If carbon emissions are an imminent threat to our planet, why isn't nuclear being aggressively pursued,?

Question

Considering the fact that nuclear power does not generate carbon emissions in the large quantities that coal, oil or natural gas does; why hasn't the global warming alarmists demanded more nuclear power plants for our energy mix, or portfolio if you will. If you threw in there the fact that spent nuclear fuel pins can be reproccessed to extract useful uranium and plutonium to be burned again (as the French have been doing for years, successfully), nuclear seems to me the way to go.

Crabby Blind Guy

It seems to me that this is more a conservative versus liberal issue. I find it interesting that conservatives tend to back nuclear more readily than liberals. Case in point is the state of Idaho. Conservative controlled and pro nuke. As a matter of fact that is where they are building the new national lab that solely researches nuclear. This was due in part by the diligence of the conservative leadership of the government. I have not seen the same support from the liberal isle, only lip service.

Answer 1

That's just it. Carbon emissions aren't an imminent threat to our planet! The global warming alarmists know this, too. They just want us to think that rising levels of CO2 in the atmosphere are going to destroy all life as we know it, so we'll stop driving our cars and junk like that. It's all a big hoax if you ask me.

Answer 2

Nuclear has gotten a bad rap.

There are two problems:

1) reactors blowing up. This won't happen accidentally but is the reason everyone fears.

2) disposal of the waste. This is the liberal issue. The government keeps on trying to build storage facilities with a deadline. If at the deadline the work isn't finished, then the government traditionally likes to use the facility anyway.

This leads to pollution problems of the worst kind. Ground water poisoning.

Answer 3

Nuclear IS aggressively being pursued in France, which now gets over 75% of its electricity from nuclear. And it is being revived in some other places too, including the United States. I just read in today's paper than at least one electric utility has applied for a permit to build two new nuclear reactors. The first application for building a new nuclear plant in the United States in 30 years. But Germany has comitted to shutting down all nuclear plants in that country in the next few years. Ironically they will end up buying more electricity from France to make up the shortfall.

Answer 4

Global warming alarmists are demanding more nuclear energy. The public has become more open to the idea of new nuclear reactors being built. The nuclear option is back on the table. The first reactor to open since 1996 will split its first atom in 2013, look for more to follow soon after. Most presidential candidates from both parties have nuclear energy incentives on their agenda.

Answer 5

The de facto moratorium on new nuclear plants started due to legitimate safety concerns. In the 30 years since, though, we've learned a lot--meaning those concerns can be adequately addressed.

But there is another factor--the special interests (the fossil fuel industry). The coal interests are--and will continue--to do all they can to block a resumption of investment in nuclear power, jsut as the oil companies are spending millions on lobbying and campaign contributions to block actions like requiring better fulel efficiency in automobiles.

We have modern technologies--from nucler to solar and wind power to biofuels--that can stop carbon emissions. Instead we continue to rely on what is essentially obsolete 19th century technology, with the sole beneficiaries being wealthy special interests who are interested only in maintaining their profits and power.

Answer 6

Because george bush loves nuclear power.