Isn't nuclear power better then burning coal for electricity?

Question

Why are enviormentalists against nuclear power, when it doesn't give off the smog causing air pollution or so called green house gases that burning coal for power does?

Answer 1

Many influential environmentalists, Stuart Brand and Tony Blair among them, are advocates of nuclear power. I am a physicist and I am too. Nuclear power is clean, cheap, and reliable. When we consider breeder reactors, it is almost renewable too! If it were not for 3 objections, nobody would oppose it.



Three main objections to fission plants are: 1) the plants are unsafe, 2) nuclear material may be used by terrorists, and 3) waste disposal is a problem.

Personally, I believe that modern control systems, intrinsically safe designs, and HID (human interfaces) along the lines of video games can make 3 Mile Island type upsets
a thing of the past. Safeguarding nuclear materials is necessary, of course. Today the problem of stray weapons is much greater than possible theft of commercial fuel. Many scientists (and I) believe that Yucca mountain is a fine repository for nuclear waste for the next million years.

I am disappointed to learn that the UCS, which I respect, is on the other side! Read their fine analysis (but believe me).

Answer 2

Best short term solution is investing money into renewable energy sources such as wind farms and wave energy ( coos county, oregeon) these are proven technologies and would be a much better investment than all the proposed coal plants to power our homes, and businesses. The technology for car transportation just isn't quite there yet in a commercially feasible way but we have proven technologies that could cut our CO2 production to targeted levels with the first two, 2nd generation LED's ( all my livingroom lights, on the most when I'm home, I replaced 7, 50 watt halogen lights with 7, 3 watt led's with no difference in light output or color. Hard to find but online search finds several companies, and the best part is that they last for years, I have vaulted ceiling about 18ft tall so not replacing the bulbs every year more than made up the cost and aggravation. Lastly car choice, My parents who have 2 cars bought them with different needs, My father who commutes 30 miles a day has a high effeciency diesel, my mother who does all the shopping etc, has a honda suv. Granted the best solution is two high efficienct cars would be better but given the number of two car families it makes sense to give priority to fuel efficiency to at least one. I know too many huge 2 suv families.
Source(s):

Answer 3

They're worried about storage of nuclear waste which can last for hundreds(or more) of years. The problem with nuclear waste storage have not been completely solved. And also it's way to easy to run covert weapons program for countries like Iran or others.

It is cleaner/efficient and I would prefer nuclear power in the US. But theres some major problems;management of nuclear waste, security of nuclear materials and proliferation of nuclear weapons around the world.

Renewable energy like wind and solar don't bring that kind of ugly problems, but its pretty weak right now and R&D will take some time and money.

Answer 4

There's a movie called Who Killed The Electric Car? You should watch it. THE CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT killed it, is what it tells me, but only because they forced it to live. Kinda like an aborted fetus thats been resuscitated, eh? How do you like that analogy? Yeah, it never should have been 11 years ago, but it ran well, low maintenance, fast, a real marvel of American ingenuity. Its makers killed it though, AS RIGHTLY THEY SHOULD. It wasn't fair of them to have to make it in the first place! Today though, people want cars that ran so well and were so cheap to drive, so we'll see. Its not really about saving the environment, just saving money with gas $3.00 a gallon and maybe a little sticking it to the Arabs that, big surprise, run all the gas stations now.

Answer 5

Short answer YES

Environmentalists and the anti nuclear crowd have been putting forth propoganda since the 1960's. The 2nd and 3rd generations still believe it. The mass media has done little to dispute the original lies because clean, safe and cheap does not sell newspapers or movies.
The anti nuclear crowd and environmentalists are very vengeful - sort of like islamic fundamentalists- if you say something agaisnt them they will issue a fatwa and try to have you killed - some groups cannot take criticism.

Answer 6

Nuclear power is much better for the environment than coal. It would be the preferred option for countries with energy shortages, such as China and India, except that coal plants are comparatively cheap and fast to build.
In the U.S., it has been shown repeatedly that we get much more bang for the buck by implementing high-efficiency technology than by building new capacity. We have at least 30% slack that can be provided by high-efficiency lighting and better building insulation before we need to add capacity.

Answer 7

Yes, but nobody wants one in their back yard. A minor incident at a nuclear power plant could put a small amount of radioactivity into the atmosphere. Everyone is afraid of getting cancer from the release of radioactivity.

Answer 8

Nuclear creates waste that takes thousands of years to degrade and is just as dangerous to the human race as the consequences of climate change

Answer 9

Environmentalists are against everything except living in a teepee and hunting buffalo and living off the land

Answer 10

There are thought-provoking answers to these questions and more in a writing titled "Ten Deceptions of Nuclear Energy" which can be read at:

http://www.freeread.com/archives/ten_deceptions.php