Nuclear energy the way to go?

[Anna B]

Independent Scientist, James Lovelock, proponent of the Gaia principle; that the Earth is a living, self regulating organism, has proposed that Nuclear Power is a gift to the human race; a clean, cheap, reliable source of power which we have given a bad name, but are mad to ignore.

 

He says that to continue to slavishly pursue 'green energy' is a flawed policy which will not meet our needs, will bankrupt us, and could eventually force us almost back to the stone age. He also says that many of the policies (such as converting Drax power station to wood pellets imported from Brazil,) results in a bigger carbon footprint and more toxicity than before. Money would be better spent building safer, more reliable nuclear power stations.

 

Therefore, nuclear energy is the way to go. What do you think?

[tinfoilhat]

Build em, build em safe, but build them now. The French do it, why can't we? Invest and invest massively. Become energy self sufficient and hopefully if we can get it right we can start binning the internal combustion engines in favour of electric cars.

[tzijlstra]

Not criticising the post, just thought that we have had this discussion some times ago? But I might be wrong, could have been on another forum.

 

I think that the position needs to be that we pursue both REAL green alternatives - wind/solar/tidal etc. AND nuclear. The big advantage of nuclear is that it is nearly infinite and can form a bridge to the time where true renewable energy is feasible as the sole source of energy for us all.

[ivanava]

Independent Scientist, James Lovelock, proponent of the Gaia principle; that the Earth is a living, self regulating organism, has proposed that Nuclear Power is a gift to the human race; a clean, cheap, reliable source of power which we have given a bad name, but are mad to ignore.

 

He says that to continue to slavishly pursue 'green energy' is a flawed policy which will not meet our needs, will bankrupt us, and could eventually force us almost back to the stone age. He also says that many of the policies (such as converting Drax power station to wood pellets imported from Brazil,) results in a bigger carbon footprint and more toxicity than before. Money would be better spent building safer, more reliable nuclear power stations.

 

Therefore, nuclear energy is the way to go. What do you think?

 

I think he is right, the UK has pursued policies to reduce our carbon foot print, but in doing so they have increase earths carbon foot print.

[Gormenghast]

Not criticising the post, just thought that we have had this discussion some times ago? But I might be wrong, could have been on another forum.

 

I think that the position needs to be that we pursue both REAL green alternatives - wind/solar/tidal etc. AND nuclear. The big advantage of nuclear is that it is nearly infinite and can form a bridge to the time where true renewable energy is feasible as the sole source of energy for us all.

 

I don't think wind and tidal will contribute enough. We need big nuclear, and as soon as possible.

[tinfoilhat]

I don't think wind and tidal will contribute enough. We need big nuclear, and as soon as possible.

 

And tidal isn't THAT "green" either. Can cause massive ecological problems. Nuclear has two main issues as far as I can see it, waste (which can be managed/reused?) and the consiquences if one goes bang.

[Gormenghast]

And tidal isn't THAT "green" either. Can cause massive ecological problems. Nuclear has two main issues as far as I can see it, waste (which can be managed/reused?) and the consiquences if one goes bang.

 

Yes, but coal mines used to go bang when they had a roof fall or a flash fire.

[flamingjimmy]

Nuclear has two main issues as far as I can see it, waste (which can be managed/reused?) and the consiquences if one goes bang.

Nuclear disasters are extremely rare, and if you compare the amount of deaths caused to the amount of power generated Nuclear is pretty much the safest energy source we have, right now.

 

So says NASA as well as this thorough analysis.

 

Even looking at the worst ever nuclear disaster, Chernobyl, it's not even that bad, compared to disasters in other fields. The world health organisation says that about 50 people died directly and up to 4000 may have shortened lifespans due to radiation exposure. Some 200,000 people were relocated.

 

Lets compare that to say, Hydroelectric. In 1975, a hydroelectric dam gave way in China causing over 20,000 deaths immediately, with over 100,000 people dying later in the aftermath from disease and famine. Whole towns were destroyed and 11 million people affected.

[megalithic]

Yes.

 

............

[SevenRivers]

Independent Scientist, James Lovelock, proponent of the Gaia principle; that the Earth is a living, self regulating organism, has proposed that Nuclear Power is a gift to the human race; a clean, cheap, reliable source of power which we have given a bad name, but are mad to ignore.

 

He says that to continue to slavishly pursue 'green energy' is a flawed policy which will not meet our needs, will bankrupt us, and could eventually force us almost back to the stone age. He also says that many of the policies (such as converting Drax power station to wood pellets imported from Brazil,) results in a bigger carbon footprint and more toxicity than before. Money would be better spent building safer, more reliable nuclear power stations.

 

Therefore, nuclear energy is the way to go. What do you think?

 

You'd like Cool It by Danish man Bjorn Lomborg, author of The Skeptical Environmentalist. Basically for the ££billions being poured into environmental schemes, it will make about 0.2 degrees difference to the change that will still occur (predicted to be up to 4 degrees) and there are far better and cheaper ways we can possessively mitigate our impact on the environment.