Question for people who believe in global warming?

Question

I have noticed that many people who are concerned about global warming are also strong advocates against nuclear power. With the recent disaster in Japan, many advocates against nuclear power are sounding the alarm about the "dangers" of nuclear power plants. The other side of the coin is that electricity generated from nuclear power does not generate co2 emissions. Nuclear power is an effective way of reducing carbon emissions. So how do you feel about these nuclear activists? Do you support them? Or do you feel that closing nuclear power plants will make society rely on fossil fuel energy, thus making "global warming" worse?

Answer 1

I disagree with your use of the word "many" unless you switch the order of the two groups.



I don't believe it's practical to rely on nuclear for the majority of the world's power, but it has its place as part of the solution. It's a proven technology, and strictly from a public health sense it's far better than coal. Living next to a nuclear plant is unhealthy when something goes wrong. Living next to a coal plant is unhealthy when everything goes right. Not to mention the warming from CO2 and soot and acidification of the oceans.



Since this is still a developing event, I feel the activists are reacting to incomplete information and their alarmism is not justified. The situation could still change for the worse, but as it is now, I think it would be very unfortunate if proposed nuclear power plants were canceled and replaced with coal plants solely because of this event. The anti-nuclear people want nuclear power plants to be canceled and solar panels or wind turbines put up in their place, but I just don't see that as being very realistic in most situations. But I could be wrong.

Answer 2

I have long been an advocate of nuclear power IF, someone can come up with a viable way to dispose of the spent fuel. That has ALWAYS been my ONE objection to nuclear power. The disaster at the Japanese reactors only better brings home the fact that spent fuel rods are a problem for a VERY LONG time. I had not even considered their presence on the reactor site as possibly being a problem with regaining control of a reactor.



I am indifferent about the advocates for nuclear power. I fully know that what they say is reasonable arguments for reactors. I will not stand against their logic but, I can not stand in their support until the spent fuel rods concerns are fully answered. This question MUST be answered before the problem becomes a nightmare we do not awaken from. This is not a possibility. This is an assured reality. We are no closer now to finding this answer than we were 50 years ago. We may have another 50 years to find this answer. Do we have another 500 years to find the answer?



Since the question was about activists I should answer along those lines. I am as equally indifferent towards them. I also understand their concerns and they are justified in their concerns. Still, should the one question be answered on spent fuel rods, I would fully support reactors.

Answer 3

I'm indifferent about so-called "nuclear activists". I think they make some valid points. Nuclear power is inherently risky from many standpoints. Personally my main concern is with their economic risk. If anything whatsoever goes wrong in either the construction or operations of a nuclear power plant, the taxpayers are on the hook. And in the construction phase, things often go wrong.



There are better ways to reduce GHG emissions. Concentrated solar thermal can produce baseload power at as low or lower cost than new nuclear, and can be coupled with another energy source like biomass burning, using the same infrastructure when there are long periods with little sunshine.



I just think there are better options which don't take 5-10 years to build a single power plant. So I'm not really concerned about nuclear power becoming more unpopular. I don't think people should ever spread misinformation, but like I said, I think there's some validity to the "nuclear activist" arguments.

Answer 4

I think that most people who accept AGW can agree that nuclear would be a viable short-term solution to quickly cutting GHG emissions. However, I have to agree that the disaster in Japan will put a damper on any proposed plant construction in the US and there may be no realistic scenario where nuclear is a workable short-term plan. In other words, by the time the emotional reactionism dies down, we're no longer looking at "short-term" and in the mean time, we're still pumping billions of tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere.

I think that the US should now re-direct any subsidies or financial incentives from coal and nuclear (and oil, too) into alternative energy production such as geothermal, solar and wind and making the grid "smarter" as well as working on energy storage solutions such as pumped hydro. There is really no excuse to be using such dated tech as we are.



Clarification:

I have a problem with most activists. They often follow a flawed, extremist point of view and don't really think for themselves, but rather allow themselves be told what to think about "the cause". The same could be said of AGW "alarmists" (the actual ones...) *and* AGW "deniers".



_

Answer 5

There are legitimate concerns about nuclear power (how to prevent accidents, how to guard against terrorism, what to do with the radioactive waste). Activists reasonably raising those legitimate concerns, I cheerfully support. Just because AGW is bad doesn't mean that we want another Chernobyl or something.



I confess, however, to being rather annoyed at those who object to nuclear power on principle, without genuinely considering the issues. Though that's pretty much the same thing I feel about anyone who simply takes a stand on any important, complex issue without genuinely considering the factors involved. Like, for example, people who claim that, because there have been significant changes in the Earth's climate in the past, the present warming couldn't possibly be caused by our actions.

Answer 6

There are some environmentalists who favor nuclear power to replace coal power, but I think there are even more that say we should just make do with less electricity until and if we can make solar and wind cheap enough. I have news for those people. Wind is never going to be any cheaper than it is now, because windmills are 1,000 year old technology that isn't going to get much better than it is now. However, solar panels are coming down in price and I expect that in 20 years or so you will see solar panels on most houses and buildings. The only problem with them is they provide no power at night. So in the end, unless we just want to make do with a lot less power, we need all kinds of generators.

Answer 7

I thought it was a reasonable short-to-mid term solution, but the question is now moot. Politically, nuclear power is now off the table in America. Like AGW, the American people are uninterested in learning the facts and examining things objectively.



No one will allow a nuclear plant to be constructed in their "backyard" and even if they were to be constructed in the middle of nowhere it would not matter. It has already become clear that people do not want transmission lines in their backyards either. Maybe if we had a number of nuclear plants under construction the situation would be different, but they will never get off the ground now.



It looks like the coal and natural gas industries can breath easier for awhile.



I'm not saying that is necessarily a good thing - but it is what it is.

Answer 8

I'm indifferent, but I have negative feelings about nuclear power, because it is so dangerous and because the waste is so toxic and you have to store it for so long. I dont know why we cant implement solar, wind, and water energy... no co2 emissions from that either and less costly to build and maintain.

Answer 9

The benefits of dismantling all nuclear power stations around the world is much greater than the benefits of electricity it provides for people.

In addition to this we must also eliminate from the face of the earth any nuclear powered military submarines, aircraft carriers, ships, and also nuclear, atomic and neutron overkill weapons.

We must also eliminate all forms of weapons that kill, maim and torture and the corporate military industrial complex that enables perpetuation of the production of them.

We must also work for peace and divert trillions spent on maintaining the merchant of death industries on more progressive and useful endeavors.

We already have energy generating devices that draws free energy from the quantum vacuums of free space that generate zero pollution based on Tesla's revolutionary ideas sitting on the back shelves continuing to be suppressed by the big oil and mining conglomerates not being used because it effects their profits.

Deriving energy from the nuclear processes is part of the reason why the rate of cancer among the general population has increased exponentially and why its about time we stopped using this form of energy derivation for the sake of the planet and that of our future survival.



To solve this problem we must support people like this that already have the solution to our energy crisis.



http://www.cheniere.org/misc/oulist.htm

http://www.cheniere.org/books/efv/index.htm

Answer 10

Actually, the power plant problem in Japan proves just how safe nuclear power is.



Consider that the forty year old reactors were subject to five times the forces that they were designed to deal with and had a major tsunami hit them and still the problems have been minor (minuscule compared to the tsunami damage). Although there is still a ways to go before they are fully stabilized, out of the six reactors, only one has elevated pressure in the drywell and two have elevated pressure in the pressure vessel. All signs are that the situation is under control.



"Radiation levels near Fukushima Daiichi and beyond have elevated since the reactor damage began. However, dose rates in Tokyo and other areas outside the 30-kilometre zone remain below levels which would require any protective action. In other words they are not dangerous to human health.



At the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant, radiation levels spiked three times since the earthquake, but have stabilized since 16 March at levels which are, although significantly higher than the normal levels, within the range that allows workers to continue onsite recovery measures."



http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/tsunamiupdate01.html



As far as the anti-nuclear activists go, they are plainly misguided. I put most of the blame for this on the educational system which fails to teach critical thinking.

Answer 11

No, true people who are concerned with global warning do not want Nuclear. I want 100% green energy. We have enough sun and wind to do it. Now we need some new technology around transmission lines.

Answer 12

i'm nonetheless slightly sceptical, in spite of the shown fact that i actually care approximately our wild places. I do in spite of the shown fact that think of that we could constantly take the prospect heavily. The data proves that organic cycles of climate ensue on a grand scale. there have been as quickly as lions, hippos and elephants wandering the united kingdom geographical area, approximately one hundred twenty,000 years in the past. That replace into an interglacial heat spell. the element that may no longer disputed, is that those issues ensue clearly, in spite of everything the Scottish geographical area is packed with glacial beneficial components. in spite of the shown fact that, the data ability that our further contribution to worldwide warming is making it ensue at a swifter value than existence can manage. we are conversing approximately climate replace going on in a protracted time, quite than spanning centuries or hundreds of years. wildlife has coped with climate replace particularly nicely interior the previous. woodlands and grasslands can pass at their snails %., to maintain song of the circumstances that suit them. those days there are further themes. we've our wildlife trapped in wallet that are surrounded by ability of farmland. The organic "corridors" are long gone. wildlife charities are doing their ultimate to make our wild places greater joined up. If climate replace keeps because it is and there is no area for issues to bypass, then we can lose lots. besides, i think of my significant subject is that i do no longer choose it to be authentic.

Answer 13

I support nuclear as a better choice than fossil fuel, But I do hope that future nuclear power plant will not be built near a known quake zone or near and low enough for a tsunami to flood it. We have one in Texas near Houston that makes me nervous. However I support those peoples right to voice their concern, and believe they should be considered. Defending your position honestly is a good way to learn, shouting down the opposition is not. Oddly enough I am not concerned about Global Warming. The alarmist are to much like religious folks, to be taken seriously.

Answer 14

You present a choice similar to choosing to die from being force fed arsenic or strychnine. There are many much better solutions than your false dichotomy. You fail yet again.