Why do very few "Environmentalists" talk about Nuclear Power?
France and Japan produce about 80% of their power with it.
Solar & wind are great for reducing power, but cannot provide reliable power 24/7, and it would be practically impossible to replace all power production needed. Other forms of energy production are still way into the future. Why not nuclear now?
Answer:
Anyone who mentions Chernobyl in comparison to American reactors is as clueless as the person who brings up the Titanic in conversations concerning air traffic safety. You should do some research before you speak.
There's little doubt that when the two biggest linchpins of environmentalism, Greenpeace and the Sierra Club stand against nuclear power, there is a LONG way to go. You'd think some people could put their Earth ahead of their egos.
Here's a former Greenpeace founder who has seen the light...
...or is it a nuclear glow?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con...
I dunno. I find it irksome that many environmentalists talk about the energy crisis, and in the same breath slam the best chance we have of ending it.
Sure there are problems with it. But we have to look at this as a 'do the costs outweigh the benefits' question. And I think without a doubt the difficulties associated with nuclear power are far and away remote compared to the good bits.
Nuclear plants can be a double edged sword. There could be meltdowns, spills or a host of other things.
Because of the dangers they have. Think about the consequences if we were to have a Nuclear meltdown in a plant, especially a major city like Washington or New York. It would be a disaster.
Actually lots of them do. Clearly the risks of global warming are greater than those of nuclear power. It's one tool to fight global warming, along with solar, wind, and biofuels.
More about environmentalists who support nuclear power:
http://www.ecolo.org/media/articles/arti...
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/op...
http://www.spiegel.de/international/worl...
Yeah, look at Chernobyl. I don't think it's a good idea to be creating toxic materials that take thousands of millions of years to biodegrate. That's a legacy we shouldn't be leaving the generations to come.
As someone who works in a nuclear plant I can tell you that nuclear energy is safe and reliable .However most plant were built 20 30 40 years ago with different standards and building pratices. Right now today studies and plans are in the works to build safer and more efficent plant with less impact on the environment. Also with events like the earhtquake in Japan the other day and the media proclaiming "Nuclear Accident"
It is very hard to get John Q Lunchbox on our side.
More all the time.
They are good and bad. They are definently more safe than they were back in the days of Chernobyl, but there is still always that possibility.
I think the main problem with nuclear is the cost. The cost to construct a nuclear plant to current codes and standards is huge. Its these high cost that keep them from popping up because this is a capitalist country, and if there is no money to be made then you wont see them.
gee, i don't know.
maybe you ought to ask the environmentalists over in Chernobyl.
did you read about the radioactive water leak this week in Japan?
Did you hear about Three Mile Island?
in truth, designs today are safer.
in truth, if there is a real problem, I'd just assume it were in your backyard, not mine.
that would be okay, since you seem to want it, wouldn't it.
building the reactor in your town, that is.
oh, and then there's the problem of where are you going to store all of the spent fuel rods.
how 'bout on the other side of your town.
are you still liking it?
i thought not.
truth is, we will build more plants.
truth also is that someday, there will be a serious accident.
I am pro-environment and pro-nuke power. BUT first there has to be a reliable way to dispose of the nuke waste. Right now almost all nuke waste is stored in drums on the site of the power plant. I wouldn't call that a safe and reliable plan. And what happens in 30-50 years when the plant is de-commissioned? That's the expected lifespan of most nuke plants.
Now once there's a mandated disposal plan I would be all for nuke plants. Sure there's the site in Utah that'll open in a few years, but how will the waste be transported? Cause if i was a terrorist and wanted to make a "dirty" bomb, I'd just blow up a transport truck full of nuke waste as it was travelling through a city on it's way to Utah.
France has a plant that re-processes nuke waste into re-usable fuel. So they turn their waste back into fuel for the plant. They also have a special train for transporting the waste.
In the USA this would not be deemed cost effective.
Because of the extreme risk that is posed by a major nuclear disaster. I fyou look at the history of Chernobyl, you'' see that that that cannot be dismissed. and--as yet--pro-nuclear power advocates have yet to show ways in which the risk can be dealt with.
I am NOT against nuclear power-quite the contrary. And I do think the risk can be addressed. But simply saying "Look at all the plants that have operated safely for years" is not good enough. Not aginst tens (perhaps hundreds) of thousands of deaths. When the problems are addressed, I'll support expanding the use of nuclear power. Not until.
Nuclear power is clean and cheap; no doubt about that. But it's also deadly if 'accidents' occur. Japan just had trouble over a nuclear plant that 'leaked' because of an earthquake this week. These are the risks that need to be considered.
The answers post by the user, for information only, FunQA.com does not guarantee the right.
More Questions and Answers: