Why are the Global Warming Alarmists Deniers of Nuclear Power?

Question

No emissions, unlike even natural gas power plants. Japan has 8, tiny Switzerland has 6, how many in the US? All ancient and inefficient, like the ONE in California.

I would like to add one thing about terrorism. Nuclear reactor containment walls are strong enough to withstand a jet plane traveling 650 mph which only leave a small dent in the concrete.

Three Mile Island did leak a tiny amount of radioactive gas, but less than the natural amount of radon which is underneath many homes.
No injury to plants, animals, humans from Pennsylvania, or any other US reactor. I can't answer for the inept Russians.

Answer 1

You don't get it. Yes, nuclear power is clean and safer than a car ride to work.

But reducing co2 isn't what "global warming" is about.

If we cut co2 emissions by 50%, how would politicians be able to raise your taxes and control what size home you lived in? How could the force you into a car they thought was good for you?

And what would these pseudo scientist do? They would be out of a job.

No one wants to end "global warming", they just want to 'control' it by controlling you.

Answer 2

I see where you're coming from, and environmental alarmists or people in general don't want another scare like Three-Mile-Island or Chernobyl, or the one we had in PA. There were too many scares that currently the administration does not want nuclear. FYI, France has even more like 25 nuclear power plants .They had to switch to nuclear because they didn't have an alternative fuel source, like coal, or oil. So they went nuclear and the plants can last up to 20+ years. Also, there has been talks about building more nuclear power plants in the US. The administration brings up that they make "prime" targets, so no state wants that in their backyard, so until the price of oil goes too high, we'll sit pretty using fossil fuels.

Answer 3

I think alarmist should be used for someone who worries about something that hasn't been proved to be a real problem. virtually all credible scientists, that aren't working for the oil companies, are agreed that global warming is real and will be a global problem in the near future.

As for why we shouldn't go nuclear. Nuclear power plants may not give off CO2 emissions from their operations. But their waste is one of the most toxic substances on the planet. There is no safe way to deal with nuclear waste. It doesn't matter if you put it into a nuclear storage facility for a thousand years, it will still be toxic. And when the storage facility ages and becomes unsuitable for storage, how do you safely move old nuclear containers.
Living with the looming possibility of a nuclear reactor disaster, like Three Mile Island, or Chernobyl, or the possibility of nuclear waste spills or the proliferation of nuclear weapons or dirty bombs, these aren't things that I am willing to live with, and not something I want my children to live with.
I'd rather live with CO2 than nuclear waste, but in reality there are other choices that are better than either of these.

Answer 4

Like, Andrew wrote, don't give up on Nuclear Power!
India is using American designs to build a large number of Nuclear Powerplants. If the American design is safe in India, why would it not be safe in America?
But, prudence dictates that we let India go first, and prove the design is safe. We can afford a 4-year wait, until the next Presidential election in 2012. The one in 2008 will be won by a Democrat, no doubt (most Demos are against Atomic Energy, I wonder why?)

Answer 5

I'm a global warming realist, and I don't "deny" nuclear power - rather a hard thing to deny, wouldn't you agree?

But to answer your question, somebody like you might well consider me a global warming alarmist, with deep reservations about nuclear power.

Several reasons:

1) Contractors building the things are prone to do it on the cheap, rendering safe designs dangerous in practice.

2) Disposing of the waste can be a real hassle, especially if it is done on the cheap.

3) They are very expensive to build compared with conventional alternatives. So much so that they all have to be subsidized by government at pretty much every stage of their operations to compete with conventionally generated electricity.

4) While the nuclear process is clean from a C02 point of view, the reactor itself is not.

5) The potential for disaster happening, and the reality that it has happened. Although Coal fired stations emit radioactive material and other pollution which has a big effect. This factor concerns me less than most.

6) One mans waste nuclear material is another mans bomb making equipment.

7) Other better, cheaper alternatives exist now.

8) There isn't actually all that much Uranium around, so in any long term sense, the only viable nuclear solution is fast breeder reactors which are intrinsically more dangerous than GWR's etc, as seen in 3 mile island.

Answer 6

It does not really matter what the alarmists think or skeptics think about nuclear energy. When the US government deregulated the electrical power generation industry, it sealed nuclear energies fate. Now it is up to corporations to take the initiative to build nuclear power plants, and since power plants that utilize internal combustion to generate power are easier to construct and are easier to receive government approval at federal and local levels, there will be very few capitalists that want to face the financial liabilities associated with an accident or the complications of long term nuclear waste storage.

If the US federal government really wants to utilize nuclear energy for it's power generation needs for the future, it must regulate it and protect it's industries from the potential liability.

.
.

Answer 7

All 'global warming alarmists' are different, this 'alarmist' accepts the neccesity for them, most 'alarmists' do, In fact, traditionally it has nothing to do with 'alarmists'. It was more the preserve of environmentalists before global warming was so high on the agenda.

Nuclear technology has a carbon footprint associated with transportation and purification. Uranium also has a very poor record in relation to its mining in an unregulated, corruption ridden third world. dont forget it's political relationship with nukes. That's why environmentalists still don't like it.

Answer 8

it extremely is definitely baffling. however the actuality that nuclear ability, bio fuels or hydrogen are commonly promoted over renew ables alongside with photograph voltaic or wind capability is with the help of the fact they in wonderful condition the present infrastructure of capability distribution, business infrastructure or investment platforms. Coal mining is plenty distinctive from mining uranium, besides the indisputable fact that it remains mining. the enormous companies or governments that have outfitted understanding in mining, look for to maintain on making use of this understanding, particularly than beginning up an entire new organization. Mining companies think of in terms of extraction and refining, not renewing. comparable component for bio fuels or hydrogen. save for some area of interest purposes, they don't make experience capability-sensible, yet oil companies might prefer to maintain their retail-networks they took some plenty care development. Windmills and photograph voltaic capability grants ability at a plenty smaller scale, on smaller grids, or may be casually linked to larger grids. Small investments could make you an capability company rather of an capability shopper. This stressful circumstances the right-down, great-organization great-crowd variety of capability transport that has desperate our society contained in the final a hundred-one hundred fifty years. the recent capability-monetary device won't furnish low-priced capability anymore, and it will call for shoppers to generate some capability of their own. i assume it extremely is the place the respond lies... nuclear ability plant life are to not plenty a ruin from the corporatist-capitalist device that replaced into so comfortable for a protracted time, while genuine renewable capability will commence a transition contained in the way we produce and consume capability.

Answer 9

global warming alarmists are not deniers of nuclear power

just because you think global warming is a problem that warrants action, doesn't mean your an extreme left wing tree hugger - which i admit, are very ill informed and anti-nuke.

the fact is coal plants have released millions of tons of radioactive contamination into the air we breath:

http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html

far more than nuclear plants, including nuclear disasters like chernobyl

Answer 10

I don't think they all are.. Some would really embrace nuclear power (I would. And, I am a "Global Warming Alarmist". I find the current LACK of alarm to be the most incredibly stupid INACTION of our time)

But, until we have an effective means of disposing of nuclear waste, we shouldn't "rob peter to pay paul" by saving one aspect of our environment by destroying another.

That is the main argument for delaying complete dependence on nuclear energy.

Instead of playing stupid and denying that there is a climate crisis, you should consider offering up solutions to make nuclear energy a real long term possibility.

my 2 cents....

Answer 11

If they really believed GW was an issue they would want to fix it and modern nuclear power plants would be one way to go.

It seems to me though to be more about control and keeping the masses afraid.

We should just not question them because of course they just care about us. Surrender any rights we might have, Let them control, regulate and tax the life blood out of our society.