Green Peace wanted nuclear reactors baned in the 70s?

Question

Enviromentalist want back as "clean energy". Why the change of heart?

Fantastic link 3dm

Hope you tried 3dm's link Nick.

Answer 1

Here you go.

Today's enviros consider him an eco-Judas.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/14/AR2006041401209.html

Answer 2

Well because the parameters changed:

- in the 70´s the nuclear safety wasn´t what it is now

- the nuclear energy had a bad press since most radioactive material was for military purpose and hiroshima and nagasaki were not that long ago

- we did not know about the possible impact of global warming.

- the demand of energy worldwide was anyway low (there was no idea that China will emerge).

- fear of what is new (call it conservatism)

- not a lot of people knew about the whole effects of burning coal (and that it releases more radioactivity than the equivalent through nuclear power)

Answer 3

nuclear energy is about the only efficient, low emission, clean energy out there. hydro electric is good, but a river can only be dammed up so many times before it starts to run dry. wind turbines are great when there is wind blowing, therefore it's not dependable. solar panels have such low efficiency, 18% at best, it's almost not worth spending money installing it. there are also other alternative energy ideas, but none is been proven to be beneficial in the mass bases. but of course, nuclear energy has draw backs. 3-mile island and chernobyl are everybody's mind where they hear "nuclear power plant". if it's well regulated and controlled, nuclear power is almost a free energy.

Answer 4

collective paranoia from chernobyl caused much of the anti-nuclear feelings. a huge amount of radiation being spewed into the environment, causing health problems, kind of has that effect on people.
If you didn't notice, most of the environmental protests against nuclear energy involved them painting big cracks on the reactors. Now most of the protests come from communities, that don't want the waste dumped in their back yards.

Since it has been decades since Chernobyl, people are starting to relax about nuclear energy, and realize that once a feasible solution to the waste is found, it is a much cleaner energy solution, as long as the lowest bidder doesn't try to cut corners while building the things.

Answer 5

It comes down to a choice of what's available. If renewable energy was a viable option then I think pretty much everyone would go for it, at the moment it's too small scale to cater for our energy demands.

Fossil fuels are a finite resource, once they're gone that's it, we can't produce any more of them. It makes both economical and environmental sense to conserve them.

Nuclear power does have drawbacks but they're not as bad as running out of energy altogether or contributing to the destruction of the environment.

Answer 6

The change of heart is because global warming is real and a much more serious threat.

If you want details, here is a good book by a respected scientist and environmentalist:

http://www.amazon.com/Revenge-Gaia-Earths-Climate-Humanity/dp/0465041698/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/102-4175685-1873758?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1182972456&sr=8-1

EDIT Re 3DMs link. "Enviros" think he's right, for the right reason:

"More than 600 coal-fired electric plants in the United States produce 36 percent of U.S. emissions -- or nearly 10 percent of global emissions -- of CO2, the primary greenhouse gas responsible for climate change."

Answer 7

They have made many requirements on us that has cost us plenty. They forced the change in the car energy system . It did have good efficiency but they made the change that is costing us mileage.

Answer 8

3DM's link is a keeper for sure.