English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore told a congressional panel in April that "nuclear energy is the only non-greenhouse gas-emitting energy source that can effectively replace fossil fuels and satisfy global demand." Please see:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2005-06-12-global-warming-cover_x.htm?POE=NEWISVA

Nuclear Energy was popular back in the 70's, but the three mile island scare and Chernobyl show that this energy source if handled incorrectly can be far more deadly than what will happen if global warming is real.

Plus you have the problem of what to do with the nuclear fuel after it is used. It takes about 1,000 years for it to decay enough to be safe. Yucca Mountain is a political hot bed for everyone.

So since Nuclear fuel has long term issues and coal, gas, and oil fired engines increase global warming, do we need to go back to the horse and buggy age to stop this problem?

I don't believe the UN report and have a hard time with the whole issue.

2007-02-02 02:50:10 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Politics

9 answers

The primary group of scientist activists behind the AGW movement is the Union of Concerned Scientists which started out at an anti-nuke group back when the climate scare was global cooling.

Moore is correct - anyone with any familiarity with the energy industry knows that only nuclear could replace coal and natural gas. I love wind power but there's not enough wind to possibly supply more than 20% of today's base power levels and it's more likely to be 6-10%. And you can't use wind for peaking power because it's not reliable, thus you can't replace gas with wind.

That does in fact leave only nuclear. These clowns' opposition to both nuclear AND fossil fuels shows their true objective - just like Pat Robertson thinks a church-going, sex-for-procreation-only, no-divorces, heterosexual lifestyle is the only moral lifestyle and seeks to impose it on the rest of us, these clowns believe that the Unabomber's lifestyle is the only moral lifestyle and they seek to impose it on us.

2007-02-02 02:58:00 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2 1

There's no evidence that nukes could reverse global warming, nor would we want it to. It could decrease the man-made contribution to greenhouse gases - the rest is up to the Earth. Storing the waste will not be a problem in the short term (say the next 50 years) and there are technologies currently under development to reduce the radioactivity to a point comparable to the radioactive ore from which we first got the fuel. But the fact that we have very little "practice" in the nuclear industry, we don't have much opportunity to test new technologies to further improve nuclear efficiencies. A vibrant nuclear industry could even open the door to the cleanest of renewable energy sources: fusion!

2016-05-24 05:10:01 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Global Warming will come not in spite of you and others like you not believing, but because you do not believe. You are like those people who stay behind during a hurricane despite the warnings. You simply choose to not believe it will be as bad as they say. By the time you realize you have made a mistake by staying, it is too late to save yourself.

Nuclear power is what we have to replace fossil fuels and still meet our needs. It has been handled safely and can continue to be so. There are many viable technical solutions for the nuclear waste issue. It will just take the political will to move forward.

Just as Al Gore's film is titled, it is "An Inconvenient Truth.

2007-02-02 03:05:05 · answer #3 · answered by lunatic 7 · 1 0

Nuclear power is safe and the most efficient method of generating electricity. Wind farms, solar and most other "alternate" technologies have draw backs that outweigh the benefits, the biggest drawback being dependent upon the weather for maximum production. While solar and wind can be used for small scale residential uses or less industrial areas such as farm it cannot provide the necessary power for moderate to heavy industrial uses.

There can be no comprehensive energy policy that looks at reducing the use of fossil fuels that does not include expanding the use of nuclear power. It is used safely in almost every developed and developing country.

2007-02-02 03:04:37 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2 0

Nuclear energy should be looked into, I mean we developed the bomb but are last in the nuclear arena today? Two incidences should not deter us from using a cheap souce of energey. There is no other use for this meterial so it is fool hardy to cast it aside.

You can discount the UN's report, but you have to realize that coal plants cannot be good for the air you breath. Nuclear power is much cleaner and cheaper and we should have the know how in this country to use it safely.

2007-02-02 02:57:54 · answer #5 · answered by JFra472449 6 · 0 0

Bob, son of Adam, less harmful ways of generating electricity are on the new horizon. Advances in wind generators will soon increase the wind as an energy source. Currently, 1% of the electrical power in the USA comes from wind. By 2012, that will increase to 20%.
A new product will soon be marketed that will make most homes energy independent, roofing material that generates solar electricity. Within 100 years, every rooftop across the country will be part of the power grid.

2007-02-02 03:02:22 · answer #6 · answered by .... . .-.. .-.. --- 4 · 0 1

Here's what we need and the world needs to end this crap solar and wind energy not nukes that are killers of 150 mile radius very dangerous but no they just don't see how simple the simpilist sources are they can't figure it out but wind and sun are the only choice and what is best for the earth

2007-02-02 03:00:51 · answer #7 · answered by sally sue 6 · 0 0

He meant to replace Coal and diesel power plants, not fossil fuels in vehicles. There is no way Nuclear power can replace fossil fuels in automobiles, aircraft, busses, ambulances, etc.

Nuclear can replace coal and diesel in electric power plants, but Solar and hydroelectric power plants are cheaper, and there is no radioactive waste, and no risk of meltdown. I don't mean solar cells, but mirrors used to concentrate solar power to drive steam turbines to generate power. Solar panels are too inefficient.

2007-02-02 03:04:27 · answer #8 · answered by Darth Vader 6 · 0 0

search "magnet motor" or perpetual motion...

we have other technologies.... the oil companies own them,,,,

2007-02-02 02:59:20 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers