If AGW is true, then is it in part a problem of US environmentalists' own making, for shutting down nuclear?

Question

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-nuclear_movement_in_the_United_States

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/TECH/science/04/17/Nuclear.briefing/

In the 1970s anti-nuke activists essentially stopped the growth of nuclear as a source of US power in its tracks. In the 1980s and 1990s, gas-fired and coal-fired power plants, which emit 50X the CO2 levels of nuclear, were constructed. Combined, natural gas and coal generated about 20% more CO2 emissions than oil in the US in 2006.

As of 2006, nuclear power is used to generate about 19% of power consumed in the US. Coal is used to generate 49% and all fossil fuels combined generate 70% of our electricity.

Hydro and other renewables account for just over 9% of our electricity.

Renewables are great. Wind power makes a lot of sense. But for hyrdo and wind to be the answer, we would have to start consuming electricity at levels 40-50% below the present level, which is unrealistic.

Answer 1

Hardly, It had little to do with environmentalists, yes they made the news, Nuclear has never been a cheap source of power and is heavly subsidised by govts as many of the countries that use nuclear also have weapons programs, France, Russia, India, Pakistan, U.K., USA, China etc.

Answer 2

True,almost!  

I worked in the Nuclear power industry from the early 1960s to the late 1980s.  I saw the industry change from 44 month engineering/construction schedules to build a plant to up to 15 years with projects that were cancelled before completion.  

I sat in 1000's of hours of public hearings  with environmentalist/intervienors and AEC/NRC regulators and saw the AEC/NRC change from being advocates of Nuclear  power to being the watchdog for the environmentalist and pressure from congress.

The time cycle to license a plant increased 10 fold.  The proponents definitely lost the PR battle by not educating the public.

But that was before we talked about "carbon footprint" and "energy independence." Whatever goes around?

Coal plant produce infinitely more than 50X CO2 then a Nuclear. Nuclear plants release 0 carbon emissions, and the nuclear waste from a Nuclear plant is about .001% of the volume of the waste ash from a coal fired plant. Tons of ash need to be hauled away from a coal plant, while the Nuclear spent fuel has been stored on site in spent fuel pits for decades.

Hydo is what it is.  No more rivers to dam.  

Wind has promise but what environmental impact?  Solar is supplemental at best.  Electric transportation needs to replace fossil powered in the long run. Battery technology is the key for that to happen.  McCain is right to propose subsidies for new battery technology.

Hydrogen requires electricity to produce.

People are not willing to consider Nuclear power as "renewable" but don't forget the "breader reactor " that produces more fuel then it consumes. One word defines why we dropped that technology------------- "plutonium."

Answer 3

Not just partially, but they are completely to blame. Those who are the prime promoters of AGW shut down not just nuclear power plants, they shut down the recycling of all nuclear materials in order to create a false added expense of short life span and disposal to make their use seem more costly and environmentally damaging than they are in reality. Every nation on earth except the US recycles its nuclear waste into fresh fuel giving 10,000 times the useful life span to these materials than we do.

Who is responsible for this waste and added cost, Jimmy Carter and the environmentalist democrats in congress that are paid by the oil and coal giants to prevent nuclear or solar generation from gaining major market share. These same people are responsible for halting and scraping the space based solar project that if Carter had no killed it would be providing the majority of electricity used on earth today with nuclear only being a standby backup system. So if it was not for Jimmy Carter, Al Gore and the other environmental democrats the USA would be the worlds number one energy exporter instead of its number one importer.

So every time you pay your electric bill and go ouch, every time you fill your gas tank and go ouch, every time you buy food and go ouch or any of the other price increase that go ouch, Just say Thank you M. Carter or Thank you Mr. Gore or any of the other oil and coal sponsored environmentally green National Socialist Democrats including the oh so green Mr. Obama!

Answer 4

Very good point.

The same environmentalists promoting global warming are the ones who blocked nuclear power plants, refinery construction, and new drilling.

They are also the ones who brought us:

poison light bulbs

burn your food for fuel

let it lie, let it burn forest management

No group has done more to harm the planet than self described environmentalists.

Answer 5

I think you're giving the anti-nuke advocates too much credit, they were never very effective in their protests.  Actual nuclear accidents and public fear (three mile island, chernobyl) did far more in stopping our nuclear program than the protesters could have dreamed of accomplishing.

Answer 6

Since it is largely a fantasy and it is their fantasy, I suppose they could create all sorts of ending for their fantasy that would make them Earth's savior once again.  You mentioned hydro.  Can you imagine how many environmental impact studies you would have to get to get a new dam that has even cleaner energy.  It might cause hardship for  the the suckermouth blowfish.  The environmentalists wouldn't stand for it and weak spined politicians won't stand up to them.

Note: the constant noise from the environmentalists about not being able to dispose of the waste safely is nonsense and is simply more of the same thing from these people.  They dream up problems and then magnify them to ridiculous proportions.  We may not be able to build schools on the nuclear waste but I think we can safely dispose of it.  They act as if there are no naturally occuring nuclear isotopes or natural radiation.  They are wrong.

Answer 7

Until some way is found of cheaply and safely decommissioning nuclear facilities and safely disposing permanently of all nuclear waste, the argument for nuclear power as a safe and economical clean source of energy simply doesn't stand up. Moving from carbon based fuels to nuclear energy is like jumping from the planetary warming frying pan into the almost eternally radio-active fire.

You say that a 50% cut in energy consumption is "unrealistic", and yet that is the approximate amount of carbon fuelled energy production that the United States (and that means all American citizens) wastes.

Answer 8

Yes, environmentalists shot themselves in the foot. It is their fault we do no have more nuclear power plants.

They are the reason we still have the dirty coal plants belching CO2 into the air.

Answer 9

yes, very fair. France derives about 80% of their electricity from nuke plants. BTW, enviros are all for renewable energy till it is inconvenient for them. Windmills kill birds, dams harm fish---it's usually a case of not in my backyard--look at the Kennedys and Walter Kronkite protesting (and eventually defeating) a proposal to build windmills off shore where the Kennedys like to yacht (and possibly in the view of Kronkite). Also look at certain enviros building large homes made from redwoods on mountains and then (after theirs is built) stopping development in the same area and protesting the chopping down of redwood trees. I don't believe in man-made global warming (the sun raises the earth's temp ---for proof look at global warming on Mars) and believe it's just a way to scare people to give money to enviromental causes (like in "state of Fear" by Michael Crichton) because when I was young they were harping about global cooling and even told me that by time I graduated high school my hometown would be under glaciers. Also notie it's no longer global warming but "climate change" so they can blame any bad weather on the problem.

Answer 10

Yes, even though mankind does not contribute very much to GW at all, Nuclear Power should have been an option for the past 20 years, it is the cleanest, most efficient energy we have.

Answer 11

Actually, what the majority of environmentalists want is:

Reduce, reuse, recycle

(You've heard of that, right?)

That would have meant burning less coal, burning less gas, burning less oil AND not having to build nuclear power stations.

As many people did not do the 3 Rs we got stuck in this mess where we have to choose between two evils. (I know that you followed the 3Rs though because you're a socially conscious citizen who understands that good citizens have obligations as much as rights, right?)

The anti-nuclear lobby is a sub-set of the environmentalist movement and even their primary stance was to switch the money being used to subsidise nuclear power and/or nuclear energy research into alternative, safe, renewable sources of energy - perhaps if we had done that in the '70s, we wouldn't be up this creek with no paddle...

As for your "consuming electricity at levels 40-50% below the present level, which is unrealistic"... why is this unrealistic?

Western Europe does (and has arguably a better standard of living; they certainly live longer anyway).

The US managed to decrease energy consumption per unit of GDP by 20% between 1990 and 2003...

Countries with low energies per unit of GDP do better economically in times of high energy prices (er... now?) and are thus able to compete more effectively in the global economy.

Countries currently "consuming electricity at levels 40-50% below " the USA include Hong Kong*, Ireland, Switzerland, Italy, UK, Austria...

* Yes, I know it's not a country but it is for the intent of this comparision

Answer 12

Oddly enough it wasn't just the environmentalists, but hollywood movies like China Syndrome with kooks like Jane Fonda that turned people away from nuclear.

But you kind of miss the point.  The environmentalists don't want solutions, they just want to stop progress in the US especially.  Capitalism is their enemy.

As many have noted numerous times, the environmental movement was taken over decades ago by displaced soviets after the cold war who were looking for a way to continue their cause to destroy capitalism.  

It works pretty well because most people are afraid to go against them and they have a lot of money and political power.

Answer 13

WHAAAHOOOBAAAH !

LOOK WHAT I JUST FOUND :

-

http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/a...

-

I think Waterboarding is right !!!!

-

You got it pretty much figured out.

I think that environmental activist would like to shut everything down you can think of and they are a great threat to the country, doing just as much damage as the terrorists.

A couple of years ago they tried to shut down a bread factory in NJ, because in close proximity to the plant you could smell the fresh baked bread.

I bet they also bought the bread from this company at the grocery store.

These people are totally off the hook, they don't know what they're talking about and they don't know what they're doing.

For them it is that :

Money comes from the bankmachine, food comes from the store, gasoline comes from the gas station, electricity comes out of the outlet

(so why would we need power plants ?)

They just can't think beyond anything, they have a mind like

5-year old children !

.

Answer 14

The paragraph (in the first link) just above the contents section tells exactly why Nuclear power stations stopped being built in the late 70's, little to do with greenies.

Statistically speaking, the more plants you have the greater the chance of a major accident no matter how good the safety procedures are.

Answer 15

When we have a viable safe manner for dealing with nuclear waste, and Yucca Mountain is NOT a viable option.

Otherwise this constant blaming of those trying to protect the environment and the humans that live here is so boring and moronic.