Why Are "Global Warming" believers scared of Modern Technology?

Question

Power generation causes 50% of all green house gases. We could eliminate or greatly reduce this number in just 4 - 6 years if we started to develop safe, clean nuclear power and reach our Kyoto targets by 2015, 35 years a head of current targets.

However instead of clean nuclear believers want to depend of technology not fully developed or not proven like Solar (very low output and cannot generate power 24/7/365) Wind (1000 towers = 1 Nuclear Power Plant & Wind is very noisy), or geo thermal (not used commercially in the US)

So why do "global warming" believers shun modern technology for unproven technology? Is it because they have financial connections to an unhealthy environment and nuclear power would hurt their bottom and family income?

Answer 1

I am a firm global warming believer, and as you said, I guess I AM scared of modern technology.

Every single electronic or pollutant that has been made by man is a cause of global warming and a destroyer of our earth.

I don't smoke, I want a hybrid-powered car, I turn off the water while I brush my teeth, I take freezing-cold showers, and I hand wash dishes instead of using the dishwasher. I also turn out lights, carpool, take public transportation, and I unplug all appliances once I'm done using them. So, I try to use as less modern technology as I can, mainly because if I do, it will cause more pollution.

=)  

Answer 2

This is a strawman question.

Nuclear has its problems as do all energy options or we would have switched to them by now.  I am for nuclear but think that fusion is the only real solution.  Fission has too many problems with the waste.

Answer 3

Yes, modern tech scares me when its by product waste seeps into my water supply and the air born pollution contaminates my air and on and on.

Clean nuclear is an oxymoron - no such thing - waste that's out of sight is not out of mind -maybe for you but most of us think farther than that I HOPE!

The new technologies will be developed once people realize there is a true need & if they plan on living a quality life not plagued with cancers and disease.

You can talk til the cows come home about relying on old technologies get us into the future but change is part of life and if we want a healthy one we had better change - some people have a hard time with change - GET OVER IT!

You really need to do more research on Solar if you think it is not a viable source for massive amounts of energy. There are incredible advances in parabolic collectors that can power large cities YEAR ROUND!

Wake up and smell the coffee because "times they are a changin" I just hope there are still some couragous Americans that will put it on the line for our country in other ways than just killing other humans. Other countries are leaving us in the dust in alternative energies - especially solar - it's wide open just waiting for some really smart somebody to take hold of it!

Answer 4

For me technology is fine. I just do not believe in cutting us free from fossil fuels and rely on these pipe dreams. The green house gas is not there so where is the urgency.

Answer 5

Kudos to Twizzler for admitting who she is and what she believes.  It seems rare to me for an alarmist to do so.  My wife is a technophobe but she certainly would support nuclear.  We don't have an endless supply of uranium but I like McCain's idea of 40 new nuclear plants.   The same people that are alarmist, i.e leftists, are the ones that are getting in the way of nuke power.  The brain dead Jane Fonda's of the world would rather sell fake docudramas than facts.

Answer 6

   I belive the majority of them are scared and ignorant. Secondly alot of the people they listen to and believe in ARE interested in thier own finiancial gain. Also in controlling the herd. And controlling our freedom!

Answer 7

Your rant is thoroughly misleading.  Most proponents of solar, wind, and geothermal energy are not suggesting abandoning all other energy sources.  They're only saying we should explore all possibilities and consider using combinations.  Yes, solar panels don't provide energy at night, but during the day they provide totally clean energy with little or no operating expense.  A different source could be used at night.  You're the one who's rejecting all other technologies by putting all of your faith in nuclear energy and dismissing everything else.

Solar power has an added advantage in that it can be installed in homes.  A large array of solar panels on the roof of a house can charge a bank of batteries during the day to provide power at night, making the homeowner almost completely self-sufficient.  Some even generate enough power during the day to sell some of the excess to the utility company.  You can't do that with nuclear power.  I'm not saying we should rule out nuclear power, but we shouldn't rule out anything else either.  Uranium doesn't grow on trees, and the waste is difficult to handle, so where other clean energy sources are feasible we should use them.

Answer 8

A lot of Europe is run safely on nuclear power.  I think people look at Chernobyl and think all nuclear power plants will do that.  Yes, that was scary, but that was far from normal.

I would love to have Nuclear power here, it's far more efficiant and viable than Wind and Solar.

Answer 9

Wow the best argument I have ever heard against wind power

"Wind is very noisy"

Don't worry if you live down wind of a nuclear reactor that has an accident, the radiation will kill you in complete silence.

The statement that solar doesn't work 24/7 is true (for once) but the latest solar thermal units can produce power for several hours after the sun sets and unlike coal, nuclear and oil power, solar and wind don't require continuous fuel to be shipped in to keep running.

In the last 30 years there has been 1 major nuclear accident and ~half a dozen near accidents in the nuclear industry around the world, and the view that geo thermal isn't used in the U.S. doesn't mean it doesn't work, Iceland use it commercially, has their economy been ruined, not at all it is much better now than when they were importing fuel for their power stations, they plan to go totally geo thermal with hydrogen powered vehicles by 2050. This is not fear of technology it is saying another technology is better all round it may cost a little more but even that cost reduces as it is more widely used.

Answer 10

They have a concept of how the world should be run and they do not want to entertain any other concept.

Answer 11

That's a very good question. Nuclear could replace ALL of the coal generating power plants in the USA in short order-- with a sustained, tax incentive funded program, as part of a Comprehensive Energy Plan (Bill).

However, Americans saw a movie in the 1970s and thought it represented the actual operations inside a nuclear power plant. Then they switched to the Jerry Springer Show-- and the nuclear industry in the USA came to a screeching halt!

The ONLY issue with nuclear is what to do with the nuclear waste. Now if you took all the nuclear waste created by all the reactors operating in the USA since the 1950s -- it would fit on one football field.  This is a social issue not a technical issue.... and by the way the waste is a SOLID!

Answer 12

they want the earth to stay cool

Answer 13

We're not.  I've supported nuclear power on this site, and many environmentalists support it also.  Wind, solar, and energy conservation can all help too,  They're "Modern Technology" also.  

Why are "skeptics" afraid of Modern Science, preferring to go with gut instincts instead?

Answer 14

International Socialists like Gore are creating a false hysteria in order to scare the masses to give up freedom and to submit to more government control, more “international” government control.  Wake up, America!  He who controls energy controls the world.

As Margaret Thatcher put it: global warming is proving to be “a marvelous excuse for international socialism.”  

Answer 15

Every question you ask is a gross generalization meant to confuse the truth. I happen to believe AGW theory and am not against nuclear energy. And because nuclear has been around for decades, your assertion that it's a new technology is incorrect.

Modern technology such as thin film solar is promising. It's cheaper and can be put anywhere.

Answer 16

wats the use of modern technology if the world itself is gng 2 end. but still wat i feel is global warming is caused due to excessive heating of earth surface and modern tech use all those eefluents which harm our enviornment

Answer 17

This is what we call "over-generalizing." I'm sorry to say that not all people who believe in global climate change are against nuclear energy. In fact, nearly all the educated people I've met who believe it is happening say that nuclear energy is our best bet for the near future (until something better comes along.)

I would recommend expanding your circle of influence to include some more intelligent environmentalists, as it sounds like you're either hanging out with a group that most environmental scientists would be embarrassed by, or you're simply generalizing because it's easier than keeping an open mind. Or maybe you just like to troll people with dissenting opinions. Who knows.

Answer 18

4-6 years?  Are you joking?  It takes far longer than that just to build one nuclear power plant!

"I'm not convinced we'll see a new nuclear station before probably the 2020 timeline," Morris [CEO of American Electric Power Co.] said.

http://www.tulsaworld.com/business/artic...

Nuclear is also more expensive than many renewables.  Concentrated Solar Power can indeed provide 24/7 power, is proven, and is high output.  Same for geothermal.

Nuclear is not new technology.  I think the appropriate question is why are you scared of modern (renewable) technology?