Verified answer

The goal of the environmental movement isn't to make the Earth greener, but to push back the progress of man to a time when they felt better about themselves, like during their childhood.

While nuclear power is completely safe, and the waste is shipped across the country everyday, environmentalist oppose it because it advances man's knowledge.

Environmentalist won't be happy until we are all living in caves.

My impression is that environmentalists don't really like nuclear power. Why, exactly, I'm not really sure.

Nuclear power doesn't require wind, sunlight, or water. . . too many people think those are our only viable solutions, when I'm not convinced that those can meet everyone's energy needs given that most places in the world only have 1 or 2 of those available, at best. We don't all live in the desert where rooftop solar panels are a really efficient investment, you know.

I don't exactly see a lot of parts for these green sources of energy sitting on my store shelves, either. What's the huge harm in at least using nuclear power in the short term until this all-green capacity some claim should be there actually becomes a reality. Or did we want to just wait until we're totally out of options? I'm still waiting for my flying car, you know. . . .

Yes, we then have to store the waste. Does everyone really have that little faith in our engineers and scientists that we can't work out these problems safely over the long term? We just landed stuff on another planet -- I'm pretty sure we can do that.

HEY. . . let's send our nuclear waste to MARS! Oh, right, we don't want to have the rocket explode on launch and spray the payload everywhere. . . darn.

They pretty much feel the way about nuclear as they do about fossil fuel power plants. The funny thing is, nuclear energy is basically the cleanest fuel around and we could have much of our energy problems solved by building more of them. However, no matter how clean or efficient it is, radical environmentalists will oppose it. Take for example the state of Minnesota. The environmentalist wackos have gotten such a foothold in Minnesota, that it's a state statute that no new nuclear facilities can be built, anywhere, and people there are paying out the nose for energy. This is because radical environmentalists care less that people can use a highly efficient energy source and live comfortably, and more about destroying modernized living. I will admit, not all environmentalists are crazy, but the ones that aren't crazy, are very misguided with their cause. The core of the cause craves the destruction of technology, modernism, and liberty.

I guess they are afraid of something they don't totally understand.

Many people have died in coal mining accidents and others continue to die from black lung also caused by mining coal.

Nuclear power plants in MOST (but not all countries) have protective containment buildings. (Chernobyl sp? did not.)

Many studies have been made to see what type of destructive situations nuclear reactors can handle. They can handle most anything very well. That includes plane accidents, bombs etc.

Yes, environmentalists don't approve of much. Many of them are are like fundamentalists. Nothing except nuclear power would be feasible for places like New York, and other large cities. A solar shield would cover the entire city (blocking out the sun completely)and still wouldn't be enough to heat and power the city.

There was an HTGR once built in Colorado (about 25 yrs. ago) but it wasn't properly maintained. The good part is it would reuse it's power and not create any new waste. Too bad they didn't improve upon it, it would have put all the other reactors to shame.)

HTGR (High Temp. Gas cooled Reactor)

Nuclear power is a mixed bag at best. The waste and security problems are enormous. However, if we can’t accept limits on growth, it may be our only option. Take the words of the answerer above, one of the top scientific contributors on this forum. We can leapfrog right over nuclear and go with solar. It’s a no-brainer.

Nuclear power is another boondoggle designed to keep the means of production in the hands of the few. With a solar cell, solar flat plate, windmill, passive building design, smart grid connection and demand management for every household and business we could end the need for foreign oil, fossil fuels in general and dependence on centralized power generation once and for all.

How come this doesn’t happen and who’s fault is it? It certainly isn’t the greens who have been pressing for such solutions for over 40 years.

Although it is an efficient form of energy, nuclear energy isn't very efficient after the fact, that is, they still don't know what to do with the spent radioactive material that has been used up and now must be somehow stored. Nuclear energy may seem like a quick fix, but it also isn't a form of energy we want to become dependent on, since the spent radioactive fuel could pollute our world and make our world uninhabitable sometime far into the future. NOT GOOD. And I don't consider myself that much of a "tree hugger". It also allows foreign countries to potentially develop nuclear weapons under the guise of "peaceful nuclear energy production" and thus allows for the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), and that could eventually spell the end...

Let's hear it for wind, solar, hydro, and any other forms of nonexhaustible sources of energy that might be invented hopefully soon!!!!

you are only looking at the end product for nuclear power as far as carbon costs.. what about the carbon released mining and refining the Uranium... add in the cost of retiring old reactors and it becomes drastically different ...

this is NOT to say nuclear power isn't a good interim measure.. but nuclear power is a non-renewable form of energy so don't become dependent upon it.. and ensure you know ALL of the risks involved...

one of the problems is that different cultures have different levels of acceptable risk... in three mile island.. there was a marginal release of radioactive materials.. and it permanently damaged Americas image of nuclear power... Russia blew up a plant releasing enough fission products in the atmosphere to set off alarms all over the world.. but they don't' care.

due to this.. ecologists view nuclear power with a VERY jaded vision.. after all how many plants would Iran have to destroy before they considered changing how they run them?

RIGHT and this switch happened in the 70's.

BUT switching now to nuclear power might be the wrong thing to do, especially as we have new options open. It might be nevertheless a good option for countries with a huge energy demand and very limited potential for alternative energies (China)

Educated energy specialists are against nuclear energy right now for most places in the world, no matter which party, simply due to the economic dilemma they represent:

--------------------------------------...

Uranium is a finite fuel (non renewable) and its cost is increasing. I don´t even mention the problems of nuclear proliferation. Liability of nuclear waste to operators has made it unattractive. Nuclear produces large heavy-metal pollution for the uranium enrichment.

Nuclear has the same CO2 intensity as combined cycle gas turbines when looked over the whole life cycle. As such it compares poorly to renewables.

But here´s the main point:

==> Commissioning/construction of nuclear power plants: 10 years

==> Lifetime: 40-60 years

-----------

-----------

In less than 10 years, solar power will be at grid parity (same cost as other sources of power offered on the grid) in sunny places like New Mexico or southern Spain.

This is the case since the solar industry is a fast "learning process" where the cost is decreasing fast (unlike nuclear energy).

http://www.fsec.ucf.edu/en/media/newsletters/echro...

The output of new solar factories is projected to increase to 5GW in 5 years meaning that solar power will install the equivalent of several new nuclear power plant each year and (in a near future) at a lower cost.

A nuclear power plant regarding its lifetime and comissioning would if started now have its half operating time in 2038. That means that FOR SURE it will be an ECONOMIC SUBOPTIMAL OPTION WHEN COMPARED TO SOLAR.

-------------------->

I REPEAT: a nuclear power plant started now will cost more during its whole lifetime than solar energy (almost for sure).

-------------------->

Nuclear powered cars!!! That's cool.

They think its EVIIIIIILLLLLLLLL!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Even though its clean, safe, cheap, and efficient.

Kinda weird huh? Even one of the founders of Green Peace endorsed nuclear power, yet environmentalists still hate it..