The only answer to global warming? Nuclear Power!!?
Nuclear power is the only solution to global warming. Libs want to pretend their is a perfect solution to problems. That's untrue and a fantasy. Fantasy is ok for pseudo hippies listening to green day and smoking dope. It's no basis for policy.
The risks of nuclear energy are no more (and probably less) than those from fossil fuels. Throw global warming into the mix, and it's not even a contest. We need nuclear power!
Answer:
It works for France. They get about 75 percent of their electricity from 56 different nuclear power plants.
Note: Those 56 plants are spread out in a country that is a bit smaller than Texas.
Oh yea...that'll solve it!! ...nuclear power can solve all kinds of problems right!!
I'm sending you positive vibes right now...I hope they help :)
Nuclear power will at best be part of a mix of alternative energy sources in the near to mid term but not in the long term. Solar is nuclear power, too, you know; and we don't have to dispose of the waste.
I actually agree. If they'd spend the emissions reduction budget on getting something they could show as a 'safer' nuclear generator, alongside new energy capacitors for cars, human emissions, along with dependance on expendable resources, would be a non-issue.
But that isn't a question, so I don't know how to answer it.
I vote solar, wind - sustainable *safe* energy. Nuclear power is dangerous; we should use no more than necessary.
You're right that nuclear power is an indispensible tool to fight global warming. And also right that the risks are lower than the risks of global warming.
But we'll need solar, wind, and biofuels too. This is a huge problem. To reduce it effectively at a reasonable cost, we'll need to use all the tools we have.
So it's not the "only" answer. No one thing is.
Emissions Free is the goal. Nuclear Power is one way to get to that goal.
John Ziagos (a US Researcher at Lawrence Livermore National Labs) has come out with a report showing what will have to be done between now and 2050 to be come less of a Carbon Producer. It involves building something like 6 new nuclear reactors a year. There are other changes that need to be made as well, but the fact is that the US energy economy is SO BIG, that really big changes are necessary. (see the source below for a link to the Excellent article)
Will these changes be hard - yes. Will they be disruptive to our economy - yes. But I believe that they are necessary, and in the end will result in a better situation.
Regardless of any "green" goals, or other reasons, we should update our energy economy because (1) it is horribly outdated, and (2) the supporting infrastructure is even worse.
Have you forgotten Chernobyl? or are you just too young to even realize that the effects of the accident are still being felt today?
Nuclear energy is safe as long as everyone involved does what he's supposed to do. Which means it is not. People watching the machine WILL fall asleep. Companies of all kind involved in the process WILL cut corners to make that extra dollar. Etc, etc.
As it is we have a huge problem with the waste product in this country. France is doing a pretty good job of dealing with it but since we can't stand the frenchies, we won't use their technology. And eventually they will have a problem anyway when they run out of space to store the stuff.
You are right that there is no perfect solution but anything that is natural is always a better way to go. PERIOD.
President Bush thinks he can control nature (Katrina anyone?) but then again he also thought he could control the Iraqis...
The Enviro-Nazis will never let that happen. They would rather put power guzzlers in re-education camps and the ones that come out would get to disassemble their homes and build dormitories next to the factor's that will run on treadmill power.
I also thought Nuclear Power was the best alternative but further study in Wikipedia made me see the Chernobyl accident was a lot worse than I thought and the end is not in sight. The total cost is in the $Billions and lot more to be spend in the next century.
The original building was enclosed with a concrete box but it is decaying so rapidly, due to the radiation(?) that a bigger and thicker concrete box is being build around the first box. Thousands have been exposed to radiation and most will die from cancer.
That is bad, but this would never happen here, right?
Remember the Three Mile Island accident? We were lucky!
Now, for the killer argument, the world will need over 1,000 big and hugely expensive ($2 Billion each) powerplants.
1. How many nations will be able to pay for them?
2. The world would take about 15-20 years to build that many and it may too late to cut back carbon emission in time..
3. Uranium is not a renewable resource, for how long will the uranium mines be able to supply 1,500 nuclear plants?
This is the catch, if the rich nations build nuclear plants and the poor nations burn down the rainforests, we all bake!
The solution must be viable for ALL nations. Otherwise, whatever we do will be like arranging chairs in the Titanic.
Further, there are less than a hundred nuclear plants in the US and we had only one accident. If the world has 1,500 nuclear plants build by the cheapest workers they can find anywhere in the world, in India or China, how many of those plants will have accidents. 15 or more?
Only Hydrogen, produced by small electrolysis process (like your car battery) will allow all nations to survive.
Land sites are best. Texas became the state with the largest electric power from windmills, California used to be the first.
Offshore windmills are feasible, Denmark has many of them offshore and they produce a third of the energy of the nation.
Solar panels have increased in efficiency and became cheaper. Germany has the largest installation of solar cells in the world, all of them made in Germany.
Many tens of thousands of new workers will be needed to provide the world with windmills and solar panels.
Take your pick: Windmills or solar cells, either or both. Some research is needed and small and large factories will be needed everywhere to provide the lowest cost, mass produced, standard size windmill and solar panels.
------------------------
Note, to make Nuclear Power seem more acceptable, (To Sell Nuclear to us) some claim that it would be the cheapest, IF ALL INITIAL COSTS ARE IGNORED! They do not see fhtat if the same rule is applied to windmills and solar panel energy, either would be cheaper.
They ignore that nobody has to do anything to use windmills or solar panels to keep them running, Nuclear Power requires hundreds of high salary people watching computer readouts 24/7 all the time. It is propaganda to deceive and confuse those that can be mislead. They should be ashamed.
The problem with a lot of Americans is that they want to ignore the reality of Global warming because they can't see the solutions being compatible well maintaining their way of life. In this case you are refering to America's use of cars. With this in mind we need to change the model so that it becomes palatable to these non believers in this environmental crisis so that the world can benefit as a whole. To do this America must endeavored to develop new technologies that we could actually lead the world in a positive way and reap the benefits of selling these technologies to the world! In developing nations I have noticed that some nations have virtually skipped steps in their infrastructure, for instance landline telephones are bypassed straight to mobile networks. If we put 10% of the resources that we have put towards the Iraq oil war towards hydrogen engines, the world would gladly buy vehicles from the revitalized automotive sector and Detroit would no longer have to be declining into its own state of poverty. America and the the rest of the world (including the developing nations who you would like to demand the same from) would now be provided a way to drive in an emissions free manner, and like the mobile phone surpassing the landline infrastructure, all countries would be happy to make this jump. Of course this would require massive increases in green energy as well, and your nuclear solution is one of those steps. But Solar cells, tidal generators, windmills, all waiting for technological leaps that will benefit the nations that develop these as well. Japan is leading when it comes to low velocity windmills, Canada is researching tidal generators, but America… it seems that we in the US want to fall from grace as Oil declines, and we seem to want to take the world with us! The trade imbalance that exists between the US and most our trading partners is so massive that we’ll be left in the global dust anyways if we do not start to produce useful technologies that can shift these trade imbalances... TODAY! We could even lend other countries the money to buy the technology if we have to, then we get their interest payments as well. If you have ever heard of the Marshall Plan then you’ll know that that was how Europe was able to bounce back after the devastation of WWII and why the 50’s and 60’s were such booming decades for the US! The more the world benefited the more money they had to pay back those loans with interest. Same principle, we develop the technologies, we have the UN pass strict environmental standards, empower countries to make the necessary changes with our technological leadership and loan programs and then we sit back and reap the rewards in a new environmentally responsible world. The problem with so many in America is that economy = oil = ignore environment. We need to wake up and change this model, because there is more then one way to turn a driveshaft and to make the American economy go round. Here’s a plan for our government to consider. Instead of thinking of all this as a battle between environment and economy, think of environmental technologies as a way for America to control and dominate a new technological sector, and once we have achieved dominance have it legislated through international groups (UN, APEC, G8, World Bank, IMF, etc) so that everyone has to fall in-line. Essentially the same game our country has always played really, just with drastically different results and the end of Global climate change without the dreaded recession that all the naysayers are afraid of!
Nuclear power would stop global warming but it would make the whole world a desolate place not even the tiniest living thing can live on because of the toxic wastes and radiation.
Solar/Wind/Geothermal WOULD be better if they would generate as much electricity as Nuclear power does.
The answers post by the user, for information only, FunQA.com does not guarantee the right.
More Questions and Answers: