How do you tree huggers feel about Nuclear power these days?

Question

After fighting it for 30 years, are environmentalists now for it because it does not give off "carbon"?

Answer 1

First, what makes you think there is a connection between "tree huggers" and belief in global warming? I wouldn't call myself a rampant environmentalist (I'm pro-mining) but the evidence for human-induced climate change is overwhelming.

Nuclear power is fine, as long as it's not subsidized, but it's no solution to global warming.  There is not enough fuel and there's no way to build nuclear power plants fast enough to handle demand.

Answer 2

How about you 'tail-pipe' suckers,getting tired of getting ripped off at the pumps by Bush's OPEC buddies?

Answer 3

i don't like it any better.

it's just that by now, we realize that CO2 will cause a far worse fate.

Answer 4

I am no tree hugger, but liked your question. I say we do whatever we gotta do to save our country. We tried it the green way, and now we have $5 gas.

I say we drill ANWR, and wherever else, build some refineries, (yeah even nuke plants) and get our country back on track before it all falls apart. If we don't, I can see a Mad Max world coming where we do fight that much amongst ourselves over fuel.

Right now today it costs over  $1,400 to fuel a semi-truck. This truck brings your food to the store. Food takes fuel to grow- using tractors, irrigation pumps, and even some fertilizers are made from petroleum. The snowball effect of inflation is gonna take us straight back to 1929 if we don't get it under control like right effing now.

Every product made which you can buy has taken fuel to produce, or deliver in some way, shape, or form. Greenies aren't understanding this. They act as though if we all crushed our cars, and bought Priuses, the world would magically balance out, and all would be peaches and flowers. The truth is that we will be paying $10.00 for a gallon of milk. What did the bible say?? I think it was a a bag of rice for a days wages. Could happen.

Answer 5

In the U.S. we still have the thorny issue of nuclear waste disposal.  Some countries do 'recycle' their rods, for instance.  We don't, and I think if we want to explore this option seriously -- and right now all options should be on the table -- we have to resolve this issue.  Bottom line is that until this is resolved, it simply doesn't make sense to solve one problem and create another.

I also believe that research on nuclear fusion should be stepped up.  This has the potential to be far more useful in providing energy in the future.

Answer 6

No. It's still too dangerous to be viable in the long term.

Answer 7

ahh It seems cool but I am not a tree huger but I do care I am not that hearth less, I think neuclear power could be bad due to the radiation.

Answer 8

Truely I am not a tree hugger but I don't like when people are too hard headed to see that the world is getting worse.  Nuclear power can be actully safer then coal fired power plants.  Even with the nuclear waste.  If the waste is sent to the proper facilites at the proper times in the proper ways it is safe.  Also nuclear power produces absolutly no carbon dioxide and many reactors like the ones on our (US) aircraft carriers can last over 20 years (and take a long time to refuel).  I think nuclear power would work great in the long run and we should put more in california.

Answer 9

They won't be happy until we are a third world country.

Answer 10

save that question for when Yucca Mountain storage facility opens, or maybe ask the good people of Chernobyl or Chelyabinsk

Answer 11

Refinement, research and transportation of nuclear materials gives off LOTS OF CARBON!!  There's more carbon involved:  to make the nuclear plant, decomission it and store the nuclear waste, which will be around for hundreds of thousands of year and is one of the most dangerous known materials to mankind so do you really think it's safe?!

Answer 12

Still not a huge fan, as it centralizes energy production in a few areas, in facilities owned by only a few elite people.

Now, don't think I'm calling for socialism and nationalization of the energy sector where the government owns the power plants. Because I'm not.

What I would like to see is many more smaller energy companies that start installing wind turbines, tidal generators, geothermal plants, biomass generators, landfill methane reclamation, solar thermal, and solar photovoltaic all scattered around and decentralized and picked for the benefit to the particular region.

I would also like to see more people installing generating technologies of their own to be more self sustaining, and then  get what they can't produce from their local energy producer.

Answer 13

Well I consider myself an environmentalist and I worked in nuclear power plants for 15 years.  I think nuclear still has some inherent problems (waste management) and is a short term (as in the next 100-200 years) solution to growing energy needs until more benign forms are fully (economically) developed.

I still prefer conservation and efficiency improvements to uncontrolled and irresponsible consumption of energy.

Answer 14

Heres one:

Patrick Moore

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con...

Answer 15

I was never against it, but it does have negative attributes.

Answer 16

never heard of nuclear waste huh?

forgot about three mile island and chernobyl.

Gotta learn from our mistakes

Solar power - free - renewable - only problem - it's too cheap - not enough profit - too much cheap cheap energy - the electric grid is already on-line and 2% of the mojave desert covered in current technology solar arrays could power the entire U.S. electrical needs - add another 5% of the mojave and it could support 90% of all personal transportation needs.  That would put OPEC and major oil corps. into a tail spin.  The transition is not opposed by BIG OIL (ya right) would take about 10 years at full speed and cost less than the 2002 cost of oil consumption in the U.S. for each year. - After that darn near free fricken energy - imagine that - no nuclear power plants - no coal burning generation - no oil tankers.  Do you have a problem with that - or is that too tree huggy-ish for you.

support that!

Answer 17

I am no tree hugger, but I think Nuclear power is a great idea.  Everyone is so worried about the "radiation" but in reality you get more ionizing radiation (the bad kind) by flying on an airplane from New York to LA once than you get from living for 30 years next to a nuclear power plant.  The only way to be exposed to excess radiation is for someone to do incredibly stupid things to a poorly built power plant.

Modern nuclear plants have multiple fail-safe layers to prevent meltdowns and in the event that all of these measures do not work the nuclear material is still contained in an impermeable cask.

The waste is an issue but with proper reprocessing it can be turned back into usable fuel with only a little waste that can be easily stored for long periods of time.

The only problem with nuclear power is the huge initial investment required to build a plant.

also @ mopar guy, drilling ANWR will not even put a dent in the price of oil, if we pumped all of the oil in ANWR it would provide oil for America for about half a year and then run dry.

Answer 18

Im in favor , but put them on islands in the sea , far from the livings

Or create super shelters around them , very high security messures , Draconian protection ,  a immense building surronding the facility with tons and tons of lead

Answer 19

My husband and I disagree on this one.

He thinks nuclear is OK because it is supposedly ''clean''.

I strongly disagree, as it is not safe, never has been and never will be! It is safer now than it used to be 20 years ago. But nothing is foolproof, and if something goes wrong, ti goes really, really wrong. I say leave uranium in the ground.

Unfortunately the global trend is towards nuclear and there are many new plants starting up around the world including in developing countries.