Have Greenpeace committed a blunder by getting a Judge to rule against nuclear power?

Question

I have been informed by experts on this subject that nuclear power is our best option in future years, most importantly because alternative sources of power like coal and oil are contributing massively to global warming and the horrendous results on humanity this will cause. I am also advised nuclear power causes only a tiny percentage of the alfa, beta, gamma radiation we all absorb daily, most of which comes from natural sources like the sun which we can not avoid getting into our bodies. So how can Greenpeace who claim to be concerned with the future of Earth and people support the opposite. Do they actually know what they are on about when they spend sums going to court.

Answer 1

This is an excellent question. As was said by the Minister today, Green Peace are apparently always opposed to anything with word "nuclear" in it apparently because of the nuclear bomb's horrendous destruction and they do seem not to know "what they on about" when talking about peaceful use of nuclear energy!

Green Peace seem now to be admitting they have made a blunder in their assertion that they are not after all criticising nuclear power but criticising the government for inadequate consultation on whether nuclear power stations should be built, having apparently just woken up to some of the facts Wamibo outlines?

But time is on nobody's side in deciding where we are going to get our future energy needs from, now everybody is discovering global warming is indeed a real threat to this Planet and coal and oil power stations cause it but nuclear power stations do not. Nuclear waste is a problem but hopefully can be resolved, while it seems the harmful effects on this Planet of global warming can not be solved because it is worldwide, not just something within the U.K.

A further consultation period will be of little value and end up concluding the same as the last one with an additional huge cost on the taxpayer - money that could be so much more wisely spent other than on a pointless consultation exercise.

YES Greenpeace have made a huge blunder in their continued mischief making and served nobody's interests, and the sooner they cease to exist the better for mankind.

Answer 2

"...Whether nuclear power plants present a problem while running normally is a side issue to the devastation they can cause if there is an accident. And no one can be certain that nothing will go wrong..."

If is the biggest word in the English language. If Lord Nelson had turned to talk to someone during the battle, he might have lived longer. If Hitler had been admitted to Art School, we might never have fought WWII. If if if...

No no one can be certain that anything WILL go wrong, either. Perhaps Greenpeace could lobby authorities and companies to better prepare for contingencies than be so adversarial. I know I'll get thumbs down votes, but, I used to work for Greenpeace, and am unimpressed by their lack of vision.

Answer 3

The problem is, a lot of "experts" are assessing in terms of efficiency rather than environmentalism. Whether nuclear power plants present a problem while running normally is a side issue to the devastation they can cause if there is an accident. And no one can be certain that nothing will go wrong. This is what Greenpeace have a problem with. I think if a there were a British Chernobyl more people would agree with them.

Answer 4

i have worked in nuclear power stations, not just one but a number of them. i have found that the people who work in them are not supermen, they are just like us. by that i mean they get tired, they get complacent and they make mistakes. think of your job and what you do everyday,sometimes you let things slide by, you are not in the mood or you'll do it tomorrow. they're just the same sort of people as you and it leads to accidents. there have been accidents and mishaps and the public have or never will hear about them. thankfully they have been minor ones. if we engage on a major program of building nuclear power stations we will magnify the likelihood of a major accident. as so far most nuclear sites in this country have been publicly run they have been reasonably tightly regulated, the next generation proposed will be built and run by private companies, ( with a lot of taxpayers money though). they will not be so tightly regulated because they have to make a profit and regulation slows do and restricts the profitability. bit by bit the regulation will be chipped away as the managers and owners of these sites complain a whine to the government of the day and a business friendly civil service will happily give way. it happens now with the oil business, pharmaceutical and bio-engineering. gradually standards will slip and there may be the possibility of a major accident. you may say that the nuclear industry in the US is private and has no problems, (debatable),but the penalties for contravention there are far more draconian and apply to the whole management from the top to the bottom. any deaths through negligence will mean that directors will face charges of corporate homocide. in the UK they will not, as always the blame will filter downwards. this is not a deterent for slack management, so there will be slack management and there will be a drive for profit over safety because the responsible parties will not suffer any real consequences. who will pay for the clean up after a nuclear accident, it will be the taxpayer not the company or its shareholders. as with all of the present PFI deals it will be the business that will make the money and us that take the risk. to be honest putting people in charge of a nuclear power station is a bad idea because they are just human. greed and incompetance will win out in the end.

Answer 5

No they haven't and here's why:
1) Nuclear power is a very efficient source of energy but and it is a very big but!, it still leaves behind a waste. This is a waste which is very dangerous as we all know. Where is this waste going to be kept? Will it be safe? Do you think that anyone in the UK would like the depository near them? If not where could it be sighted? Perhaps abroad? It gets a little complicated.

2) This for me is the most important issue. There has never been a full investigation into the true costs of Nuclear power. The Government of the time always down plays the cost as you would expect. Nobody has ever come up with estimate of the cost for dealing with the waste that is going to hang around for millions of years. It can therefore be said that in the long term it is not the best value for money.

We as human beings are beginning to realise that we need to take care of our futures as well as our present. Nuclear power is a short term solution to a long term problem. The UK needs to invest in a wide range of renewables in order to deal with its energy needs and the government needs to grow up!!

Answer 6

Hello,

(ANS) Frankly, you've totally misunderstood whats going on here!!

No.1 The green peace court case has nothing to do with nuclear power directly. The green peace case was about the fact that the labour government under Tony Blair said they would consult with the British Public about the issue of nuclear power stations. That is we the public would get a chance to decide on the future or not of nuclear power stations as a method to produce power in the future. The Blair government failed to keep its promise to debate the issue thats what the court case was about. Green Peace WON!! the case and showed the government had NOT kept its promise to include the public in any decision.

No.2 The problem with Nuclear power stations is that whilst they do indeed produce high quality, & high amounts of electricity (nuclear power is about 10% of the total UK energy production) and YES! they are extremely low in CO2 output. The nuclear waste that these power stations produces IS a very real problem as spent nuclear fuel rods contain highly radioactive substances which are dangerous to human health and have a half life that lasts thousands of years, so sorry the Nuclear energy option isnt problem free in the future either.

**This is why the siting of nuclear power stations has remained so hughly controversional, & will always remain so. Much of the nuclear waste from power stations has to be encased in concrete & glass and buried hundreds of feet down mine shafts well away from humans. This is the best way we have found to safely store nuclear power stations waste output. It remains a really serious problem and the amounts of waste are only increasing over time too.

**The nuclear power station & electrcity from nuclear process's has to be included into a balanced mixture of energy sources. We cannot do without nuclear power wheather we like it or not.

IR

Answer 7

Not too long ago a container came through one of the ports of the UK. When opened they found the bodies of 22 Chinese people that were trying to illegally enter Britain. I wonder if digitsis or anyone else that disputes global warming due to CO2 can tell me what killed them. Yes cows and other things contribute but when you see traffic and factories churning out CO2 the way they do, there can be no doubt. Of coarse you could say well I will not be here. To the Americans that agree with ther govt. not joining the rest of us I can only think thank God you have another political party and I hope they come in soon.

Answer 8

why don't they spend there time and money on ideas that will give us a sustainable power source all they seem to come up with are negatives to nuclear power coal and oil maybe all the hot air they spout can be used in some way they have enough of it. Get real greenpeace we don't want to go backwards we need to move forwards

Answer 9

Greenpeace? Don't make me laugh...

If the doomsayers are correct, and fossil fuel consumption is behind climate change, our current power production is the main source of the CO2 that is claimed to be behind it all..

The Green lobby seem to have it that the answer lies in wind power. However, a wind turbine barely makes enough power to run the energy-saving bulb in my hallway, and just ruins the countryside and chops up birds.

Otherwise, Greeen like to target motorists, but compared to power generation, transportation emissions are almost beggar-all.

Nuclear isn't perfect, but it provides plenty of power, and very little emissions. There is a risk from terror activities, for example, but we have to work and try to minimise such impact, because there's no other practical and effective solution.

Groups such as Greenpeace clearly don't appear to live in the real world, and would happily have us all back to the stone ages tomorrow if they could, it appears. Power stations have very high emissions at the moment,and they will just have to accept that Nuclear is the most practical way forward available.

Wind turbines and solar panels won't do us any favours whatsoever.

Answer 10

If you think nuclear power is cheap, clean and safe read 'The Nuclear Barons'. And this book was written before Chernobyl and lots of other less drastic occurrences.

Clear felling is not about thinning trees BTW it is about clearing trees completely, that's why its called 'clear'. Even thinning trees out changes the ecology making the habitat unsuitable for many species. One large untouched wood is worth a hundred times its area in isolated trees or copses.

The sheer ignorance of these anti-environmentalsts is frightening to behold.