This has always puzzled me, because most proponents of global warming are skeptical because they're afraid of the lower cost and efficiency of nuclear power.
But you would think if that were the case, they would mostly favor the change to lower the consumption of cheap fossil fuels such as coal and natural gas. Yet most proponents seem to wholeheartedly resist an increased use of nuclear power.
This seems to contradict their ecological motivations, because new nuclear power is extremely efficient and clean. One of the few new nuclear power plants proposed to be built in the US in the last 30 years - in San Antonio - was originally estimated to cost $13 billion for 2 reactors. The price tag just went up another $4 billion due to unions and unfounded EPA regulations.
http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/Nuclear鈥?/a>
The same story can be applied to proposed nuclear plants in Florida, North Carolina, and abroad in Canada and Finland. Due mainly to the EPA and the proponents of global warming, nuclear power is highly suppressed viable alternative.
Yet we constantly hear questions from proponents of global warming about why non-believers don't support algore and the church of global warming more strongly.
What's the deal? Do they not understand the reality of clean, efficient nuclear power? Do they resist it just because non-believers know nuclear power is better than coal and natural gas? Are they just parroting what they hear from the liberal media and political websites?
Why don't the proponents of global warming support nuclear power?
They're afraid that a nuclear power plant will be built where they can see it, and they don't look very good. Obviously, the solution is to build them in AGW skeptic's backyard, which alarmists see as fair. However, the rest of us don't agree with the alarmists, so they feel the need to eliminate all the nuclear power plants, as not everyone agrees with alarmists over them.
You all think I'm joking, don't you? Ted Kennedy refused to have a wind farm built near his property, because it would disrupt his view. Same thing with liberal Sen. John Warner, who tried to bar the Army Corps of Engineers from permitting offshore windfarms, as he and his relatives all live on the coast. Clearly, all the alternative power plants belong in the west, so that they can disrupt the view of people that don't matter (particularly conservatives).
Just imagine what it'd be like if you replaced the windmills with a massive nuclear power plant belching clouds of steam.
Why don't the proponents of global warming support nuclear power?
Some environmentalists support nuclear power, some don't. The nuclear waste issue and the proliferation issue has still not been resolved, although with fast neutron plants, this problem would be minimized, but these plants are probably 15 to 20 years away from operation. Personally, while I probably support development of fast neutron plants, I think solar, wind, wave, and energy efficiency can go a long way in solving GW, and energy security.
Burning fossil fuel is great providing you can get rid of the pollutants.
It can be done.
It has to be done!
Nuclear is fine provided you eliminate corruption. Given the only way to do that is to eliminate 鈥榤an鈥? I fear you argument is floored.
It鈥檚 too damn dangerous! Period!
I am a proponent of the scientific theory of global warming and I support nuclear power.
However, I accept that it has its downsides. It is more expensive than coal/natural gas. Its thermal efficiency is lower than gas. It has problems of waste. It is very high capital cost and low marginal cost, so using it for peak demand and load following is not cost effective.
In my opinion, the upsides (low air pollution, low CO2, easily stored fuel, reliable baseload) massively outweigh the costs and it's a far better option than coal for baseload electricity.
In principle it's worse than renewable power, but current renewable tech has its own downsides and won't provide our energy demands for decades and decades.
So :thumbs up: to nuclear!
You will also find many other proponents supporting nuclear power. Steven Chu, James Lovelock, Jim Hansen, Rajendra Pachauri %26amp; Mark Lynas, to name a few.
Some of them are truly concerned about CO2.
Others just dislike the American lifestyle and adopted environmental issues when they lost the debate in the world of economics.
I do support nuclear power.
Nuclear power would certainly solve a lot of the global warming issue, but it has other consequences. No point solving one problem and creating another. Where are we going to store all the waste generated from nuclear power plants? What are we going to do if terrorists get their hands on it?
