Would you say that the "anti-nuclear" crowd has destroyed mankind's future?

Question

Thanks to the "anti-nuclear" activists, we have not developed

an efficient infrastructure using breeder reactors... the only power source available with today's technology, that could have

sustained technological civilization for the long haul (centuries

to millennia.)

We are still totally dependent on FOSSIL FUELS, as a result

of the anti-nuclear movement. And even if they weren't running

out (which they are, "Peak Oil" has likely occurred already!) there is the unfolding disaster of global warming. (Seems that CO2 was a WAY more dangerous pollutant than uranium, plutonium, ect.)

So there it is! According to James Lovelock, the world will be uninhabitable by 2100, except at the poles where the climate remains tolerable. In the high Arctic, a few breeding pairs of people will probably survive (presumably eating bugs and picking berries.) A bit ironic, considering that most anti-nuclear people I've met are Star Trek fans...

Was this the future they wanted? You gotta wonder.

Answer 1

They are misguided and uninformed and yes, getting in the way of energy independence.

Answer 2

I am and have been for a long time a proponent of Nuclear power.  I do not blame the folks that bring legitimate concerns about this power generation technology to light.  I blame those of us that support this for not generating the political will with good debate and facts to build more safe plants.  Also the inability of schools to educate enough of our citizens to understand what is a fact and what is propaganda.  It is not the folks that disagree with us that are at fault.  They have just been better at generating political consensus then us.

Answer 3

why are u asking this? seriously? is there nothing better to do than ruin someone's day with a retarded question? why do u do this? why?

Answer 4

There are legitimate concerns about spent nuclear fuel transportation and storage, safety (Three Mile Island, Chernobyl), terrorism, etc. but I'd rather see those addressed than to continue down the path of coal power.

Nuclear is one of the few alternatives that produces power at a similar cost to coal, so it's an important component of a coal-alternative power future that does not hurt us economically.

Answer 5

You know, public opinion is strongly in favor of nuclear power:

http://www.nei.org/resourcesandstats/doc...

even putting one near where they live.  So I don't think it's the anti-nuclear crowd that is the problem in particular.  I think it is more that there is so much more money to be made in mining coal and extracting natural gas and turning that into electricity, that nuclear power can't compete in terms of profit margins.

There is also the not-insignificant problem that improperly run and designed power reactors are a huge hazard, to argue that they are not denies the reality the Soviets encountered with the RBMK series.  Waste is also an issue, were we to generate the fraction of power France does (around 3/4), the amount of high-level waste we would be dealing with would be enormous.  

But I think it's more crass profit that is responsible for the lack of nuclear power in this country more than the small anti-nuclear crowd or safety/waste disposal concerns.  I mean, despite the public protest against the MX missiles, Trident subs, B-2, they all got built.  If corporations really wanted reactors, they would get built too.

Answer 6

I wouldn't necessarily accept what Lovelock says as absolute truth.  He's a very intelligent man and his thoughts and ideas should be discussed, but an uninhabitable world (except at the poles) by 2100 is not credible.

With that said, nuclear is functioning well in France and other countries.  The US would probably be well advised to give up current plans for new coal power-generation plants and build nuclear plants instead.  Meanwhile, a serious effort (something that should have been started 30 years ago, but no politicians had the backbone) is needed to improve solar efficiency (there are several very promising fronts theres) and some of the other promising clean power generation capabilities (e.g. geothermal, tidal, high altitude wind power, etc.).

Answer 7

If you think about it, both the anti-nuclear and AGW groups have a lot in common.

They both want to place limits on man's knowledge, limits on man's growth.

If we developed our nuclear resources in the 1970's, we would have many fewer coal burning power generators.  We would also be able to sell this technology to China and India to help them produce clean energy.

With cheap nuclear power, all electric cars and homes would be a reality by now, our carbon emissions would be the lowest in the world.

There's plenty of oil left in the Earth.  Peak oil has been bantered about since the Carter administration.  And like Carters admin, we just lack the political will to get it.

Instead of progress, they rather flock to a certified nut who claims the world is ending.