Is it safe to say that both sides of the global warming issue here promote/support nuclear energy?

Question

I'm against it's so expensive that no private company can afford to do this themselves without taking tax payer money as well. And most of all, it's dangerous, unstable, produces toxic waste that causes cancer and it difficult and costly to find a place to store it, and is unreliable--it needs a lot of water to cool it down and plants in France has to close down simply because of the heat wave and drought!

Answer 1

Global warming is just a way for the elites around the world (Bilderberg attenders)  to control us.  They are power-hungry

Answer 2

Yes, both President George Bush and future President John McCain agree we need nuclear energy, but not just because of this 'supposed' so called Global Warming (even though I don't understand why they believe that and BTW... I'm very disappointed about that, how is it they are falling for bad information like that, especially GWB, he's just getting worse and worse, in the beginning of his term he and his administration were much wiser about that lie but now are either starting to fall for it or they are using it as a strategy somehow, not sure what is going on).  It is because of nuclear energy is a solution to meeting our energy demands.  But Bush is smarter because he realizes we would help our economy quicker if we cut out the middle man and start drilling more oil locally.  If the US oil companies can make a higher profit margin form cutting out the Saudis, they will be able to afford to give us a break and lower the price of gas for us.

Answer 3

Nuclear power is one viable solution to global warming and our dependence on foreign oil (along with the huge trade deficit that causes) from unstable regions around the world.  

Both hydrogen and electric cars will require electricity for their fueling, so in order to move away from oil we'll need more electric generation capacity (and coal is NOT the way to do it).

The technology of nuclear power generation has progressed much since the 70's, when people became afraid of it.  And there are very promising signs that even the fuel can be recycled (getting additional energy out of it) to the point that the disposal issue would disappear.

Far more people die every year from causes related to coal power generation than do from causes related to nuclear power. Given around 40 years of nuclear power generation experience around the world, there's no longer a rational reason to fear it.

Edit:

Widget Maker - I'm sorry. If I had read your post before writing mine, I would have learned that I (as someone that accepts the science of global warming) am "against" nuclear power. Or could it be that you are mistaken? Hmm?

Answer 4

Global warming is a scam created by the governments around the globe to provoke panic to control societies.

My 2 cents.

Answer 5

no I consider myself to be eco-friendly

I support solar ( - nuclear produces lots of waste that lasts 100's and 1000's of years.

Answer 6

Well of course it's not safe to make assumptions about both sides of this issue regarding anything.  Personally, I don't have any huge objections to nuclear energy, as long as it's not subsidized.  I don't believe it solves our problems any more than fossil fuels, though, because we will quickly run out of uranium also.  We could breed plutonium, but that's just asking for nuclear proliferation problems.

Answer 7

That's hard to say.  I think a lot of people are afraid of nuclear energy, at least a lot more afraid than they should be.  I consider myself an environmentalist and I support more nuclear energy in the US.  

If you think about it, solar, wind, geothermal power and the like are great, even better than nuclear, but all together they can't supply this world with enough electricity right now, so we need other sources of power.  So it basically comes down to either nuclear, coal, natural gas, or oil.  Nuclear is the only power source out of those that doesn't emmit CO2 or other hazardous chemicals.  It does cost some money, especially to build new nuclear power plants, but once they're up and running ,they're no more expensive than other fossil fuels.  

And everyone is so worried about the saftey of nuclear power.  When is the last time you've heard of someone being killed in a nuclear reactor accident?  Three Mile Island had a partial meltdown, but no one was hurt, and that was decades ago!  They make these plants much safer now.  However, it seems like every year miners in the US are getting trapped and killed in coal mines.  Nuclear has proven itself as a reliable and safe source of electricity over the last 30 or 40 years.  While I think that renewable energy like solar and wind are better, they cannot supply all of our power needs, so nuclear should be the next option.

Answer 8

G.W is a scam. Al Gore is making millions and is only using 45% of that money to the "dilemma" all of the other money is going to god knows where

Answer 9

First if there are two side to the issue, they are educated vs ignorant.  There is not debate among educated people any more.  President Bush and Al Gore were not early to recognize the problem but now are trying to react to it.

Nuclear energy still creates a dilema. The problems you cite are real.  We should be working harder on other solutions that do not cause us to choose between floods and melt downs.

Answer 10

No because uranium is finite itself and due to run out in 50 years. It can be refined for reuse but this means even more nuclear facilities and even greater costs. Also for every nuclear plant you need back up plants yet again increasing costs.

Answer 11

The Greens promoting the global warming issue are also dead set against the building of any electrical generation plants, particularly nuclear plants.

The Green solution is to have everyone freeze in the dark.