue for transparancy and not the penchant for cover up, more power to you.] Power Plants The nuclear power plant is a particularly nefarious use of nuclear energy. Unlike conventional power plants, nuclear plants have a relatively short life-span -- 30 years -- before critical reactor components become irreparably radioactive. At that point the plant must be decommissioned (`mothballed'), or its entire reactor core replaced at great expense. To date, there is no solution regarding where to store spent power plant reactor cores. Compounding the storage problem is an accumulation of spent radioactive fuel rods, which have a life-span of only three years. 3 January 1961 A reactor explosion (attributed by a Nuclear Regulatory Commission source to sabotage) at the National Reactor Testing Station in Idaho Falls, Idaho, killed one navy technician and two army technicians, and released radioactivity "largely confined" (words of John A. McCone, Director of the Atomic Energy Commission) to the reactor building. The three men were killed as they moved fuel rods in a "routine" preparation for the reactor start-up. One technician was blown to the ceiling of the containment dome and impaled on a control rod. His body remained there until it was taken down six days later. The men were so heavily exposed to radiation that their hands had to be buried separately with other radioactive wastem, and their bodies were interred in lead coffins. 24 July 1964 An accident at a commercial nuclear fuel fabrication facility in Charlestown, Rhode Island left one person dead. 19 November 1971 The water storage space at the Northern States Power Company's reactor in Monticello, Minnesota filled to capacity and spilled over, dumping about 50,000 gallons of radioactive waste water into the Mississippi River. Some was taken into the St. Paul water system. March 1972 Senator Mike Gravel of Alaska submitted to the Congressional Record facts surrounding a routine check in a nuclear power plant which indicated abnormal radioactivity in the building's water system. Radioactivity was confirmed in the plant drinking fountain. Apparently there was an inappropriate cross-connection between a 3,000 gallon radioactive tank and the water system. 28 May 1974 The Atomic Energy Commission reported that 861 "abnormal events" had occurred in 1973 in the nation's 42 operative nuclear power plants. Twelve involved the release of radioactivity "above permissible levels." 22 March 1975 A technician checking for air leaks with a lighted candle caused $100 million in damage when insulation caught fire at the Browns Ferry reactor in Decatur, Alabama. The fire burned out electrical controls, lowering the cooling water to dangerous levels, before the plant could be shut down. 28 March 1979 A major accident at the Three Mile Island nuclear plant near Middletown, Pennsylvania. At 4:00 a.m. a series of human and mechanical failures nearly triggered a nuclear disaster. By 8:00 a.m., after cooling water was lost and temperatures soared above 5,000 degrees, the top portion of the reactor's 150-ton core collapsed and melted. Contaminated coolant water escaped into a nearby building, releasing radioactive gasses, leading as many as 200,000 people to flee the region. Despite claims by the nuclear industry that "no one died at Three Mile Island," a study by Dr. Ernest J. Sternglass, professor of radiation physics at the University of Pittsburgh, showed that the accident led to a minimum of 430 infant deaths. 1981 The Critical Mass Energy Project of Public Citizen, Inc. reported that there were 4,060 mishaps and 140 serious events at nuclear power plants in 1981, up from 3,804 mishaps and 104 serious events the previous year. 11 February 1981 An Auxiliary Unit Operator, working his first day on the new job without proper training, inadvertently opened a valve which led to the contamination of eight men by 110,000 gallons of radioactive coolant sprayed into the containment building of the Tennessee Valley Authority's Sequoyah I plant in Tennessee. 1982 The Critical Mass Energy Project of Public Citizen, Inc. reported that 84,322 power plant workers were exposed to radiation in 1982, up from 82,183 the previous year. 25 January 1982 A steam generator pipe broke at the Rochester Gas & Electric Company's Ginna plant near Rochester, New York. Fifteen thousand gallons of radioactive coolant spilled onto the plant floor, and small amounts of radioactive steam escaped into the air. 15-16 January 1983 Nearly 208,000 gallons of water with low-level radioactive contamination was accidentally dumped into the Tennesee River at the Browns Ferry power plant. 25 February 1983 A catastrophe at the Salem 1 reactor in New Jersey was averted by just 90 seconds when the plant was shut down manually, following the failure of automatic shutdown systems to act properly. The same automatic systems had failed to respond in an incident three days before, and other problems plagued this plant as well, such as a 3,000 gallon leak of radioactive water in June 1981 at the Salem 2 reactor, a 23,000 gallon leak of "mildly" radioactive water (which splashed onto 16 workers) in February 1982, and radioactive gas leaks in March 1981 and September 1982 from Salem 1. 1988 It was reported that there were 2,810 accidents in U.S. commercial nuclear power plants in 1987, down slightly from the 2,836 accidents reported in 1986, according to a report issued by the Critical Mass Energy Project of Public Citizen, Inc. 28 May 1993 The Nuclear Regulatory Commission released a warning to the operators of 34 nuclear reactors around the country that the instruments used to measure levels of water in the reactor could give false readings during routine shutdowns and fail to detect important leaks. The problem was first bought to light by an engineer at Northeast Utilities in Connecticut who had been harassed for raising safety questions. The flawed instruments at boiling-water reactors designed by General Electric utilize pipes which were prone to being blocked by gas bubbles; a failure to detect falling water levels could have resulted, potentially leading to a meltdown. 15 February 2000 New York's Indian Point II power plant vented a small amount of radioactive steam when a an aging steam generator ruptured. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission initially reported that no radioactive material was released, but later changed their report to say that there was a leak, but not of a sufficient amount to threaten public safety. Processing, Storage, Shipping and Disposal From 1946 to 1970 approximately 90,000 cannisters of radioactive waste were jettisoned in 50 ocean dumps up and down the East and West coasts of the U.S., including prime fishing areas, as part of the early nuclear waste disposal program from the military's atomic weapons program. The waste also included contaminated tools, chemicals, and laboratory glassware from weapons laboratories, and commercial/medical facilities December 1962 A summary report was presented at an Atomic Energy Commission symposium in Germantown, Maryland, listing 47 accidents involving shipment of nuclear materials to that date, 17 of which were considered "serious." 1971 After experimenting with disposal of radioactive waste in salt, the Atomic Energy Commission announced that "Project Salt Vault" would solve the waste problem. But when 180,000 gallons of contaminated water was pumped into a borehole; it promptly and unexpectedly disappeared. The project was abandoned two years later. 1972 The West Valley, NY fuel reprocessing plant was closed after 6 years in operation, leaving 600,000 gallons of high-level wastes buried in leaking tanks. The site caused measurable contamination of Lakes Ontario and Erie. December 1972 A major fire and two explosions occurred at a Pauling, New York plutonium fabrication plant. An undetermined amount of radioactive plutonium was scattered inside and outside the plant, resulting in its permanent shutdown. 1979 The Critical Mass Energy Project (part of Ralph Nader's Public Citizen, Inc.) tabulated 122 accidents involving the transport of nuclear material in 1979, including 17 involving radioactive contamination. 16 July 1979 A dam holding radioactive uranium mill tailings broke, sending an estimated 100 million gallons of radioactive liquids and 1,100 tons of solid wastes downstream at Church Rock, New Mexico. August 1979 Highly enriched uranium was released from a top-secret nuclear fuel plant near Erwin, Tennessee. About 1,000 people were contaminated with up to 5 times as much radiation as would normally be received in a year. Between 1968 and 1983 the plant "lost" 234 pounds of highly enriched uranium, forcing the plant to be closed six times during that period. January 1980 A 5.5 Richter earthquake at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, where large amounts of nuclear material are kept, caused a tritium leak. 19 September 1980 An Air Force repairman doing routine maintenance in a Titan II ICBM silo in Damascus, Arkansas dropped a wrench socket, which rolled off a work platform and fell to the bottom of the silo. The socket struck the missile, causing a leak from a pressurized fuel tank. The missile complex and surrounding areas were evacuated. Eight and a half hours later, the fuel vapors ignited, causing an explosion which killed an Air Force specialist and injured 21 others. The explosion also blew off the 740-ton reinforced concrete-and-steel silo door and catapulted the warhead 600 feet into the air. The silo has since been filled in with gravel, and operations have been transferred to a similar installation at Rock, Kansas. 21 September 1980 Two canisters containing radioactive materials fell off a truck on New Jersey's Route 17. The driver, en route from Pennsylvania to Toronto, did not notice the missing cargo until he reached Albany, New York. 1983 The Department of Energy confirmed that 1,200 tons of mercury had been released over the years from the Y-12 Nuclear Weapons Components Plant at Oak Ridge, Tennessee, the U.S.'s earliest nuclear weapons production plant. In 1987, the DOE also reported that PCBs, heavy metals, and radioactive substances were all present in the groundwater beneath Y-12. Y-12 and the nearby K-25 and X-10 plants were found to have contaminated the atmosphere, soil and streams in the area. December 1984 The Fernald Uranium Plant, a 1,050-acre uranium fuel production complex 20 miles northwest of Cincinnati, Ohio, was temporarily shut down after the Department of Energy disclosed that excessive amounts of radioactive materials had been released through ventilating systems. Subsequent reports revealed that 230 tons of radioactive material had leaked into the Greater Miami River valley during the previous thirty years, 39 tons of uranium dust had been released into the atmosphere, 83 tons had been discharged into surface water, and 5,500 tons of radioactive and other hazardous substances had been released into pits and swamps where they seeped into the groundwater. In addition, 337 tons of uranium hexafluoride was found to be missing, its whereabouts completely unknown. In 1988 nearby residents sued and were granted a $73 million settlement by the government. The plant was not permanently shut down until 1989. 1986 A truck carrying low-level radioactive material swerved to avoid a farm vehicle, went off a bridge on Route 84 in Idaho, and dumped part of its cargo in the Snake River. Officials reported the release of radioactivity. 6 January 1986 A container of highly toxic gas exploded at The Sequoyah Fuels Corp. uranium processing factory in Gore, Oklahoma, causing one worker to die (when his lungs were destroyed) and 130 others to seek medical treatment. In response, the Government kept the plant closed for more than a year and fined owners Kerr-McGee $310,000, citing poorly trained workers, poorly maintained equipment and a disregard for safety and the environment. [See also 24 November 1992.] 1986 After almost 40 years of cover-ups, the U.S. Government released 19,000 pages of previously classified documents which revealed that the Hanford Engineer Works was responsible for the release of significant amounts of radioactive materials into the atmosphere and the adjacent Columbia River. Between 1944 and 1966, the eight reactors, a source of plutonium production for atomic weapons, discharged billions of gallons of liquids and billions of cubic meters of gases containing plutonium and other radioactive contaminants into the Columbia River, and the soil and air of the Columbia Basin. Although detrimental effects were noticed as early as 1948, all reports critical of the facilities remained classified. By the summer of 1987, the cost of cleaning up Hanford was estimated to be $48.5 billion. The Technical Steering Panel of the government-sponsored Hanford Environmental Dose Reconstruction Project released the following statistics in July 1990: Of the 270,000 people living in the affected area, most received low doses of radiation from Iodine, but about 13,500 received a total dose some 1,300 times the annual amount of airborne radiation considered safe for civilians by the Department of Energy. Approximately 1,200 children received doses far in excess of this number, and many more received additional doses from contaminants other than Iodine. [See also May 1997 and July 2000.] 1987 The Idaho Falls Post Register reported that plutonium had been found in sediments hundreds of feet below the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory, an experimental reactor testing station and nuclear waste storage site. 1988 The National Research Council panel released a report listing 30 "significant unreported incidents" at the Savannah River production plants over the previous 30 years. As at Hanford (see 1986), ground water contamination resulted from pushing production of radioactive materials past safe limits at this weapons complex. In January 1989, scientists discovered a fault running under the entire site through which contaminants reached the underground aquifer, a major source of drinking water for the southeast. Turtles in nearby ponds were found to contain radioactive strontium of up to 1,000 times the normal background level. 6 June 1988 Radiation Sterilizers, Incorporated reported that a leak of Cesium-137 had occurred at their Decatur, Georgia facility. Seventy thousand medical supply containers and milk cartons were recalled as they had been exposed to radiation. Ten employees were also exposed, three of whom "had enough on them that they contaminated other surfaces" including materials in their homes and cars, according to Jim Setser at the Georgia Department of Natural Resources. October 1988 The Rocky Flats, Colorado plutonium bomb manufacturing site was partially closed after two employees and a Department of Energy inspector inhaled radioactive particles. Subsequent investigations revealed safety violations (including uncalibrated monitors and insufficient fire-response equipment) and leaching of radioactive contaminants into the local groundwater. 24 November 1992 The Sequoyah Fuels Corp. uranium processing factory in Gore, Oklahoma closed after repeated citations by the Government for violations of nuclear safety and environmental rules. It's record during 22 years of operation included an accident in 1986 that killed one worker and injured dozens of others and the contamination of the Arkansas River and groundwater. The Sequoyah Fuels plant, one of two privately-owned American factories that fabricated fuel rods and armor-piercing bullet shells, had been shut down a week before by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission when an accident resulted in the release of toxic gas. Thirty-four people sought medical attention as a result of the accident. The plant had also been shut down the year before when unusually high concentrations of uranium were detected in water in a nearby construction pit. [Also see 6 January 1986 for details of an additional incident.] A Government investigation revealed that the company had known for years that uranium was leaking into the ground at levels 35,000 times higher than Federal law allows; Carol Couch, the plant's environmental manager, was cited by the Government for obstructing the investigation and knowingly giving Federal agents false information. 31 March 1994 Fire at a nuclear research facility on Long Island, New York resulted in the nuclear contamination of three fire fighters, three reactor operators, and one technician. Measurable amounts of radioactive substances were released into the immediate environment. May 1997 A 40 gallon tank of toxic chemicals, stored illegally at the U.S. Government's Hanford Engineer works exploded, causing the release of 20,000-30,000 gallons of plutonium-contaminated water. A cover-up ensued, involving the contractors doing clean-up and the Department of Energy, who denied the release of radioactive materials. They also told eight plant workers that tests indicated that they hadn't been exposed to plutonium even though no such tests actually were conducted (later testing revealed that in fact they had not been exposed). Fluor Daniel Hanford Inc., operator of the Hanford Site, was cited for violations of the Department of Energy's nuclear safety rules and fined $140,625. Violations associated with the explosion included the contractor's failure to assure that breathing devices operated effectively, failure to make timely notifications of the emergency, and failure to conduct proper radiological surveys of workers. Other violations cited by the DOE included a number of events between November 1996 and June 1997 involving Fluor Daniel Hanford's failure to assure adherence to PFP "criticality" safety procedures. ("Criticality" features are defined as those features used "to assure safe handling of fissile materials and prevention of...an unplanned and uncontrolled chain reaction that can release large amounts of radiation.") [See also 1986 and July 2000.] 8 August 1999 The Washington Post reported that thousands of workers were unwittingly exposed to plutonium and other highly radioactive metals over a 23-year period (beginning in the mid-1950's) at the Department of Energy's Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant in Kentucky. Workers, told they were handling Uranium (rather than the far more toxic plutonium), inhaled radioactive dust while processing the materials as part of a government experiment to recycle used nuclear reactor fuel. June 2000 U.S. Senator Mike DeWine (R-OH) led a field senate hearing regarding workers exposed to hazardous materials while working in the nation's atomic plants. At the hearing, which revealed information about potential on and off-site contamination at the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant in Piketon, Ohio, DeWine noted, "We know that as a result of Cold War efforts, the government, yes, our federal government, allowed thousands of workers at its facilities across the country to be exposed to poisonous materials, such as beryllium dust, plutonium, and silicon, without adequate protection." Testimony also indicated that the Piketon plant altered workers' radiation dose readings and worked closely with medical professionals to fight worker's compensation claims. July 2000 Wildfires in the vicinity of the Hanford facility hit the highly radioactive "B/C" waste disposal trenches, raising airborne plutonium radiation levels in the nearby cities of Pasco and Richland to 1,000 above normal. Wildfires also threatened the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico and the DOE's Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory. In the latter case, the fires closely approached large amounts of stored radioactive waste and forced the evacuation of 1,800 workers. [See also 1986 and May 1997.]
So what do you suggest we do? BTW, is your 9 to 5 job consists of posting what's bad/wrong/terrible about this country?
Can't you guys focus on his posts, agree or disagree? What's the deal complaining about his post counts and questioning his motives in so many threads? Unless, you don't have a legit argument against his view.
OK I am curious about how many mishaps the French have with their power plants. Maybe it is just inept Americans who can't seem to handle the radioactive matter.
No one utilizes nuclear energy nearly as well as the French. I am all for it, however we have to address the safety issue as a consequence of increasing the number of nuclear plants in this country. Unless massive security measures could be adopted for every single one of them, this would only give the terrorists more places to target. I think security here not just from terrorism, but as wnes said from these 'accidents' might be a deal-maker or a deal-breaker for me. I think the security aspect needs to be addressed more before I buy into this.
Heheheheh...I'm 44 and single. I don't give a crap about fertility anymore! Time to get my Lexus modified........ At least I won't get stuck paying $2.25 a gallon....how much does enriched uranium go for these days?
What the Washington Times article did was painting a rosy picture for nuclear energy by singing praise for the newly passed energy bill, while neglecting a host of potential risks and pitfalls. The checkered history of the nuclear industry in U.S. is a powerful testimony to rebuke their cheerful and feel-good claims, which are very deceiving to the general public. Sure nuclear energy is cleaner relative to fossil fuel (such as petroleum and coal) driven engergy in terms of absence of "conventional" pollutants, and potentially more efficient, but it can only be achieved under the toughest regulations and the highest safeguards. I had the pleasure of working with radioactive isotopes for 8 freaking years, I can tell ya from my personal experiences what a fun activity it was dealing with various "hot" stuff. To make it clear, I am not opposing nuclear energy for the sake of bashing special interest groups. However, the way the U.S. nuclear industries has been conducting their business makes me wonder if they deserve the enormous tax subsidy until they get their acts together. Here are a few things what they can do to boost the confidence of the public: - Stand by their "proven" technologies by taking much larger shares of financial burdens; - Thoroughly train their workers at every conceivable detail of procedures, including the technologies, techniques, prevention of and alertness to accidents, and proper handling possible accidents; remove as quickly as possible physically or mentally tired workers from working at the facilities (yes sloppiness is the biggest enemy in this business); - Never cut short of safety for bottom line -- profits (in this regard, it's probably not a good idea to have public traded nuclear energy companies); - In any unfortunate event of nuclear accident, be forthcoming in cooperation with investigation, never cover up or dodge responsibilities. Oh boy, I usually don't mind other people's business, but to you it's different since you are concerned about mine. Here is a $15 question for you: other than asking irrelevant questions now and then, and supplying meaningless information to the discussions, have you considered to become a contributing member?
Good question, Saint Louis. Can't answer that before I do any research (well mainly googling). For one I don't believe Americans are inept, I think it has a lot to do with the policies being enforced and the mechanisms of the systems being implemented.
Nuclear energy? Hell YES! Because if there are three-eyed fishies, that means more CAVIAR for ALL OF US and not just rich people! I ALWAYS WANTED TO TRY IT. Wait...caviar is fish eggs I think. Probably not fish eyes. Nevermind.
