Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

FBaggins

(26,748 posts)
Sat Jan 3, 2015, 10:37 PM Jan 2015

Nuclear 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
59 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Nuclear power is the greenest option, say top scientists (Original Post) FBaggins Jan 2015 OP
Let's all spend the week at Chernobyl and enjoy the greenery lol nt msongs Jan 2015 #1
Right. elleng Jan 2015 #2
I just got back! zappaman Jan 2015 #3
You have something Quackers Jan 2015 #54
No thanks. I'm going to Fukushima. marym625 Jan 2015 #4
It could have been much worse in Fukushima Art_from_Ark Jan 2015 #25
yep. marym625 Jan 2015 #29
The public wasn't even informed of the near-disaster at Dai-ni Art_from_Ark Jan 2015 #30
It's hard to think of this being handled marym625 Jan 2015 #32
Yeah, it was handled pretty badly Art_from_Ark Jan 2015 #49
If I remember correctly marym625 Jan 2015 #51
I find many of the scientists touting this are paid by the energy companies. eom Cleita Jan 2015 #5
+1 Phlem Jan 2015 #8
+1 marym625 Jan 2015 #10
I find most of the advocates against nuclear NuclearDem Jan 2015 #15
Does solar create radioactive waste with HL's of tens of thousands of years? Scootaloo Jan 2015 #50
Solar's not exactly pure. NuclearDem Jan 2015 #52
Nothing is exactly pure but this is beyond just a little pollution as an after effect. Cleita Jan 2015 #56
As I said before, I'm skeptical of fission power. NuclearDem Jan 2015 #57
I'm sure that you'll back that up FBaggins Jan 2015 #21
When those professors can convince me that spent rods don't Cleita Jan 2015 #39
They only take that long because we chose to do it that way. FBaggins Jan 2015 #44
Money on those sources including Caldicott and Gunderson. NuclearDem Jan 2015 #46
So you keep drinking that Kool-Aid pal. Cleita Jan 2015 #55
I recently watched a film. Savannahmann Jan 2015 #6
Illustrated the Anti Nuke crowd is Fueled by BS FreakinDJ Jan 2015 #20
My BS has less of a half life than yours Generic Other Jan 2015 #53
Like I said FreakinDJ Jan 2015 #58
Not 0 Co2 if you include the construction, decommission and thousands of years of waste on point Jan 2015 #28
Do you imagine that renewables are zero CO2 by that measure? FBaggins Jan 2015 #31
Let's send them to Fukashima and Phlem Jan 2015 #7
Watch Pandora's Promise. Savannahmann Jan 2015 #27
Cool! Thanks Phlem Jan 2015 #47
Show me a new generation of safe reactors, and I'll support it. backscatter712 Jan 2015 #9
They're under construction now FBaggins Jan 2015 #22
And the nuclear waste goes where? sakabatou Jan 2015 #11
In our backyards, of course! Luminous Animal Jan 2015 #13
Recycled or back into the ground. FBaggins Jan 2015 #24
in an open trench right next to the fracking water. oldandhappy Jan 2015 #26
Solar, wind, tidal, geothermal and conservation, are the greenest options. Luminous Animal Jan 2015 #12
Not even traditional hydro makes your list? FBaggins Jan 2015 #23
In California, large hydro is not considered "renewable". Anything over 30 MW is "large". NYC_SKP Jan 2015 #33
Well... in CA... FBaggins Jan 2015 #36
Traditional hydro is 10 times bigger than all other renewables put together, isn't it? Recursion Jan 2015 #34
It isn't that large a difference FBaggins Jan 2015 #40
Saw this first run marym625 Jan 2015 #14
Yes, a glowing neon green! Quantess Jan 2015 #16
............... marmar Jan 2015 #17
Set the controls for the heart of the sun, GeorgeGist Jan 2015 #18
Nuclear industry astro turfing BS. No need. Just go renewable and efficiency. on point Jan 2015 #19
Did you hear the one about the horrible tragedy at the wind farm? NightWatcher Jan 2015 #35
Yep, me too. nt RiverLover Jan 2015 #38
You might be surprised FBaggins Jan 2015 #42
This is something Third Way pushes. RiverLover Jan 2015 #37
It surely could be if there was a safer way to handle the waste. DCBob Jan 2015 #41
Reality confirms that solar, wind and hydro are all products of nuclear forces seveneyes Jan 2015 #43
Geothermal too. FBaggins Jan 2015 #45
I hate the very idea of using nuclear power... wundermaus Jan 2015 #48
EXCEPT thet pesky deadly waste issue. pansypoo53219 Jan 2015 #59

Quackers

(2,256 posts)
54. You have something
Sun Jan 4, 2015, 01:18 AM
Jan 2015

just right above your eyes err, eye? Umm, it's right there.....just.....nevermind. Glad you made it back safe!!

Art_from_Ark

(27,247 posts)
25. It could have been much worse in Fukushima
Sat Jan 3, 2015, 11:43 PM
Jan 2015

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

Art_from_Ark

(27,247 posts)
30. The public wasn't even informed of the near-disaster at Dai-ni
Sat Jan 3, 2015, 11:59 PM
Jan 2015

until 11 months after the explosions at Dai-ichi.

marym625

(17,997 posts)
32. It's hard to think of this being handled
Sun Jan 4, 2015, 12:17 AM
Jan 2015

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)
49. Yeah, it was handled pretty badly
Sun Jan 4, 2015, 12:59 AM
Jan 2015

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)
51. If I remember correctly
Sun Jan 4, 2015, 01:03 AM
Jan 2015

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.

 

NuclearDem

(16,184 posts)
15. I find most of the advocates against nuclear
Sat Jan 3, 2015, 11:12 PM
Jan 2015

tend to be wildly unqualified on the issue and push falsehoods.

 

Scootaloo

(25,699 posts)
50. Does solar create radioactive waste with HL's of tens of thousands of years?
Sun Jan 4, 2015, 01:01 AM
Jan 2015

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)
52. Solar's not exactly pure.
Sun Jan 4, 2015, 01:08 AM
Jan 2015
http://grist.org/article/2010-01-06-solars-dirty-little-secret/

That’s not quite the case. Any form of energy production has its dirty side and solar is no exception. While its impact is nowhere near that of coal-fired power plants, photovoltaic modules are made from a witch’s brew of toxic chemicals. Arsenic, cadmium telluride, hexafluoroethane, lead, and polyvinyl fluoride are just some of the chemicals used to manufacture various types of solar cells.

None of this poses much, if any, threat during a solar panel’s 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 panel’s 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)
56. Nothing is exactly pure but this is beyond just a little pollution as an after effect.
Sun Jan 4, 2015, 01:33 AM
Jan 2015

I can't believe thinking people buy into the energy industry propaganda.

FBaggins

(26,748 posts)
21. I'm sure that you'll back that up
Sat Jan 3, 2015, 11:36 PM
Jan 2015

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)
39. When those professors can convince me that spent rods don't
Sun Jan 4, 2015, 12:32 AM
Jan 2015

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)
44. They only take that long because we chose to do it that way.
Sun Jan 4, 2015, 12:46 AM
Jan 2015

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?

Cleita

(75,480 posts)
55. So you keep drinking that Kool-Aid pal.
Sun Jan 4, 2015, 01:22 AM
Jan 2015

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)
6. I recently watched a film.
Sat Jan 3, 2015, 10:54 PM
Jan 2015

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)
20. Illustrated the Anti Nuke crowd is Fueled by BS
Sat Jan 3, 2015, 11:33 PM
Jan 2015

And yes any intelligent human being with half a brain can see its the only way

Generic Other

(28,979 posts)
53. My BS has less of a half life than yours
Sun Jan 4, 2015, 01:13 AM
Jan 2015

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?

on point

(2,506 posts)
28. Not 0 Co2 if you include the construction, decommission and thousands of years of waste
Sat Jan 3, 2015, 11:51 PM
Jan 2015

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.

 

Savannahmann

(3,891 posts)
27. Watch Pandora's Promise.
Sat Jan 3, 2015, 11:49 PM
Jan 2015

They went. They were all environmentalist advocates. They went. Watch the movie, and then see what you think.

backscatter712

(26,355 posts)
9. Show me a new generation of safe reactors, and I'll support it.
Sat Jan 3, 2015, 11:05 PM
Jan 2015

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)
22. They're under construction now
Sat Jan 3, 2015, 11:39 PM
Jan 2015

and an even safer generation of smaller reactors is just on the horizon.

FBaggins

(26,748 posts)
24. Recycled or back into the ground.
Sat Jan 3, 2015, 11:43 PM
Jan 2015

Waste isn't a technical or economic issue... it's a purely political one.

Luminous Animal

(27,310 posts)
12. Solar, wind, tidal, geothermal and conservation, are the greenest options.
Sat Jan 3, 2015, 11:09 PM
Jan 2015

Accepting anything less is buy into the tyranny of Exxon Mobil.

FBaggins

(26,748 posts)
23. Not even traditional hydro makes your list?
Sat Jan 3, 2015, 11:42 PM
Jan 2015

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)
33. In California, large hydro is not considered "renewable". Anything over 30 MW is "large".
Sun Jan 4, 2015, 12:18 AM
Jan 2015

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)
36. Well... in CA...
Sun Jan 4, 2015, 12:26 AM
Jan 2015

... 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)
34. Traditional hydro is 10 times bigger than all other renewables put together, isn't it?
Sun Jan 4, 2015, 12:18 AM
Jan 2015

Actually I think it was you who posted that chart the other day...

FBaggins

(26,748 posts)
40. It isn't that large a difference
Sun Jan 4, 2015, 12:33 AM
Jan 2015

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.

NightWatcher

(39,343 posts)
35. Did you hear the one about the horrible tragedy at the wind farm?
Sun Jan 4, 2015, 12:25 AM
Jan 2015

A bird flew into a prop. I'll put the occasional dead bird against Chernobyl and Fukishima any day.

FBaggins

(26,748 posts)
42. You might be surprised
Sun Jan 4, 2015, 12:40 AM
Jan 2015

Quite a few more (human) wind-farm-related deaths in the last three years than from radiation from the Fukushima disaster.

DCBob

(24,689 posts)
41. It surely could be if there was a safer way to handle the waste.
Sun Jan 4, 2015, 12:34 AM
Jan 2015

Especially regarding effects on global warming.

 

seveneyes

(4,631 posts)
43. Reality confirms that solar, wind and hydro are all products of nuclear forces
Sun Jan 4, 2015, 12:40 AM
Jan 2015

It is basic nuclear physics. Just like the tell tale heart that never lies.

wundermaus

(1,673 posts)
48. I hate the very idea of using nuclear power...
Sun Jan 4, 2015, 12:54 AM
Jan 2015

but then there are geniuses like this guy that makes me pause...

Taylor Wilson: My radical plan for small nuclear fission reactors

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Nuclear power is the gree...