Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Environment & Energy
In reply to the discussion: Vicious words mark the war between pro and anti-nuclear environmentalists [View all]bananas
(27,509 posts)12. The Union of Concerned Scientists: "Nuclear power today does not meet these criteria."
http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear_power/nuclear_power_and_global_warming/ucs-position-on-nuclear-power.html
UCS Position on Nuclear Power and Global Warming
<snip>
In this context, the Union of Concerned Scientists contends that:
UCS Position on Nuclear Power and Global Warming
<snip>
In this context, the Union of Concerned Scientists contends that:
- Prudence dictates that we develop as many options to reduce global warming emissions as possible, and begin by deploying those that achieve the largest reductions most quickly and with the lowest costs and risk. Nuclear power today does not meet these criteria.
- Nuclear power is not the silver bullet for "solving" the global warming problem. Many other technologies will be needed to address global warming even if a major expansion of nuclear power were to occur.
- A major expansion of nuclear power in the United States is not feasible in the near term. Even under an ambitious deployment scenario, new plants could not make a substantial contribution to reducing U.S. global warming emissions for at least two decades.
- Until long-standing problems regarding the security of nuclear plantsfrom accidents and acts of terrorismare fixed, the potential of nuclear power to play a significant role in addressing global warming will be held hostage to the industry's worst performers.
- An expansion of nuclear power under effective regulations and an appropriate level of oversight should be considered as a longer-term option if other climate-neutral means for producing electricity prove inadequate. Nuclear energy research and development (R&D) should therefore continue, with a focus on enhancing safety, security, and waste disposal.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
45 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Vicious words mark the war between pro and anti-nuclear environmentalists [View all]
kristopher
Apr 2012
OP
"I am not going to deny what is obvious" - But that is exactly what you are doing
kristopher
Apr 2012
#22
Thank you for correcting that, I hadn't seen the disclaimer. I will edit. Any comment on the impact
freshwest
Apr 2012
#6
Social stratification is a major problem with nuclear energy - on a number of levels
bananas
Apr 2012
#10
Yes, that was disproved. But the M$M did the bidding of the MIC to generate sympathy.
freshwest
Apr 2012
#7
None of the major environmental groups support nuclear energy, almost all are against it.
bananas
Apr 2012
#11
The Union of Concerned Scientists: "Nuclear power today does not meet these criteria."
bananas
Apr 2012
#12
Does the difference between electronic manufacturing and highly centralized control of energy...
kristopher
Apr 2012
#38
Yes, bigger picture. You don't have to give up everything to be independent of systems of control.
freshwest
Apr 2012
#40
Comparison of different views of a specific point - learning curve of nuclear power
kristopher
Apr 2012
#25