Looks like fearmongering, but a good FYI:
I was looking more into coal and nuclear energy lately, and I feel Obama not fully pursuing nuclear is a really big blunder. Haven’t heard any announcements yet and he had a big enviropolicy day today. Canada is a bit 
ahead of US in hydro and nuclear but same goes for us too. Supplies for uranium are available in the 10,000s of years, and waste products are overall safer than fossil fuels, believe me. Yes there was Chernobyl, it killed 31 people directly and affected thousands more with secondary impacts and evacuation. But many believe nuclear has really received a bad rap in people’s view. Since, safety standards are extremely stringent and more imporantly, Please count the number of deaths related to plants burning fossil fuels. Studies vary, but it’s at least in the thousands per year. One study shows up to 30,000 a year but the debate continues between the environmental lobby and the industrial lobby, ie. both wrong sides. Mainly lung cancer and other respiratory ailments. Lots of info online if you’re curious.
Until we get to a place in the future that can safely rely on renewables for all of our energy needs, something is needed within our grasp that is the least impactful and proves itself as a reliable and increasingly safer alternative.
We have similar uranium deposits as the US, but these volumes are amongst the highest in the world. As you know, the US also has a population 10x greater than ours. And how isn’t that a good economic option? I am aware that startup costs for nuclear are high and that is a deterrent, but are clearly the better investment long term. So yes, the bell of disappointment in politics encores. Just no willingness to try foresight and proving your constituents right by simply explaining the benefits effectively.
Photos from the coal ash spill and environs from the NY Times. I didn’t really hear about this much in the news a month ago, was the coal PR tag team back again? Whoomp there it is.
