Is Nuclear Power and Genetically Modified Foods the Solution to So-Called "Global Warming"?

Question

Development of Nuclear Power will allow the generation of thousands of Mega-Watts of power without producing any green house gases.

Genetically Modified foods will allow crops to grow faster with less water, produce more sugar, grow denser, faster, and produce higher yields.

Should we recognize these scientific marvels and embrace the modern technology for the gain and benefit of man, or would it be better to keep to older technologies and give up the benefits that science has given us?

Answer 1

The answer to global warming (or if you don't believe in that, any environmental/social issue) is decentralization of resources, production, and power. Nuclear power and genetically modified crops take some of the most basic things we need to survive and maintain a quality of life and centralize them in the hands of a very small number of people.

This seems like something that leftist environmentalists and small government conservatives could all get behind. And yet we fight over semantics.

Answer 2

Both of them are the way to go.

Answer 3

Significantly increasing our reliance on Nuclear Power is a no brainier. While the fear and concerns about this technology were reasonable in the 60's and 70's, after 40 years of a proven safety record (both Coal and hydro-power have caused far more deaths than nuclear power) it's time people let go of those bogeymen.

And new technologies are on the verge of being able to recycle spent fuel (generating more energy from it) eliminating the concern over disposal.

Additional electricity capacity is needed to energize the soon to be booming market of electric and pluggable hybrid cars (as gas prices push higher and higher).

Answer 4

It is one of the solutions, so when is the U.S. going to get going on this?

Answer 5

Unless we use breeder reactors, which we've been opposed to because of the possibility of nuclear arms proliferation that might result, then nuclear power would not be a solution to global warming, because there is not enough fuel to serve our energy demands for the 21st century. Fusion power would, but of course it's been the energy of the future for 50 years. Genetically modified foods could help in a very minor way.

The question of global warming may end up being moot, though, because fossil fuels may not last long enough to even drive us into the lowest of the IPCC scenarios.  And yes, I am including coal--it is likely that world coal reserves are vastly inflated.  Of course, if we don't have fossil fuels or nuclear energy, and an increasing demand for energy in general, that is a huge problem in and of itself.

Answer 6

Nuclear power should diffentatly be a part.  They should be combined with hydraulic peaker plants.  We just had one overflow about a year ago here.  But one done side of nuclear (and coal also) once they are online the produce excess energy at night.  

One comment,

I thought the plutonium used for nuclear power could not be used for weapons grade plutonium?