Why do enviromentalists oppose the operation of Nuclear Power Plants?

Answer 1

1). The waste remains radio-active for about 1000 years.

2). They care what happens to the world they leave to their children

3). We have a water shortage and it takes a lot of water to cool the Reactor Core

4). When the core is cooled the cooling water temp rises. If this goes into the river system it will, potentially, kill the marine life.

5) Wind, Solar, Geothermal have no global warming effects

6). The Govt. could release money to investigate "clean coal" technology. This would save jobs at the coal mines, maintain a coal export, sell the technology abroad and have no residue to bury

7). If we bury our radio-active waste how are we to be able to refuse to take the rest of the world's?

8). If your grocery bill is higher than your available money, what do you do? Sensible people would reduce the size of the grocery bill. If we improved the efficiency of our equipment and in how we used electricity, our consumptions would go down and we wouldn't have to build more power stations

9). The nuclear power debate is a blind for the next election. It is just to be able to say that something is being done.

Answer 2

They don't.

There is no such thing as an anti-nuclear environmentalist (though a lot of anti-nuclear people incorrectly claim to be environmentalists).

Compared to alternatives like dirty coal, oil and methane nuclear is safer and much cleaner with almost no CO2 emissions (about the same as wind per unit of power produced) and compared to wind and solar nuclear is more reliable and more capable as well as cheaper and with life cycle CO2 emissions probably a bit lower.

Compared to hydro and geothermal nuclear can be used pretty much anywhere, not just in certain locations that have a specific geology.

Compared to clean coal, fusion and space power systems nuclear fission is ready right now and known to work (clean coal might not even be possible and has more severe waste problems though it'd be acceptable if it was the only option).

Answer 3

Most environmentalists are realistic enough not to be.

The anti nuclear lobby are locked in the past and seek to stay in total ignorance of modern technology.

Modern reactors such as the pebble bed cannot melt down, do not go critical and cannot do so. They do not even have to shut down for maintenance. They can be built small and serve small towns and cities anywhere in the world. The waste is easily handled and stored.

Science has recently shown that radioactive half life can be reduced using metals. It has a long way to go but will advance.

The simple fact is that many countries do use nuclear power and 6% of the worlds energy is generated that way. This is going to go on increasing.

The simple fact is that all other major forms of power generation produce carbon and other greenhouse gases. If you took out the nuclear reactors currently in use the resultant increase in pollution from increased coal, gas and oil usage would produce the very disasterous consequences of overheating the planet that eveyone seeks to avoid in less than a year!!!!

The anti nuke brigade are just that. Nothing is likely to open their closed minds!

Environmentalists seek to reduce and ultimately stop the pollution from power plants. Wind, sea, solar and bio fuels are not good enough yet and cannot be scaled up to realistic levels. Clean non polluting methods of burning coal and oil are in the pipeline but will take many years yet. The answers are out there and will come but it is going to take time. Until then nuclear is the only viable non polluting option open to everyone.

Some countries such as France have embraced nuclear generation. These countries are likely to become the cleanest in the near future when the world is likely to be turning against the dirty polluting countries.

But perhaps the answer is to capture the hot air from the anti nuke babble and use that for power generation. There is certainly enough of it!

Answer 4

I think they fear the radiation . Nuclear power plants have had accidents ,also theres a rumor bombs can be made from there by products .They are holding out till everyone is issued a rem meter or we all die from the effects of fossil fuels .

Answer 5

The waste fuel is dangerous and we don't have any good place to put it. We can bury the waste, we just don't know if it might leak out many years later.

But some environmentalists now support nuclear power because they believe global warming is an even bigger risk..

Answer 6

Health effects on populations

Most of the human exposure to radiation comes from natural background radiation. Most of the remaining exposure comes from medical procedures. Several large studies in the U.S., Canada, and Europe have found no evidence of any increase in cancer mortality among people living near nuclear facilities. For example, in 1990, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) of the National Institutes of Health announced that, after doing a large-scale study which evaluated the mortality rates from 16 types of cancer, no increased incidence of cancer mortality was found for people living near 62 nuclear installations in the United States. The study also showed no increase in the incidence of childhood leukemia mortality in the study of surrounding counties after the start-up of the nuclear facilities. The NCI study, the broadest of its kind ever conducted, surveyed 900,000 cancer deaths in counties near nuclear facilities.

Aside from the immediate effects of the Chernobyl accident (see above), there is continuing impact from soils containing radioactivity in Ukraine and Belarus. For this reason a Zone of alienation was established around the Chernobyl plant.

In March, 2006, safety reviews found that several nuclear plants in the United States have been leaking water contaminated with tritium into the ground.[citation needed] (The discharges were intended to go through discharge pipes into rivers, at levels which would be below regulatory limits. However, by leaking into the ground, very low levels of tritium reached drinking water supplies.) The attorney general of Illinois announced that she was filing a lawsuit against Exelon because of six such leaks, demanding that the utility provide substitute water supplies to residents although no well outside company property shows levels that exceed drinking water standards. According to the NRC, "The inspection determined that public health and safety has not been adversely affected and the dose consequence to the public that can be attributed to current onsite conditions is negligible with respect to NRC regulatory limits." However, the chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, said, "They're going to have to fix it."



Problems with Nuclear Power

As with most the energy sources we use nuclear power has its share of problems. In a properly built and maintained plant the problems listed aren’t as likely to occur.
• The mining and purifying of uranium has not been a clean process in the past (How Stuff Works 2004).
• Improperly functioning and poorly operated nuclear power plants can create major problems (How Stuff Works 2004). An example of this would be the Chernobyl disaster.
• Spent fuel from nuclear power plants remains toxic for centuries (How Stuff Works 2004). This means that there needs to be a safe and permanent place to store the fuel (How Stuff Works 2004). There is no area designated for the storage of the spent fuel to date.
• The transportation of fuel to and from the plants poses danger (How Stuff Works 2004).

Answer 7

because of the same reason people oppose anything. statistically it doesn't cause anymore problems than anythign else, but the problems they do cause, are bad enough to make people not wish to deal with it themselves.

Answer 8

do you think its because they DESTROY THE ENVIROMENT TOTALLY FOR THOUSANDS OF YEARS or do you think they are just jealous that they dont get free donuts like homer simpson......I think its the donuts