General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsNuclear power is the greenest option, say top scientists
Rising demand for energy will place ever greater burdens on the natural world, threatening its rich biodiversity, unless societies accept nuclear power as a key part of the "energy mix", they said. And so the environmental movement and pressure groups such as Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace should drop their opposition to the building of nuclear power stations. In an open letter to be published next month in the journal Conservation Biology, more than 65 biologists, including a former UK government chief scientist, support the call to build more nuclear power plants as a central part of a global strategy to protect wildlife and the environment.
...snip...
The letter is signed by several leading British academics including Lord May of Oxford, a theoretical biologist at Oxford University and former chief scientific adviser; Professor Andrew Balmford, a conservation biologist at Cambridge; and Professor Tim Blackburn, an expert in biodiversity at University College London.
...snip...
Recognising the "historical antagonism towards nuclear energy" among environmentalists, they write: "Much as leading climate scientists have recently advocated the development of safe, next-generation nuclear energy systems to combat climate change, we entreat the conservation and environmental community to weigh up the pros and cons of different energy sources using objective evidence and pragmatic trade-offs, rather than simply relying on idealistic perceptions of what is 'green'."
...snip...
Professor Corey told The Independent on Sunday: "Our main concern is that society isn't doing enough to rein in emissions Unless we embrace a full, global-scale assault on fossil fuels, we'll be in increasingly worse shape over the coming decades and decades is all we have to act ruthlessly.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/nuclear-power-is-the-greenest-option-say-top-scientists-9955997.html
msongs
(67,413 posts)Thanks
zappaman
(20,606 posts)Quackers
(2,256 posts)just right above your eyes err, eye? Umm, it's right there.....just.....nevermind. Glad you made it back safe!!
marym625
(17,997 posts)Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)The Fukushima Number 2 (Dai-ni) nuclear complex, which is just 7 miles away from its more infamous cousin, Dai-ichi, averted a similar crisis "by a hair"
http://oceangreen.jp/kaisetsu-shuu/Fukushima2.html
marym625
(17,997 posts)Greg Palast wrote quite a few great articles about Fukushima
http://www.gregpalast.com/fukushima-they-knew/
Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)until 11 months after the explosions at Dai-ichi.
marym625
(17,997 posts)Much worse than it was. All of it.
Yes, this was one of my obsessions for a long time. Read everything I could on it. Haven't recently though. Need to get back on it.
Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)Aside from TEPCO's follies, the government really messed up when they hired a liaison for Fukushima, a professor of nuclear science from, I think, Nagasaki University, whose attitude toward the people of Fukushima was that they should basically "suck it up".
marym625
(17,997 posts)And I could be completely off, he did actually help when getting how bad it was, even though he didn't care in human terms.
I remember the scientists that held tiny little press conferences in secret (I know how weird that sounds) giving the actual data, then having to go into hiding.
This disaster is far from over.
Cleita
(75,480 posts)there's always a taker in this economy. Nothing saying a scientist can't be dishonest.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)tend to be wildly unqualified on the issue and push falsehoods.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)if a solar or geothermal plant malfunctions, does it put millions at risk and threaten long-term radioactive contamination of a broad chunk of geography?
Anyone ever die mining for sunlight? Are toxic heavy metals a standard by-product of wind farms?
The falsehood we have here is the claim by the undersigned in the OP. Nuclear is not the "greenest" energy source. it might be the bluest, due to cherenkov radiation, but it's not the greenest.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)None of this poses much, if any, threat during a solar panels working life. Solar modules which are linked together to form a solar panel for instance, are solid state and encased in glass or other protective material to keep them dry. The problem, as the Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition pointed out in a 2009 report, comes at the beginning and end of a panels life. Toxins potentially can be released during the manufacturing process putting workers at risk and when panels finally hit the scrap heap decades later.
The solar PV industry has the potential to provide enormous environmental benefits, according to the Silicon Valley Toxics report, but the toxic materials contained in solar panels will present a serious danger to public health and the environment if they are not disposed of properly when they reach the end of their useful lives.
Not that I'm the biggest fan of fission power myself--I'm more interested in the potential of fusion power.
But when the ANM pushes nonsense that one million people died from Chernobyl, or the West Coast is going to be "totally fried" by Fukushima radiation, it's make even people skeptical of fission like me roll their eyes.
Cleita
(75,480 posts)I can't believe thinking people buy into the energy industry propaganda.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)FBaggins
(26,748 posts)Last edited Sun Jan 4, 2015, 12:10 AM - Edit history (1)
When the list of 65+ biologists comes out next month in the journal Conservation Biology... you let us know your findings.
On edit - It's apparently out already and it's more than 75 (virtually all university professors)
http://bravenewclimate.com/2014/12/15/an-open-letter-to-environmentalists-on-nuclear-energy/
Cleita
(75,480 posts)take 50 thousand years to become neutral and safe I will believe them that nukes are safe. That science cannot be denied or shoved aside. Otherwise building up a reserve of radioactive rods with no place to go or if an accident happens like has in Chernobyl and Fukushima doesn't make the industry seem safe to me. If I have time and am at a regular computer I will put up a list of sources from other scientists, not corrupted by the industry that will curl your hair. Right now I'm on a mobile device.
FBaggins
(26,748 posts)It really isn't a scientific problem. They could recycle the useful parts and let the most radioactive parts "become neutral" since they have such short half-lives.
The remaining waste could easily be buried. It has incredibly long half lives, but it doesn't need to wait to "become safe" because it had those same half lives when we took it out of the ground in the first place.
not corrupted by the industry
And not compensated by advocacy groups? Or are those dollars not corrupting?
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)Cleita
(75,480 posts)I can tell you aren't thinking logically or mathematically. You just can't keep burying the stuff. You keep creating more and more of it and you are going to run out of burial grounds. You have to mark the grounds as radioactive but in what language? Language will change drastically in 50 thousand years and all of this destruction is for the short term profits for the likes of Duke Energy.
Savannahmann
(3,891 posts)The movie Pandora's Promise was interesting. I don't know if my opinion changed. I've always known that nuclear produced zero CO2. I'm not sure if it's the future, but I think we should discuss it.
FreakinDJ
(17,644 posts)And yes any intelligent human being with half a brain can see its the only way
Generic Other
(28,979 posts)Why do nuclear industry types believe they have an inherent right to poison the environment by forcing a technology that has proven costly, dangerous, and deadly on the rest of us?
FreakinDJ
(17,644 posts)Funny thing is they actually think they know what they're talking about
on point
(2,506 posts)Not even zero for energy production.
Need to consider the full life cycle of nuclear plant and fuel, which is NOT zero CO2. Nuclear is still gives net positive CO2 pollution. Better than coal, but not better than renewables, especially for money spent.
FBaggins
(26,748 posts)Phlem
(6,323 posts)see if they still think so.
Savannahmann
(3,891 posts)They went. They were all environmentalist advocates. They went. Watch the movie, and then see what you think.
Phlem
(6,323 posts)I'll fire it up. Now I'm all curious.
backscatter712
(26,355 posts)It's been a while since I discussed this topic here.
I'm a fan of LFTRs (Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors) which could be far safer and more efficient than today's reactors, which are pretty dangerous.
I do agree that we need nuclear power to really get us off of fossil fuels.
FBaggins
(26,748 posts)and an even safer generation of smaller reactors is just on the horizon.
sakabatou
(42,152 posts)Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)FBaggins
(26,748 posts)Waste isn't a technical or economic issue... it's a purely political one.
oldandhappy
(6,719 posts)Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)Accepting anything less is buy into the tyranny of Exxon Mobil.
FBaggins
(26,748 posts)Geothermal and tidal (along with wave energy) are still not ready for prime time, though all should be pursued.
Wind and solar can't get the job done on their own without dramatic over-building and/or storage on a scale that cannot be delivered with current technology.
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)It makes it more challenging to reach our REP goals and there are forces trying to change the definition to include large hydro.
I guess it has to do with the environmental impact of large hydropower installations.
They didn't bother to contact me for an opinion!
FBaggins
(26,748 posts)... I'm not sure that large-scale hydro counts as electricity generation at all right now.
It's more "holding the only water we have left".
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Actually I think it was you who posted that chart the other day...
FBaggins
(26,748 posts)It's coming close to 50/50 between hydro and other renewables in the US (with nuclear about 30% ahead of the two combined)
Globally it's about 4-1 in favor of traditional hydro with nuclear closer to half of the combined total.
That's for electricity generation of course. If you count firewood for cooking and heat worldwide... that's different.
marym625
(17,997 posts)Decades ago and still sticks with me. Hilarious
Mork from Ork on Nuclear Waste:
Quantess
(27,630 posts)marmar
(77,081 posts)GeorgeGist
(25,321 posts)on point
(2,506 posts)NightWatcher
(39,343 posts)A bird flew into a prop. I'll put the occasional dead bird against Chernobyl and Fukishima any day.
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)FBaggins
(26,748 posts)Quite a few more (human) wind-farm-related deaths in the last three years than from radiation from the Fukushima disaster.
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)DCBob
(24,689 posts)Especially regarding effects on global warming.
seveneyes
(4,631 posts)It is basic nuclear physics. Just like the tell tale heart that never lies.
FBaggins
(26,748 posts)wundermaus
(1,673 posts)but then there are geniuses like this guy that makes me pause...
Taylor Wilson: My radical plan for small nuclear fission reactors