Are environment group climate change campaigns an asset to nuclear energy proposals!?

Answer 1

yes. nuclear energy has less of an impact on climate change as opposed to fossil fuel burning.

Answer 2

I would say yes. Most everyone realizes that with the existing technology it is not possible to live at our current level of electrical consumption on solar or wind or other non mainstream alternate method of electrical production.

What can, only Nuclear and Coal. Hydroelectric is almost fully utilized in the US. Wind and Solar just can't provide the constant power levels needed. If you turn to Coal, you burn 1 pound of coal to produce 4 kilowatts of electricity. That coal creates a LOT of carbon in the form of CO2. NOT TO MENTION THE TONS OF MERCURY GAS that is released in the air or the acid ran. In case you were wondering, mercury is a toxic metal, and you can absorb some when you eat fish but most (about 98.5 percent) of that mercury is NOT absorb in your stomach or intestines....that's right, you just excrete most of the mercury out. HOWEVER, ALMOST ALL GASEOUS MERCURY IS ABSORBED BY YOUR LUNGE'S. And, when it rains that mercury is washed out of the air and into the soil and water system to be absorbed by plants, then animals and then us.

Nuclear is a viable power source that can be used NOW. It can be done with total safety. What we need to do is:
1) Change the law, once the federal department OKs the plan, there should only be one challenge to the plan and there should be limitations on the challenge. Only the federal department should make a ruling and state and local governments should not be allowed to interfere. Quite frankly this is the main reason that the US has not built a new nuclear power plant in over 20 years. The legal cost and time to get approvals can be millions and up to 10 years. Is this rational?
2) Standardize. Why is every nuclear plant a special design. Standardize the design and have it in 5 sizes. Small, medium, large, extra large and jumbo. This would allow the plant construction cost to be controlled and allow for quick efficient construction. Also, if people moved between plants, they would not have to learn a new plant all over again, they would all be laid out the same.
3) Build several experimental nuclear power plants. There are several new designs that have been created on papper but not really tested. Build the new designs see what works and what doesn't and then make that the basis for building the above mentioned standardized designs. The new experimental plans use different techniques to, reduce radioactive waste, new containment techniques to ensure that there can't be a melt down.

Answer 3

Its going to be interesting to see how that plays out. That nuclear energy is, in most respects, environmentally friendly is pretty clear. And it is relative safe.

But "relative safe?" That's where the fun is going to start. Many people are very concerned (or will be when we start getting down to business on the energy issue) that a nuclear powerplant disaster could be environmentally catastrophic--as well as possible killing thousands--or even hundreds of thousands-of people. And looking back at Chernoble, its a legitimate concern.

There's another issue--just exactly how safely can we store radioactive waste--given that there is no way to get rid of it, and it remains lethal for millenia. But with available technology, frankly thats simply a matter of doing the storage job right--and we do know how.

The way --the rational way--to deal with these issues is to make very sure that the best of modern technology and design is used for any new power plants--and that the work is not contaminated by political or economic special interests or fouled by well-meaning bureaucrats. given that we have 30 years of science and technology--and experience to draw on since the last plant was designed, and that the safety record of the industry has been excellant by comparision with others, that's probably doable.

But I would not favor restarting the construction ofnuclear plants at this time. Why? Look again at wat I wrote and ask yourself, do I reallly want to trust the oversight of constructing nuclear power plants to agencies run by the kind of people that are running these agencies at this time. Try to imagine Mike Brown (ex FEMA chief of Katrina infamy) and Haliburton, Inc. having charge of safety engineering at a nuclear power plant! Its enough to make you glow in the dark.

Answer 4

There is more to the enviro than greenhouse effect, (not meaning to minimise its importance). There is the issue of pollution, including nuclear, deforestation etc. It really isn't that simple.
John g, you are wrong. Nuclear does not have a perfect safety record by any means. Think of Chernobyl, Winscale, Five Mile Island, what do they tell you? Remember, 'If a thing can go wrong, it will go wrong." Murphy's Law.
There are many alternatives to nuclear power production. One thing people often forget is that simply saving power by using less is worth a lot, energy efficient homes appliances etc.
Don't be taken in by politicians.

Answer 5

Yes they are. Nuclear energy is carbon neutral (or at least much nearer than other traditional power sources). So environmental campaigns demanding reduced greenhouse gas emissions clearly helps the nuclear argument.

However, environmental groups themselves are generally anti, due primarily to the long unanswered question of what to do with the waste.

Answer 6

Not really. They don't like that form of alt. energy. Or any other for that matter.... (wind turbines kill birds)... the real goal is to reduce the human population of this planet by 6 billion or so...

Answer 7

Yes I think so, they have convinced me nuclear is best