An Inconvenient Truth: We need more nuclear power plants, and we need them now.

[Clarkie1]

From the founder of Greenpeace in today's Washington Post. It's the "inconvenient truth" Al Gore didn't tell you tonight...

Going Nuclear
A Green Makes the Case
By Patrick Moore
Sunday, April 16, 2006

In the early 1970s when I helped found Greenpeace, I believed that nuclear energy was synonymous with nuclear holocaust, as did most of my compatriots. That's the conviction that inspired Greenpeace's first voyage up the spectacular rocky northwest coast to protest the testing of U.S. hydrogen bombs in Alaska's Aleutian Islands. Thirty years on, my views have changed, and the rest of the environmental movement needs to update its views, too, because nuclear energy may just be the energy source that can save our planet from another possible disaster: catastrophic climate change.

Look at it this way: 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. Nuclear energy is the only large-scale, cost-effective energy source that can reduce these emissions while continuing to satisfy a growing demand for power. And these days it can do so safely.

more...

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

The opposition to safe nuclear power today is political, not scientific. Al Gore out to be out in front making the case for nuclear power, and he ought to start today. He's smart enough to know what needs to be done.

[DerBeppo]

1. k&r -nt

[longship]

2. Sorry, but you are oh so wrong on this.

There are all sorts of issues with nukes. The processing of the fuel is anything but green. And the awful truth about nuke power isn't even at the supply side of things, it's at the end of the game.

What the fuck do you do with the spent fuel??? Right now, nobody has an answer to that question. The Bush administration's answer is to put it in the middle of a mountain in a geologically active area of the country, where earthquakes are common.

But the real reasons to oppose nukes isn't even technological, nor the physics. It's the economics of it. The cost of these plants is so damned high that any number of green alternatives could be developed and implemented before a substantial part of our needs could be fulfilled with nukes.

In the short term, it is possible that nukes could help, but then there's the issues of the costs, and the totally unsolved issue of the spent fuel.

One cannot be green and be for nuclear power. It just isn't possible to do both at once. Not as long as the alternatives are likely cheaper and safer.

There is no such thing as safe nuclear power. It doesn't exist.

[Clarkie1]

3. Bottom line: Are we serious about combating climate change or not?

No amount of wind power, solar power, or anything else but nuclear will have a significant impact on CO2 emission in the coming decades. Sure, solar, wind, and all the rest are great, but only nuclear power can even significantly slow down the RATE of increasing CO2 emissions.

We can find a better place to put spent fuel than near an earthquake fault. Finding a place for the fuel is not a problem.

200,000 people a year die from increasing pollution in the atmosphere from coal-buring plants. It is coal that is NOT SAFE. Nuclear power IS safe, it's nothing like the technology of years ago. It's MUCH safer than coal.

[rwenos]

13. So What's Your "Solution"?

You say "We can find a better place to put spent fuel than near an earthquake fault. Finding a place for the fuel is not a problem."

Where?

[Karenina]

34. When I was 11, it struck me as STUPID

that anyone would pursue an "energy source" that produced such deadly waste that no one knew what to do with. 45 FUCKING YEARS LATER the STUPID IDEA is still being proffered as a "solution." Have at it, dimwits. It will prove to be the FINAL SOLUTION for sentient life on this planet as we know it.

[longship]

36. Where? Where do we put the nuke waste?

You name the place. I'm sure the people there will be as overjoyed with your selection as the people of Nevada are of Bush's choice.

Face reality here. Nuke waste is orders of magnitude more nasty than coal plant emmisions. The latter can be made safe easier and cheaper than the former, which can *never* be made safe. Furthermore, speaking of protecting the environment, much nuke waste isn't even in the environment until it's made in a nuke power plant. It's not natural at all. Some of the by-products are dangerous for tens of thousands of years--dangerous as in, inhale a little bit and you'll die of lung cancer fairly quickly.

Nuclear fission power is *NOT* safe, cannot be made safe, and will never be safe.

Look up the products from Uranium fission in a CRC handbook and see how safe these things are. Nasty, nasty stuff.

There's got to be a better way.

I'm doing my part. Got those flourescent bulbs all over the house. The only kind I buy any more. Drive economical/clean cars--wish I could afford a Prius, but I can't. I telecommute, so I don't even have to drive to work. I can do more, too, and I will.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

4. Gore opposes nuclear power for reasons given above, plus

national security concerns about proliferation. Wrong on so many levels and wouldn't have any effect for more than a decade. By then we should have a predominantly electric car America!

[Clarkie1]

5. If that's true, then I oppose Gore on this.

Sorry, but the world is at stake. It's time to set politics aside. Science is not a partisan issue.

[bananas]

27. If you were truly informed on the issue, you would know Gore is not "pro-nuke"

He has stated his position clearly several times,
including at his major policy address last year.
Did you see it? The webcast is archived online,
you can you watch it for free.

From the transcript:

"As a result of all these problems, I believe that nuclear reactors will only play a limited role."

http://www.nyu.edu/community/gore.html

"Many believe that a responsible approach to sharply reducing global warming pollution would involve a significant increase in the use of nuclear power plants as a substitute for coal-fired generators. While I am not opposed to nuclear power and expect to see some modest increased use of nuclear reactors, I doubt that they will play a significant role in most countries as a new source of electricity. The main reason for my skepticism about nuclear power playing a much larger role in the world’s energy future is not the problem of waste disposal or the danger of reactor operator error, or the vulnerability to terrorist attack. Let’s assume for the moment that all three of these problems can be solved. That still leaves two serious issues that are more difficult constraints. The first is economics; the current generation of reactors is expensive, take a long time to build, and only come in one size - extra large. In a time of great uncertainty over energy prices, utilities must count on great uncertainty in electricity demand - and that uncertainty causes them to strongly prefer smaller incremental additions to their generating capacity that are each less expensive and quicker to build than are large 1000 megawatt light water reactors. Newer, more scalable and affordable reactor designs may eventually become available, but not soon. Secondly, if the world as a whole chose nuclear power as the option of choice to replace coal-fired generating plants, we would face a dramatic increase in the likelihood of nuclear weapons proliferation. During my 8 years in the White House, every nuclear weapons proliferation issue we dealt with was connected to a nuclear reactor program. Today, the dangerous weapons programs in both Iran and North Korea are linked to their civilian reactor programs. Moreover, proposals to separate the ownership of reactors from the ownership of the fuel supply process have met with stiff resistance from developing countries who want reactors. As a result of all these problems, I believe that nuclear reactors will only play a limited role."

[rwenos]

6. Nuclear Power is Irrational

1. Nobody has solved the waste problem. It is still building up, stored at the plants themselves, and prone to terrorist attack.

2. The nuclear containment plants themselves become so irradiated after 30-35 years of operation, they must be demolished, and the concrete itself becomes radioactive waste.

So long as the United States government has not (a) ordered dramatic increases in gas mileage from Detroit and every other vehicle maker selling in the US, and (b) spent something equivalent to the cost of the Manhattan Project on solar, hybrid, cogeneration, fuel efficiency and biomass, it is not time to go to the DESPERATION card that is nuclear energy.

The whole premise of increased nuclear power fails environmental, safety and economic analyses. As it did 30 years ago, and as it most likely will 30 years from now.

[Clarkie1]

7. It's the only way to solve the climate crises. nt

[rwenos]

10. You Completely Ignore Logical Arguments

Your glib response says nothing about waste, and nothing about alternate energy sources, which are CHEAPER.

[Clarkie1]

15. Here's the facts:

1. Alternative energy sources are great - I'm all for them! But no matter how much we do with them in the first half of this century, it won't be enough to solve the climate crises. Not with China and India...and yes, the U.S., building together thousands more coal burning plants.

2. CO2 emissions are more dangerous than nuclear waste. They kill 200,000 more people every year from the increase in emissions. They are full of Mercury and other awful, toxic chemicals.

3. We can find a safe place to put the waste....ANY nuclear waste is safter than the CO2 emissiions, which as I said kill hundreds of thousands every year, to say nothing about what they are doing to the global climate.

The opposition to safe nuclear power today is poltical, based on the past; it is not scientific.

[rwenos]

17. More Facts

A nuclear plant meltdown at San Onofre, just south of 3 million people in Orange County, and 10 million more in Los Angeles County, will kill hundreds of thousand of people and irradiate a parcel of California the size of Connecticut for a thousand years.

Three Mile Island came perilously close to melting down.

Compared to that, and the nuclear waste building up in the water pits at that plant alone, C02 is a manageable risk -- WITH some government regulation.

You're nuts, my friend.

[Forkboy]

22. So then where's the science?

The opposition to safe nuclear power today is poltical, based on the past; it is not scientific.

If you're gonna keep repeating that show some reputable (i.e.-not from the nuclear energy sector) science. :shrug:

[sce56]

24. When I was in School the former Army Nuke Course Chernobyl happened the first month of the course!

The academics phase prime instructor was saying all kinds of things about how the news reporters were getting it wrong and hadn't a clue how safe our Nuke plants were! He talked about how they, the army, sent experts like him to Three Mile Island when that happened. He seemed to be just BS'ing to me with lots of tall tales. He proclaimed it to be safe and clean yet I guess he had not a clue as to how badly he must have been exposed since he was also seeing a doctor for serious problems with his health! When the reactor at the school just ten miles from DC had a leak they would have to build a wall to shield the workers it was made with lead bricks we had one in the class SGT Brick. The problem is that every time they thought they had a foolproof system Murphy's law would kick in and what ever bad could happen would happen! Now the way they get rid of Depleted Uranium is to turn it into Tank and Armour penetrating gun rounds when used those DU shells contaminate the areas they are used in Kuwait, Afghanistan and Iraq and who knows how far away from there the winds blow the stuff.


My solution is instead of spending a Trillion dollars on fighting for Oil in Iraq what if we were to spend that money here to fight the Energy Crisis? Could you imagine if we were to spend that amount of money putting solar panels on every roof in this country wind turbines where there is plenty of wind and Geothermal energy using the earths heat to power turbines putting out electricity. Subsidize Electric car production to make them affordable to all consumers. We would get rid of our need for foreign oil and create plenty of high tech jobs here in the USA mandate that all US funded projects be 90% made in the USA. The people that fund terrorist would no longer have the funds to do that if we no longer bought their oil.


http://www1.eere.energy.gov/geothermal/egs_animation.html




Learn about GeoPowering the West — our effort to dramatically increase the use of geothermal energy in the western United States, including Alaska and Hawaii.

Find out more about participating state geothermal resources and development, as well as state working group activities.

How a Geothermal Power Plant Works
Image of animation for how an enhanced geothermal system works

Take a geothermal energy field trip—from the depths of the Earth through the turbine of a modern geothermal electric generation power plant—on your computer. You can access this virtual tour from the Geothermal Resources Council Web site.
How an Enhanced Geothermal System Works
Image of animation for how an enhanced geothermal system works

Flash Plug-in Required
Text version

View our animation to learn how enhanced geothermal systems can vastly increase geothermal resources used for power production.

[bananas]

29. You're wrong - here's the science

From the co-author of the famous "carbon wedges" study,
which showed we can stop global warming with existing technology:
"I personally think nuclear is a non-starter."

http://www.theclimategroup.org/index.php?pid=549

Stephen Pacala

In the August 13th issue of Science, Stephen Pacala and Robert Socolow of Princeton's Carbon Mitigation Initiative published a paper identifying 15 existing technologies that could each prevent 1 billion tons a year worth of carbon emissions by 2054. Pacala and Socolow have created a graph that divides the problem into the seven 1 billion-ton-per-year "wedges" which are required to halt the rise in greenhouse gas emissions, and stabilize the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere at 500 parts per million (ppm) (see figures below).

Their findings provide a strong counter to the argument that major new technologies need to be developed before significant mitigation of emissions can begin.

<snip>

I personally think nuclear is a non-starter. In the article we were not trying to choose sides, only to point out the mitigation technologies that are already in place. However, I cannot imagine that in this era of concerns about terrorism that we are going to start the production of fissionable material all over the world. It is disingenuous when the Bush administration says that the way to solve this problem is through coal and nuclear. Clean coal through carbon capture is fine if it can be made to work. But if you actually injected all of the CO2 produced in the United States (1.5 billion tonnes) the entire country would jack up in the air by 1mm/year. You don’t have to be a scientist to know that is not sustainable. If you try to solve even one wedge of this problem with nuclear, it would require a doubling in the amount of nuclear power deployed. Solving the problem entirely with nuclear means increasing deployment by a factor of 10, and if you calculate how many of these plants would have to be in countries like Sudan and Afghanistan, you are just not going to do it.

<snip>

[Forkboy]

33. Bueller...Bueller?

[Warren DeMontague]

8. Come up with a good, foolproof solution for the waste.

Then we'll talk.

[Clarkie1]

11. CO2 emissions are 1,000 times more dangerous than nuclear waste.

The increase alone is killing 200,000 more people every year from lung cancer and other ailments...to say nothing about what it is doing to the climate.

[Warren DeMontague]

19. Apples and Oranges. Look, I'm hardly a technophobe or neo-luddite.

I fully accept that nuclear may be part of the solution. But we need to think ahead, and put our R&D resources and research into thinking ahead. We need a manhattan style project for renewable energy that doesn't generate CO2 or waste that is deadly radioactive for 100,000 years.

The Chinese are looking to put humans on the moon- and it's speculated one of the things they'd like to do there is mine Helium-3 for hypothetical fusion reactors. I think that would be great. Lets not settle for old solutions that come with old problems. We need new ones.

[Porcupine]

25. Molten-Salt reactors. number planned: ZERO.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten_salt_reactor

That's right there has been a reactor design (molten-salt reactors)that can operate, burn waste from other reactors, will not melt down(already molten) and can survive a core dump and restart in under a week. This reactor type has been known since the 60's.

Consider why the nuclear industry might not want to use such a reactor. The industry makes more money from complicated reactor designs like CANDU reactors. The industry makes as much money from decommissioning reactors and waste handling as they do from building the reactors and selling power. The industry makes money from sending the available uranium through the reactor once and producing the maximum possible amount of waste to be contained.

People talk about shooting the waste into the sun. We have had the ability to reduce waste volume and longevity by 9/10ths since 1969 and there isn't even a research reactor of this type online.

Do we really want to trust these people with another 2,000 to 3,000 MORE reactors? It's not foolproof because the current crop of fools running things is of the demonstrated opinion that they can make more money by making the maximum amount of nuclear waste.

See alsoWiki: Lead-cooled reactor

[NuttyFluffers]

30. this is true. nuclear power isn't nightmarish in every facet. but pol/biz is...

it's really sad, because we are probably in such a critical phase that such an emergency stop-gap measure such as nuclear would be a wise addition to the strategy of helping slowdown/reverse this CO2 issue. but due to, as you mentioned, political and business issues, such technology will not end up being implemented as such.

that said, France already reduced waste volume and longevity considerably (i believe up to 9/10ths) and its nat. power usage is 70% supplied by nuclear. they are providing a clear alternative on how to implement this stop-gap. that said, something really must be done about the combustion engine, because transportation emissions are quite a considerable problem -- even France has to worry about it, even if they have electric trains. i wonder how that air car has been coming along...

anyway, no matter what is determined by this discussion, i really hope people reconsider reclamation. all this nuclear waste needs to be processed into smaller volume and lower longevity. i really don't care if you still hate nukes all the time everytime, but if you really hate the waste it must be understood that we need to repeal the laws preventing reclamation. if the waste can be dealt with to make the problem up to 90% smaller than it is now, there really is no logical argument i can see that should prevent that. reducing the problem we already have now before we make more is really very sensible i think.

[ConsAreLiars]

9. Poor fellow seems to have gone insane. He also now endosres every

corporatist scam now at issue. Or maybe they have pictures:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Moore_(environmentalist)
"In 2006 Moore addressed a Biotechnology Industry Organization conference in Waikiki saying, "There's no getting away from the fact that over 6 billion people wake up each day on this planet with real needs for food, energy and materials," in support of genetically engineered crops. He also told the gathering that global warming and the melting of glaciers is not necessarily a negative event because it creates more arable land and the use of forest products drives up demand for wood and spurs the planting of more trees."

What a vile piece of opportunist shit.

[Clarkie1]

12. Seems like a sensible guy to me! nt

[ConsAreLiars]

14. Sorry to hear that.- seek help! (n/t)

[Mist]

16. Nuclear power has, in its 50 year history, been remarkably expensive, and there's

always that problem with the spent fuel. Spent fuel cannot be made safe, and it contaminates, for millenia, the ground in which it's stored, which is not very ecologically sound either. Plus, with the malignant indifference to business practices and safety issues in industry that we currently have in this country, encouraging nuclear power is unnerving, to put it mildly.

[LSK]

18. .

:popcorn:

[ConsAreLiars]

20. You, as an self-described Clark supporter, might want to listen to him on this subject.

From his site: http://securingamerica.com/printready/transcript_CGI050916.htm

Question and Answer Session

FIGUERES: General Clark. Should a US climate change policy provide incentives for the construction of nuclear power plants?

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well, here's the perfect case to illustrate what Senator Clinton is just talking about. Because when you put a nuclear power plant in, there are two things that you're producing that impact the public, other than power. One of them is risk. And no matter what you do with nuclear power, there is always some inherent degree of risk that's different than let's say, a natural gas fired power plant.

And secondly, you're producing a byproduct. A radioactive waste which lasts for tens of thousands of years, and which we still haven't quite figured out how to encapsulate and store safely without further environmental damage. So I would be in favor of continuing to work nuclear energy. It's already there. We're producing these waste products now and we know we can make it safer.

But you've got to put it in a larger context. So you've got to look at the overall systems problems and cost, risk, radioactive waste. And you've got to compare nuclear energy against the renewable sources of energy like wind and solar and wave energy, which are already practical, which can be used, and which I would personally prefer to see us put our first incentives there. Because there, we can get a huge slug of energy for much less social byproduct cost than with nuclear.

[Forkboy]

21. He's gone mad.

[Erika]

23. This thread keeps being recyled

I answered to one of them that states designated for nuclear waste storage was mad as hell. The poster just starts another thread. All the time he, is criticizing Gore for not doing more.

[Sherman A1]

26. Couldn't we do the same by reducing our consumption

and increasing our use of renew-ables? Like so many problems, perhaps the answer is somewhere in the middle of the issue with some increase in nuclear power production and even cleaner coal technology combined with the reductions and renew-ables. We have a bunch of smart folks in this country, I bet we could come up with an answer.

[mmonk]

28. We should be advanced enough

to improve on wind and solar technologies to the point of making it work on a large scale. I'm not sure putting radioactive waste into the ground should be considered our best hope.

[Rosemary2205]

31. Greenpeace needs to STFU.

America would be so different right now if they hadn't been such assholes about alternative energy. "I changed my mind" -- OH FU you stupid retards. We tried to tell you. We tried to reason with you. But no, you had to file lawsuit after lawsuit and stop progress. FU.

[MadHound]

32. We have absolutely no need for nuclear power.

First, it is incredibly expensive, and the only reason that the rates from nuclear plants aren't higher is because of government subsidies.

Aside from the issue of true cost however, nuclear won't be a solid producer of energy until we figure out how to do two things, safely dispose of the waste, and eliminate human error.

We have no place on the face of this planet where it is safe for the surrounding enviroment for us to dispose of the waste. Yucca Mt. is a joke, with dye tests showing that if anything leaked, it would be in the Las Vegas Water table within a couple of weeks. None of the current containers used to store nuclear waste would last longer than one hundred years, much less the tens of thousands of years that these substances will be dangerous. Shooting the waste out into space would be a good idea, that is, until the Columbia showed us the problems with that idea. And then, what do you do with the reactor itself once it has lived out its life cycle? Some are simply buried, but that seems highly irresbonsible to me, since all you are doing is putting a band aid on the problem. Who knows what the forces of nature will do, including exposing the containment vessel back on the surface again. Not good. Or will you simply have a skeleton crew baby sitting an increasing number of burnt out reactors dotting the landscape light cancer blights on the skin?

Human error is the leading cause of nuclear accidents and incidents. No matter how technically sophisticated the reactor is, you simply can't eliminate human error. A release of radioactive steam here, a release of radioactive water there, these incidents are becoming increasingly common, and will only increase with the increase in the number of reactors. Not to mention the larger sorts of accidents, you know, along the lines of TMI and Chernobyl, both caused by human error.

And the deal is, we don't need to use nuclear power. A 1991 DOE survey showed that we have enough harvestable wind energy in three states, North Dakota, Kansas, and Texas to supply the entirety of the US needs, including growth factor, through the year 2030. This doesn't mean I want to make those three states into giant wind farms, it just goes to show how rich we are in wind power. With this embarassment of wind power, don't you think we should start harnessing it. If we did so, we could eliminate the need for nuclear, coal and hydro electric plants. Wow, electricity that is clean and renewable. That's what we should be working towards friend, rather than recycling the bad ol' electric strategies from the days gone by.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

35. Couldn't you do the same thing with wind power?

For cheaper, and with less toxic waste?

[Jersey Ginny]

37. I have come around to agreeing with this

Wind and solar are an important part of the equation. However, nuclear power can and should be our primary power source. Yes, there have been and will be some problems. No, in the decades that nuclear power has been used, have we seen any large scale human catastrophy. Coal plants will lead to large scale human catastrophy. Flooding, diseases, storms will take a huge toll on us humans. I'm getting solar panels on my house in a few months. I support nuclear power.

[walldude]

38. You could drive a truck through the holes in this guys article

First of all you cite this one article as your sole source of information. In all the claims you have made throughout the thread you have not provided a single link to back up any of your facts So I went to read the full article at your link and found he had no sources either. Well, I got into the article as far as his views on Chernobyl and that was all I could take. This is what he said:

"Although Three Mile Island was a success story, the accident at Chernobyl, 20 years ago this month, was not. But Chernobyl was an accident waiting to happen. This early model of Soviet reactor had no containment vessel, was an inherently bad design and its operators literally blew it up. The multi-agency U.N. Chernobyl Forum reported last year that 56 deaths could be directly attributed to the accident, most of those from radiation or burns suffered while fighting the fire. Tragic as those deaths were, they pale in comparison to the more than 5,000 coal-mining deaths that occur worldwide every year."

Now I suggest you and the writer of this piece of "journalism" take a look here: http://www.chernobyl.info/ to see the impact of the Chernobyl Accident. Cancer, Lukemia, Genetic defects, Thyroid Cancer in children, not to mention the effect on plants, animals, the water, soil, the air, and I could go on and on. The accident happened 20 years ago and the city is still uninhabitable. If thats how the writer represents Chernobyl than anything he has to say must be called into suspect. If you really think you are right about this provide some facts backed up by credible sources. We're not Republicans you know...

[Forkboy]

39. I'm hoping the Op will come back and answer

Like you said the OP hasn't provided a single shred of evidence but claims science is on their side.I hope and pray that just this one article wasn't what prompted this thread.

[walldude]

40. Maybe he's out gathering "facts"

:rofl: :rofl:

[Forkboy]

44. Don't hold your breath

The OP was posting everywhere but in this thread,and I even gently reminded them in another thread,but seeing as though he/she hasn't come back I think it's safe to assume the OP was just blowing smoke out of their ass on this one,and knows it.

[VTMechEngr]

45. The key word was Directly...

The multi-agency U.N. Chernobyl Forum reported last year that 56 deaths could be directly attributed to the accident, most of those from radiation or burns suffered while fighting the fire.

Cancer, Leukemia, etc cannot be directly attributed, though we all know why they happen. But like any cancer, there can be multiple contributing causes, such that one sole event may not be all thats required to cause the cancer. Its a easy cop-out.

Myself currently working within feet of Nuclear reactors, I do know that the Soviet design was an accident waiting to happen, and the lack of a containment vessel allowed the radiation to escape. Three mile Island would be a demonstration in why you have a containment vessel.

[pitohui]

41. none of the problems of nuclear energy have been addressed

at this time of century it's probably that it's because they CAN'T be addressed

the waste can't be made safe and will eventually contaminate the earth, but that's cool, if it gives patrick moore another 30 years, he wasn't going to live much longer than that anyway, so why should the earth?

people do make me ill sometimes

if it's about having a planet for more than a generation or two, nuclear energy is worthless, 50 years of looking and there simply ISN'T a way to transform nuclear waste, any more than you can cheaply and safely transform lead into gold

it's pretty basic physics

if nuclear plants are the answer, then it's stupid to bother with doing anything, because there is no answer and we should just enjoy being among the last generations on the planet

leaving a radioactive mess only means that nothing can live long or well after we've killed ourselves off, that's truly juvenile, because we fucked it up, nobody ever can live decently on the earth?

[Evilismdestroyer07]

42. Actually

I remember reading this very cool Aliens comic book in my teenage years. They had this space station set up and they shot all thier biohazard, radiological, and chemical wastes from the station into this gaint nuclear ball of fire called the sun. It may not be the cheapest way (sticking it in a mountain) but I think that way would work.

[MadHound]

46. Remember the Columbia shuttle mission a few years back? How about Challenger?

Frankly an atmospheric burst of a waste rocket would suck in a major way. And space flight is filled with rockets that have blown up on the pad, on launch, and in orbit.

Way, way too risky.

[IChing]

43. In 2006, Moore became co-chair (with Christine Todd Whitman)Bush appointed

In 2006, Moore became co-chair (with Christine Todd Whitman) of a new industry-funded initiative, the Clean and Safe Energy Coalition, which supports increased use of nuclear energy.

On February 2, 2006, U.S. District Court Judge Deborah A. Batts issued a ruling rejecting Whitman's request for immunity in a 2004 class action lawsuit brought by a group who claimed exposure to hazardous debris from the collapse of the World Trade Center. The judge stated that "No reasonable person would have thought that telling thousands of people that it was safe to return to lower Manhattan, while knowing that such return could pose long-term health risks and other dire consequences, was conduct sanctioned by our laws," and called Whitman's actions "conscience-shocking."

Moore
He now heads one of those public relations organizations that he warned us we could not trust. He has cashed in his “credibility” as the former President of Greenpeace Canada and as a Greenpeace co-founder and now shills for logging, waste management, biogenetic engineering companies and now the nuclear industry.

The late Robert Hunter, the first President of Greenpeace called Patrick Moore the Eco-Judas.


HE IS A SELLOUT AND A TOOL

[Tom Rinaldo]

47. I very very strongly disagree with you on this

But my schedule today is very busy so I won't be able to take time to answer. I know that Wes Clark disagrees with you on this also:

Clinton Global Initiative

"Promoting Prosperity with Climate Change Policy"

Climate Change Policy in the United States

Video received July 10, 2006



FIGUERES: General Clark. Should a US climate change policy provide incentives for the construction of nuclear power plants?

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well, here's the perfect case to illustrate what Senator Clinton is just talking about. Because when you put a nuclear power plant in, there are two things that you're producing that impact the public, other than power. One of them is risk. And no matter what you do with nuclear power, there is always some inherent degree of risk that's different than let's say, a natural gas fired power plant.

And secondly, you're producing a byproduct. A radioactive waste which lasts for tens of thousands of years, and which we still haven't quite figured out how to encapsulate and store safely without further environmental damage. So I would be in favor of continuing to work nuclear energy. It's already there. We're producing these waste products now and we know we can make it safer.

But you've got to put it in a larger context. So you've got to look at the overall systems problems and cost, risk, radioactive waste. And you've got to compare nuclear energy against the renewable sources of energy like wind and solar and wave energy, which are already practical, which can be used, and which I would personally prefer to see us put our first incentives there. Because there, we can get a huge slug of energy for much less social byproduct cost than with nuclear.

(Applause)

http://securingamerica.com/node/1172


There are so many reasons why nukes are not the answer, but I will just write this on the fly. They are the most capital intensive form of energy production imaginable, and they are very very slow to bring on line. Nukes can not be safely brought online quickly enough in large enough numbers to make any real dent in greenhouse gasses, not without cutting all safety regulations to the bone and beyond. This is a make wealth intitiative for Bechtel and Halliburton who construct those plants. They don't care how many get built, they make billions off of each one they construct. The entire Uranium fuel cycle, including building the plants, the enrichmnent, the waste management etc, consumes a great deal of fossil fuels also. There is so much more about safety and health but I have to leave the house...

P.S. Check out the Union of Concerned Scientists for scientific arguments against nukes.