Nuclear power is cheap, efficient, carbon neutral, and available on demand. I’m all for increased efficiency and alternatives like wind, solar, and geothermal. However, if we’re serious about substantially reducing our GHG emission in a very short time, nuclear is the only way to go.
As far as safety concerns, these are unwarranted. Sure, Chernobyl reactor #3 blew up, but even in this worst-case scenario, the damage and contamination was RELATIVELY minor. So minor, in fact, that the other reactors in the Chernobyl plant went on operating for decades. On top of that, refusing to construct new nuclear plants because a Soviet RBMK reactor blew up is like refusing to ride in a brand-new Volvo because the first Model T was unsafe. A quick Google search will reveal many websites which detail the ineptitude and carelessness of Chernobyl plant operators, the lack of common-sense safety systems in the reactor design, and the substantial improvements in newer reactor designs which make a similar scenario not only highly unlikely, but physically impossible.
The other common objection is dealing with nuclear waste, which is a concern that is rapidly becoming obsolete. We don’t even really need Yucca Mountain any more – fast breeder reactors burn up nearly all of the radioactive waste and convert it to usable energy.
So, why do these Luddites – which, I’m sorry to say, are mostly on the left – continue to oppose the construction of new nuclear power plants? Is it mere ignorance? Perhaps misconceptions regarding the capabilities of modern reactors and the erstwhile arms race? Or do they just hate the thought of any sort of energy source which relies on extracting physical resources from the earth?
John M,
A nuclear holocaust? I think you’re grossly exaggerating the risks involved. Am I really to believe that all, or at least a substantial portion, of the nuclear reactors on the planet are going to melt down simultaneously?! Get a grip, man.
More Pages:
- Solar Power: Why Are People So Ignorant About The Safety Of Nuclear Power Plants? (11/16/2011)
- Solar Producer: Why Not Supporting The Nuclear Energy? (7/26/2011)
- Solar Producer: Germany Plans To Abandon Nuclear Energy By 2022? (11/16/2011)
- Solar Products: Physics? Am I Correct? (7/17/2011)
- are Nuclear Power Plant considered “green energy”?
{ 8 comments… read them below or add one }
People are irrationally afraid of nuclear energy. Meanwhile, France is a giant exporter of energy thanks to advanced nuclear technology.
because solar, wind, hydro and geothermal are cheaper and if they break wont kill everyone and dont have radioactive waste.
are you trying to dispute the fact that what i just said is 100% true? there is absolutely no need for nuclear when we have the technologies i listed. a nuclear power plant would take so much longer to construct aswell
im hardly an enviro nut. i just dont really want nuclear fallout floating above me when the inevitable happens
I think the best option is space based solar power, but you have a point on nuclear energy.
In response to the enviro-nut who said we should go with wind and solar such, those do not produce enough, and they have very negative effects. For instance, around windmills, bird populations fall because of the wind and the adverse conditions created. So naturally rodent populations soar. Solar is good, but does not produce enough. Nuclear is definitely good, I say go.
Nuclear should only be used like bio fuels; something to wing us off of non-renewables, until wind, solar and hydrogen technologies are patent and cheap, not as something we should invest in for the future. We don’t want to end up like Atlantis.
I’m not opposed to it. Want to reduce the carbon footprint ? Go nuclear. Want to reduce our dependence on Middle Eastern oil ? Go nuclear. My goodness, I’m like a record that loops.
Environmentalists generally don’t want the only two proven ways of making sure we have enough energy, cheaply, without foreign payouts: nuclear and domestic drilling. Wind and solar are heavily subsidized and not realistic for meeting all of our energy needs.
John M – Newer nuclear plants are much safer. Chenobyl was mismanaged, underfunded, and outdated. Any nuclear meltdown can be avoided.
They should be afraid because this technology is still in its infancy. You cannot predict how much destruction a nuclear holocaust can bring. I think it’ll take a few more years to get a clear picture.
seriously? i’m not opposed to it – but – it does kind of give me the heebies jeebies… same way that those ‘daddy long legs’ give me the heebie jeebies… irrational.
.
i remember watching this deal on chernobyl as a kid. the way it made me feel is still there… the way it made me think? not so much.
….
ooooo, it’s all about feelings! (no, seriously – it is)