While the Commonwealth Party advocates alternative energies, fusion research, energy conservation and environmental initiatives we also endorse nuclear fission energy as the best means of meeting the power needs of today's society. Why? Other types of electric generation (specifically fossil) are more certain to have adverse environmental consequences or to be less desirable in implementation. This is not to say nuclear power does not share some problems and controversies but weighing it all together and adding refinements, nuclear power is the best method when its contingencies are addressed.

How so? Fossil fuel electric generation will definitely cause environmental degradation while nuclear power is cleaner in process though storage of spent fuel-rods is a hot potato. Here those concerns can be lessened by adopting a similar method that the French use. They use their nuclear waste in a second tier of deriving power and thus they have less waste and more electricity production. On top of that, the Commonwealth Party proposes to get rid of such lowered nuclear waste from French-dip styled reactors by invoking a reliable and tested rocket system (or other method) to ferry waste to the moon or even consuming it as a fuel in a man-made "comet" shooting into the sun. Then again we might just "blow it up real good" far enough into space on pay-per-view no doubt. Whatever rocket system utilized would be designed to be cost effective and to have safety features for the nuclear payload such as high impact resistant compartments with high heat tolerances and even a parachute system for soft landings if need be.

Ferrying the waste into space is an acceptable idea since space is full of cosmic radiation anyway, especially beyond the Earth's Van Allen radiation belts. The lowered waste and cheaper rocket payloads provide incentive to consider this method. However, some are saying this would be a lost opportunity since research now indicates we can diminish the waste even more by new methods. Such methods will consume it as fuel for electricity through even higher tier reactors than what the French have accomplished.

The events at Chernobyl and Fukushima are preventable and containable in the American design of reactors which are thickened and able to withstand the forces of nature or even a plane slamming into them. Yet spent fuel-rods should not be stored at the reactor for too long a period nor overly accumulate and multiple back-ups should be sufficiently layered to keep cooling systems going in the event of storms or quakes which would have prevented the Fukushima meltdown. While reactors on fault lines or flood zones have been designed to take those situations into account, they should be further examined in terms of layers of back-up protocols when events like Fukushima occur. The threats of cyber hacking or the outright physical security at plant locations should be addressed in due fashion. As long as all of these concerns and the effects of EMP and any long periods without the usual electricity sources for plant operations are taken into account - maintaining a record without major troubles at home - we can still endorse nuclear power.

Nuclear power has proven itself to be relatively safe overall despite some noteworthy incidents. With properly designed plants and back-up systems, nuclear reliability has been and can be further maintained. Consider the proportion of electricity that is nuclear-generated day after day and one will come to the same conclusion as science has over which method to rely on for large-scale power production. For now, nuclear is the best method with the least general environmental impact. Of course, we will still advocate alternative power sources, conservation and consider future development possibly away from large-scale, power-grid distribution as technology and economy will allow.