Why is costly, hazardous, and polluting nuclear energy promoted by some global warming advocates?

Question

But everyone seems to be saying it's more expensive.

http://www.post-gazette.com/forum/19990328edhughes7.asp

Answer 1

Because it's not as costly as you think, the hazardous product can be contained (although there is a dangerous risk involved with  containment), and the pollution caused by nuclear energy is mostly the nuclear waste and thermal heat.

However coal releases thermal heat waste as well, and the mining for coal is so much greater (because their is more energy per mass of Plutonium than energy per mass of coal) which causes a greater amount of pollution (acid run off, destruction of habitats, etc.) in just the getting of the material.  And then when the coal is burned it releases not only green house gases, but also other components such as sulfur oxide and mercury which pollute the air (and can/does get into water, that's why eating too much fish is dangerous, they have a high mercury content) and cannot be controlled as well as the waste product of coal.

Nuclear energy is considered to be a better option for energy creation than coal because of the reduced environmental effects, even though their is a very dangerous risk involved.  Personally I don't like the idea of using nuclear energy, however it definitely has a lot of positives when compared to coal.

Update:

Although the reading is definitely interesting, and I think research should be done into more if you're that interested, some concerns about the websites you used:

1st Link:

~Uses the word "Forum" to describe it, which makes me believe it may be a kind of forum for someone to just air their beliefs (also it's about 9 years old)

~Makes many assertions like the gov't has been lax on standards, etc. without proof or references

2nd Link:

~A few sources have major bias in their titles alone, i.e. "(4)The Dangers of Using Nuclear Power... " "(12)Chernobyl on the Hudson?" look at the bottom where the pages are cited

Again many of these arguments may be viable arguments and many of the facts may be true, however the internet is a place where anyone can post anything, and they may skew Facts and Opinions and make baseless assertions. I'm not saying they are wrong, nor am I trying to say I/my teacher is right, but those arguments are what she has told me (and she is one of the advocates you ask about in your question) and I would rely more on peer reviewed papers and textbooks than internet articles like the ones found.

Update 2:

And googling articles for either side won't really help because I'm sure you will get equally conflicting results going both ways.  If I had to guess I'd say you performed an internet search for these articles, and truth is you could probably find articles claiming the world is flat.  I mean this site http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonsk... although after looked through, you will see it's totally a comical site and total bs (look at the fine print at the bottom), just shows that people can post anything online, and their sources and information must be carefully analzyed.  And what data comes from where must be analyzed, for example, it does not suffice to pull out Hitler's full name from a peer reviewed paper by a reputable source and then take a fact like "Hitler really loved Jews" from an online article.

Sorry I'm getting preachy about the Internet and the dangers of using it, basically I'm just trying to say this information on nuclear energy may or may not be true, be careful on how you form your views.  But yeah the arguments I gave above should answer your question (why people promote, whether their facts are true or false), the rest is just me trying to defend those arguments I guess.  Sorry super long, but hopefully helpful

Response to Torry:

That comment about the French, totally uncool, funny, but uncool :-P

And my point was that the effects of mining for plutonium (or uranium actually) is less detrimental than the effects of mining for coal because you can mine less to produce the same amount of energy.

Answer 2

Nuclear power is a very complex issue and no "yahoo answers" answer can cover it. Nuclear power is cheap if you disregard the research costs, and the storage of waste issues. Governments usually have significant inputs into these two issues and so this cost is seen in taxes rather than fuel  bills.

Spent fuel can be reprocessed and reused but not indefinitely. The problem is that the reprocessing extracts the plutonium from the uranium. The uranium is what's (generally) usedin nuclear power reactors, plutonium is generall used for bombs. The putonium form reprocessing is not that useful for bombs however so something else has to be done with it.

The issue of nuclear waste is not really about the fuel. Nuclear waste is split into 3 categories: high level, medium level and low level. As you would expect there is not much high level, quite a lot of medium level and masses of low level. In fact when you demolish a reactor jsut about the whole thig is low level waste, as well as all the cooling water, anything that has been in the main reactor buildings.

Unfortunately saying dump it all in the bottom of the ocean is not really an adequate answer. We used to say this about sewage until it staretd washing up on the beaches too much and causing other bio hazards (growth of alge for example). Radiation is a very pernicious form of waste and dumping it into marine habitats that we as yet barely understand cannot be considered a rational response to a real issue.

Nuclear power is by it's very nature a very dangerous form of power. We set in motion an chain reaction that is a natural positive feedback reaction. We set in place systems and safeguards to prevent the positive feedback leading to a nuclear explosion. Considering the inherent dangers of this process, the deathtoll and reduction in quality of life caused by nuclear power has in fact been very small, even when you include disasters such as Chernobyl, if you make coal power a comparison.

The issue of Nuclear power is very comlpex. There are no black and white answers. It is good as it produces negligible amopiunt of greenhouse gases, iot is bad because the nuclear waste is a  problem. It is by nature a hazardous process, but to a considerable extent those hazards can be contained. It is costly, but there is a cost to all forms of power, it is often simply that the cost is different or borne by different people.

The question to be answered about Nuclear power is do we want it despite these costs, hazards and pollutants, when we compare it with the costs, hazards and pollutants caused by other power sources.

Answer 3

Nuclear energy is promoted by SOME global warming advocates because it can generate energy without consuming fossil fuels and thus without producing CO2.

In short-term periods mankind will probably not be able to significantly reduce CO2-based energy while satisfying our energy needs. Nuclear power is a solution to this dilemma.

In long-term periods we probably will be able to replace both fossil and nuclear energy by other means, e.g. solar, wind, water.

Answer 4

because it is the only power source that can be used as a main line generation power plant 24/7 365 days a year. solar is only day time, wind is only when the wind blows.

hydro is good for peaking because you can shut it down easy during non peak hours. and save the water for peak hours.

geothermal is limited because there are not that many good sites.

nuclear is the only power source that can replace coal. and has no CO2 output.

only someone that under stands how the power system in the US works would understand. and only about 5% of the population know how the system works.

most people only understand how to turn there lights on or how to plug something in.

Answer 5

Money my dear, this fuel costs money and then there is also lots of money building nuclear plants. Obviously people want such stuff where you can make lots of money.

Answer 6

Start-up costs are more massive than coal. Ideally, however, once it is up and running it just keeps pooping out power.

Just as long as you do like the French and dump your nuclear waste at the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean, everything will be fine. ... 'Cause the French are cool and we need to be more like them.

Oh ... and yes it's true that there is more energy per mass in Plutonium than coal ... but there is a WHOLE lot more coal on the planet than there is accessible Plutonium.

Answer 7

i work in a nuke plant. it is far cheaper to produce nuclear power.  in France (and other countries) the spent fuel can be recycled. i guess the u s a is just behind the times. their is far less polluting in a nuke plant than in a coal plant. nuclear energy is a very safe way of producing power.

Answer 8

Nuclear power is far cheaper per kilowatt hour than any other alternative-- both wind and solar are over twice as much. Of course the initial cost of building nuclear plants is quite large, it is far more reliable than wind or solar and is it is a more mature energy source (its been around a while and most of the bug have been worked out).

The real problem is that most AGW advocates aren't promoting nuclear. At this point, it is our most viable alternative to coal and oil, and if AGWers were really worried about global warming, they would start promoting nuclear like crazy.

Answer 9

Nuclear power costs less than $6 / MW, coal $14 - $15, combined cycle natural gas ( the most efficient use of natural gas for power ) is about $ 80. Not costly compared to the alternative !!!

When the nuclear waste is contained after use there is no polution released, period.

Did you know that after a nuclear power plant has run for a year @ 1000 MW load, enough power for approximately 1,000,000 homes, volatile radioactive waste amounts to only about 7 cubic feet? And most of that will lose it's radioactivity after only 10 years not 10,000.

In the U.S. the accident injury rate is far lower than all other fuel sources. Not hazardous comparably.

You should more thoroughly vet your sources of information before forming your opinions, you will come across as a much better informed person.