Whats a good way to promote nuclear energy at the grassroots level?

Question

To me it looks like everyone else has aluminum can and paper recycling covered, and you can buy composting supplies off Ebay. The local Toyota dealer has a waiting list for Priuses and they charge over sticker price to boot.

So with a cofounder of Greenpeace coming out of the closet and promoting nuclear energy as the best large scale way to fight Global Warming, how can I start or join that movement at the grassroots level?

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

Answer 1

Its going to be a tough sell. The reason isn't that nuclear energy isn't good for the environment--it is. But the safety issues and fears are well-founded--as Chernobyl showed so horribly clearly.

That does not mean we should reject nuclear energy. But--for the sake of our own skins, as well as everyone else, we have to be realistic: there are real questions and issues that must be resolved--and not by political hype and grassroots activism. Solid research and engineering are the tools needed here.

There are 2 concerns. One is probably already "solved"--storage of nuclear waste. As long as security and proper procedures are adhered to, I doubt there's a problem. Frankly, though, I wouldn't trust the incompetants in Washington these days not to screw iit up.

The other is the possibility ofamajor failure like Chernobyl. That is where we need a lot of research. We did learn a lot from that disaster. One of the things I see is something that WASN'T thought possible prior to the accident. The USSR was able, even in the midst of the disaster, to build a fairly effective outer containment structure (at the cost of several hundred lives--people who knowingly sacrificed themselves to stop an even worse disaster--they havn't gotten the honor they deserve). But the important thing here is that is shows a way to design a system that will contain radiation even in the case of a complete meltdown. A lot of research still remains--but if that is indeed feasible, as a lot of engineers believe--then we can have a more than sufficient assurance of safety.

But--don't expect a lot of grassroots support until those questions are resolved. You won't get it--not from most people, including me--and I'm essentially sympathetc tothe whole idea.

Answer 2

With the terrible accidents at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, it will take a lot of convincing for the public to accept nuclear power. I personally feel that this is the way to go. As long as the power companies can convince the public that nuclear power is very safe and someone can come up with a way to dispose of the waste from the plants, I think people would also realize that this is the way to go. I also think that those big turbine wind towers are a good idea. I was unaware that the cofounder of Greenpeace is now promoting nuclear power, interesting.

Answer 3

There are quite a few intense damaging aspects. the 1st is the possibility of an twist of fate or sabotage. the possibility is low however the outcomes are vast. the 2nd possibility is that the value of dealing with the waste will coach to be so intense that what regarded economically smart will coach economically disastrous. This looks to me the two relatively in all possibility and extremely intense. My situation arises from the actuality that we don't even yet be attentive to the thank you to handle the waste so can have not any theory concerning the value. Many recommendations have been floated yet none have been sufficiently captivating to have been tried so the stockpile of waste keeps growing to be. The third possibility is that the uranium etc will exchange into gradually greater costly to discover and extract (purely like oil). that's certainly no longer a possibility yet a fact and so the smart direction is to no longer exchange into reliant on nuclear gasoline yet to strengthen sustainable components of potential truly. the project with fossil fuels such as nuclear is they seem inexpensive and considerable in the start yet exchange into costly as quickly as you start to count on them. in addition they have mandatory makes use of and so the final element we could desire to continuously do is waste them on potential era truly of sustainable components. Uranium, oil and gasoline are irreplaceable so extractors should not be allowed to take them affordably.

Answer 4

Why nuclear? It's not a good option since we're kinda short on fissionable elements and switching to nuclear power on a large scale will lead to us running out in about 50 years or less.

Geothermal power is the way to go, if you don't know about it then please look into it. Geothermal is also cheaper (and that's not even adding in the fact that properly storing or disposing of nuclear waste is expensive), the nuclear industry is just looking for a handout on this one.

Answer 5

Wow do you really think that's the way to go ? do you think all the little 3rd world country's can handle it or are you just talking about us using it ? I really don't believe country's like Iran that are building there's will be responsible for the waist that it produces they would probably send it over hear as weapons against us or bury it in a tin can . I think we have enough co2 problems that's all we need is radiation problems . Count me out of that idea.

Answer 6

Farron is wrong. We are not short at all of fissionable materials. It's the most practical energy source available. You can start by calling your elected officials and telling them to include it in our energy policy.