Is nuclear power green or not?

Question

Is there another practical means to generate the world's power needs? Fossil fuel based power must be worse, since it has immediate greenhouse gas impacts, and the total volume of the world's nuclear waste wouldn't fill a soccer stadium. If run properly, do nuclear plants impact the environment?

Answer 1

Depends on your definition of "Green!" If you are looking for a source of energy that produces NO by-products, get your head out of your butt! *grin* Even wind mills have by-products in terms of constructing them. Then there will be parts to replace due to wear-n-tear. Nuclear is green! It's the Greenies who don't think it is green enough due to the need to dispose of the spent but still radioactive fuel. The jury is still out on whether or not producing CO2 is bad for the environment, regardless of what ALGORE tells you.

Can anyone tell me how much CO2 the earth produces on its own by way of volcanos? Once you get THAT number, then we can discuss how much CO2 we humans produce.

Answer 2

This is amazing. I’m astounded to see the words, ‘green industries, including nuclear power’ in the Guardian. Well, well, well, so using a bit of magic green-spin, nuclear power is now green. Now I look forward to seeing how much green-spin it’ll take to make nuclear waste green …… and if the Guardian will ever have the guts to debunk the conspiracy theory that there is a connection between the two. Hypocrite – I wonder if they’re ‘ carbon-capturing ‘ ( whatever that means in the context of coal ) the transportation from Poland.

Answer 3

Maybe the volume of all the world's waste would fit in a soccer stadium, but you wouldn't want to be anywhere near that stadium. Plus, you would have created one of the biggest targets ever for terrorism. The truth about nuclear energy is a sad one. Although it is probably cleaner then fossil fuels, you have to mine and refine the uranium and store all the waste somewhere. It doesn't come anywhere close to being cost-efficient. The nuclear power infrastructure in the US cost around $1 trillion, most of it heavily subsidized by taxpayers. Incidentally, that is about how much we would have to spend to build a nationwide hydrogen infrastructure. Nuclear power is about as profitable as the war in Iraq. We could have gotten cheaper energy by burning wood to heat water and spin generators. Many people will point to France as an Atomic Heaven, necause they get 75%+ of their energy from nukes. However, they are cutting back on that because of expense and waste, and are planning to use renewables such as solar and wind to replace it. In the future, renewable energy will make up more and more of our power generation. We have the technology now and are rapidly building the capacity. Texas has over 2 gigawatts of wind power and counting.

Answer 4

I like nuclear, but there are other ways. Solar, wind and wave energy are just coming into the picture, less than 5% of energy in the U.S.

Yes, you could put the worlds nuclear waste in a soccer stadium, but you'd have to build a soccer stadium that would last ten times longer than the time from christ to now.

No government, or civilization has lasted as long as the time from when you store highly radioactive waste to the time that it's safe.

We can do it, and I think we need to because the energy crisis will soon become severe enough to justify it, but we have to also keep the big picture in mind.

Answer 5

As you would know, climate change and global warming is a key concern regarding the future of our planet. Our society needs to shift from its reliance on fossil fuels and generate alternate energy sources to reduce greenhouse gas emissions dramatically over the coming decades. However there will never be one energy source or 'silver bullet' to supply the planet with all its power. It will require a variety of renewable sources such as wind, solar, geothermal and wave power to provide our power needs with zero emissions. Nuclear can be part of the solution and to produce power from nuclear is emission free, however let's not forget about all the emissions required to mine, extract, refine and transport uranium to supply the nuclear power plants! Nuclear is also expensive, takes many years to commission plants, creates radioactive waste (which lasts thousands of years) and is dangerous when in the wrong hands (e.g. using plutonium to make weapons). So nuclear could be an alternate energy source, but relying on it 100% would not help the climate dilemma and still have environmental and social problems associated with it. Our society needs to progress with renewables, they are unlimited sources of power (unlike fossil fuels and nuclear), they are becoming cheaper to establish and involve no emissions to generate power. I hope this addresses your query!

Answer 6

There is a better way and a cost effective way to generate enough electricity to eliminate over 90% the use of fossil fuels in the United States. That is windpower.

The capital cost of the wind turbines needed to accomplish this goal would be approximately equal to the amount of money spent on the Iraq war.

Wind power, unlike solar photovoltaic power is one of the very few renewable energy sources that is also cost competitive with electricity produced in coal fired and nuclear power plants.

Approximately 2 million wind turbines of 1.8 megawatt capacity each, operating only 30% of the time could replace most of the electricity that is now generated by fossil fuels in the United States. and there would be enough electricity left over to power all of the automobiles in the United States, either as electric cars or cars run on hydrogen that was produced electrolytically by separating water to its elements of hydrogen and oxygen.

You would avoid the waste disposal problem of nuclear power plants and you would eleiminate the very toxic waste of coal ash from coal fired power plants. You would also eleiminate the souce of the majority of the greenhouse gases in the United States.

This would also make the United States self sufficient with respect to energy and would eliminate the need for imported oil.

This would not only improve the economy because it would improve our balance of payments, but it would also defund the terrorists because it would dramatically reduce the price and the demand for oil from the middle eastern countries.


The additional benefit is that this would be a model for the other countries in the world. In particular the developing countries. They could easily produce wind turbines using existing technology and dramatically reduce their need for power generated by fossil fuels and for imported oil.

This would also send the message to other countries in the world that you do not need nuclear power plants to generate electricity. This is very important from the issue of proliferation of nuclear weapons.

The same technology used to produce nuclear fuel is used to produce fissionable material for nuclear weapons. Any country that can make fuel nuclear for power plants can make fissionable fuel for nuclear weapons.

The big obstacle to making nuclear weapons is obtaining the fissionable material itself. The rest is relatively straight forward. Then it only becomes a question of how efficient do you want your nuclear weapon to be. The better your engineering, the more efficient you nuclear weapon.

For an investment in wind power that is approximately equal to the amount of money that was squandered on the Iraq war, you could not only solve the problems that led to the Iraq war, you could also reduce terrorism dramatically because you would dramatically reduce the amount of money available for its funding, you would also dramatically reduce greenhouse gas emissions without destroying your economy in the process

And... unlike the Iraq war, you would also be successful!

Answer 7

The problem with Nuclear power is the disposal of the waste - the energy is very efficient the waste is not.

Answer 8

once a reasonable solution to the waste is figured out, it is green.
until then, it generates far to much waste that has to be disposed of to be considered green. but it produces far less emissions than fossil fuels.

its a give and take solution to power source.
it has tremendous capabilities if the money is focused on research to deal with the waste.

Answer 9

If we had nuclear powered cars ,we could solve the gas and oil crisis

Other than that, the only thing that is green is Kryptonite !

Answer 10

Yes, but... I would rather go with a different route. Neclear seems, uh, hazardous.