Considering the enthusiasm for "clean" power sources like solar and wind among Democrats, you'd think they'd go wild in supporting more nuclear power plants.

But there's that word; "nuclear." For most Democrats, the idea of generating clean, CO2 free power via a nuclear reactor is a non starter. What happens if they blew up? Or melted down? The fact that they can't blow up and the odds of a meltdown are exceedingly small doesn't make a bit of difference. 

Accordingly, there is not one single mention of nuclear power in the draft Democratic party platform.

Daily Caller:

The draft platform includes 24 mentions of the word “nuclear,” but only follows that with phrases like “annihilation,” “weapon,” and “warhead.” The phrases “nuclear energy” or “nuclear power” never appear in the platform.

The phrase “clean energy,” referring to wind and solar power, appears 18 times and references positive phrases such as “jobs,” “economy,” “superpower,” and “leadership.” The Democratic platform also excluded nuclear power from its 2012 and 2008 platforms.

Nuclear power provides 20 percent of all the electricity used in America, while wind and solar only provide a mere 4.7 and 0.6 percent respectively. It would take more than 100 years for solar to replace the electricity we currently obtain from existing nuclear plants, according to calculations performed by the National Review.

An average single nuclear reactor prevents 3.1 million tons of CO2 emissions annually and accounts for 63 percent of non-CO2 emitting power sources. Nuclear power is far cheaper than wind or solar power, making it “the most cost-effective zero-emission technology,” according to The Economist. The 2012 closure of the two-reactor San Onofre nuclear plant in Southern California caused CO2 emissions to rise annually by 9 million metric tons, the equivalent of putting an extra 2 million cars on the road.

Even left-leaning think tanks like Third Way have concluded that “widespread retirement of America’s nuclear power plants would make it extremely difficult if not impossible” for the U.S. to reduce CO2 emissions.

Despite these environmental benefits, green groups with close ties to Democrats continue to lobby hard against nuclear power. Environmental groups have always lobbied against nuclear power, although it’s doubtful they will continue to get away with increasing the cost of nuclear plantsand creating artificial delays in construction. Organizations like The Sierra Club still oppose nuclear energy, as they believe it leads to “energy over-use and unnecessary economic growth.” The Sierra Club officially endorsed Hillary Clinton for president in early June and has repeatedly attacked the GOP and Donald Trump in recent weeks.

The demand by greens of risk free nuclear plants is only a smokescreen. Their real beef with nuclear power is that building more plants will add to America's power grid and contribute to economic growth. More energy means cheaper energy - a sacrilege among environmentalists.

If their goal isn't to get people to sit in the dark and shiver, or make electricity painful to pay for, it should be. The fact is, the design of nuclear power plants in America have proven to be sound - far superior to Chernobyl which saw the most serious accident in the history of nuclear power. The accident at Three Mile Island only proved the safety of our plants and the soundness of the design. 

In truth, there's no reason not to build nuclear plants - except those who want to block construction in order to make all energy more expensive.