Should we use nuclear power to fight global warming?

Question

A congress newsletter asked me, ergo I'm asking you.

Answer 1

Absolutely. The risks of global warming are far greater than the risks of nuclear. We know how to bury the waste safely. It's just a political problem to find a location.

But it's just one tool, not a complete solution. This is a huge problem and we'll need all our tools. Here they are:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,481085,00.html

Answer 2

NO NO NO

Nuclear can do nothing for our current warming issues

After all the debates on where and how to build new plants (which will take a few years) It will take at the very least 15 years to build and test each plant.

So it will be around 20 years before any new plants are built
do you think that, that is soon enough.

The only reason a nuclear plant is affordable is because they are heavily subssdised by the govt (you try and insure a nuclear plant - it costs billions) and then compare it to the amount that is offered to renewable energies its like comparing and ant to an elephant.

There is still no propper way to deal with waste apart from digging a hole and burying it not very safe.

In the uk if every home replaced 2 light bulbs that would take out the need for 1 nuclear plant or 4 coal plants which shows that making homes energy efficent will make a difference.

Also in 20 years all our products will consume less energy, solar, thermal and fuel cell tech will all be more advanced

The best thing we can do at the moment is to make basic changes around the home and if youve got fat kids make them walk instead of driving them everywhere lol

Answer 3

This is one area where we really need a lot of careful thought (even if we are talking about Congress, one can always hope!).

On the one hand, nuclear energy is almost ideal. It's fairly expensive--though with technological advances, new plants might be cheaper to run. But its clean-no CO2 or toxic emissions.

There are two problems.

The minor one is disposal of radioactive waste. The reason I say its minor is that we know how to do it safely--its just a pain in the a~~.

The real problem--although the track record of safety of nuclear plants is outstanding, a full scale meltdown can be an incredibly destructive event--look at Chernobyl (which, as bad as it was, was partially contained).

Statistically, its safe. You are in a lot more danger of dying in a plane crash. But--is it safe enough? That depends on the answers to 2 questions: how much can we reduce risk, given modern technology and are we willing to accept whatever slight risk (and it is slight, no matter how yu feel about this) that will remain? There will be some risk, however small--that's true of any technology; there is no such thing aas a perfect system.

My cheif concern, frankly, isn't the engineering. That's doable. But, given the current state of inadequate responsiveness, lack of accountability, and outright incompetence of our regulatory bureaucracies, can we trust them to exercise the proper oversight? Or to put it more bluntly, would you want a FEMA-like bureaucracy to be in charge of anuclear power construction sight saftey?

Answer 4

Definitely. Many people are scared of them, yet more than 100 nuclear plants operate in the U.S. everyday without incident. Using nuclear power would cut CO2 emissions greatly.

Answer 5

I say no.

Global warming is:
i) at least partly a consequence of our 'fight with nature', spearheaded by economic and scientific development. Further progres on these lines simply exascerbates the problem.
ii) part of a natural process which cannot be changed without causing further unforseeable problems.

Nuclear energy creates radioactive waste which cannot be disposed of safely, and hense is a dumb option.

Answer 6

No, we should use nuclear power because it's more efficient and less polluting than burning oil and coal.

Answer 7

I think so.