'Only nuclear power can now halt global warming'

[Plekhanov]

I’ve always been extremely sceptical of nuclear power and interested to learn where we intend to put all the waste, but if a few more guys like this swing behind it I may have to re-evaluate my position. Interesting story in today’s Independent

'Only nuclear power can now halt global warming'
Leading environmentalist urges radical rethink on climate change
By Michael McCarthy Environment Editor
24 May 2004

Global warming is now advancing so swiftly that only a massive expansion of nuclear power as the world's main energy source can prevent it overwhelming civilisation, the scientist and celebrated Green guru, James Lovelock, says.

His call will cause huge disquiet for the environmental movement. It has long considered the 84-year-old radical thinker among its greatest heroes, and sees climate change as the most important issue facing the world, but it has always regarded opposition to nuclear power as an article of faith. Last night the leaders of both Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth rejected his call.

Professor Lovelock, who achieved international fame as the author of the Gaia hypothesis, the theory that the Earth keeps itself fit for life by the actions of living things themselves, was among the first researchers to sound the alarm about the threat from the greenhouse effect.

He was in a select group of scientists who gave an initial briefing on climate change to Margaret Thatcher's Conservative Cabinet at 10 Downing Street in April 1989.

He now believes recent climatic events have shown the warming of the atmosphere is proceeding even more rapidly than the scientists of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) thought it would, in their last report in 2001.

On that basis, he says, there is simply not enough time for renewable energy, such as wind, wave and solar power - the favoured solution of the Green movement - to take the place of the coal, gas and oil-fired power stations whose waste gas, carbon dioxide (CO2), is causing the atmosphere to warm.

He believes only a massive expansion of nuclear power, which produces almost no CO2, can now check a runaway warming which would raise sea levels disastrously around the world, cause climatic turbulence and make agriculture unviable over large areas. He says fears about the safety of nuclear energy are irrational and exaggerated, and urges the Green movement to drop its opposition.

In today's Independent, Professor Lovelock says he is concerned by two climatic events in particular: the melting of the Greenland ice sheet, which will raise global sea levels significantly, and the episode of extreme heat in western central Europe last August, accepted by many scientists as unprecedented and a direct result of global warming.

These are ominous warning signs, he says, that climate change is speeding, but many people are still in ignorance of this. Important among the reasons is "the denial of climate change in the US, where governments have failed to give their climate scientists the support they needed".

He compares the situation to that in Europe in 1938, with the Second World War looming, and nobody knowing what to do. The attachment of the Greens to renewables is "well-intentioned but misguided", he says, like the Left's 1938 attachment to disarmament when he too was a left-winger.

He writes today: "I am a Green, and I entreat my friends in the movement to drop their wrongheaded objection to nuclear energy."

His appeal, which in effect is asking the Greens to make a bargain with the devil, is likely to fall on deaf ears, at least at present.

"Lovelock is right to demand a drastic response to climate change," Stephen Tindale, executive director of Greenpeace UK, said last night. "He's right to question previous assumptions.

"But he's wrong to think nuclear power is any part of the answer. Nuclear creates enormous problems, waste we don't know what to do with; radioactive emissions; unavoidable risk of accident and terrorist attack."

Tony Juniper, director of Friends of the Earth, said: "Climate change and radioactive waste both pose deadly long-term threats, and we have a moral duty to minimise the effects of both, not to choose between them."

[EmperorChrostas the Cruel]

The objection to nuclear waste is laughable, and shows not clearly thinking the problem through.
What the fuck do you think happens to the CONVENTIONAL waste from coal, oil, and natural gas power generation?
It goes into the sky, by the megaton, that's where.
How about all the oil that is spilled during the drilling, and shipping?
However nasty nuclear waste is, there is just so much LESS of it.
We are talking a ratio of megatons to pounds here.
As demonstrated here already, search the board, and find out just how TOUGH the nuclear waste conctainment shipping containers are. There are plenty of geologicly stable area that the waste won't leak into the ground water.
The ONLY major objection and strumbling block is irrational political problems.
IT'S NUCULER!
Without the hassles of ignorant or anti humanist greens, (people are the PROBLEM, nature is good) and the ignorant sheep that follow their lead, we could be using clean, safe relativly cheap nuclear power. Like the one good thing France has going for it.
Chernobl will never happen again, and shouldn't have happed in the first place.(Ignorant commie bastards) Let's try our damnedest to cause a problem, by ignoring safety rules. Only in such a system as the former Solviet Union could such shit for brains fools have the power to tell the techies to override the system, and ignore safety protocalls and not be told to "FUCK OFF MORON," and not fear for their job or life. No one with the rank to override the techs claim of danger works in a non totalitarian owned nuclear power plant. Merely saying the word "Chernobl" will get the techs backed up, and stupid orders disobeyed.
Idiot A: "Do this!"
Tech B: "Are you out of your fucking mind, do you want an other Chernobl? Uhh, sir."

Techs B, C D, E, and others refuse to do as ordered.

[phongn]

I’ve always been extremely sceptical of nuclear power and interested to learn where we intend to put all the waste, but if a few more guys like this swing behind it I may have to re-evaluate my position.

Minor note: this board is about as pro-nuclear as you can get. But why so skeptical about nuclear power?

[CaptainChewbacca]

I’ve always been extremely sceptical of nuclear power and interested to learn where we intend to put all the waste, but if a few more guys like this swing behind it I may have to re-evaluate my position.

The problem America has is someone somewhere deemed it a security risk to reprocess nuclear waste into fuel, so we have a nuclear waste problem that no other nuclear power has. France's nuclear industry is a model of efficiency. If we did just that, nuclear would take off, since one of the biggest problems with nuclear power is the stigma of waste.

And I say its about damn time, because wind power and geothermal won't go the distance.

[Wicked Pilot]

Minor note: this board is about as pro-nuclear as you can get. But why so skeptical about nuclear power?

Face it, radiation, and nuclear power by extension is scary. There is something haunting about things that can kill you that you can't see, smell, or taste. That's why nuclear disasters make better movies than oil or coal plant disasters.

[CaptainChewbacca]

Minor note: this board is about as pro-nuclear as you can get. But why so skeptical about nuclear power?

Face it, radiation, and nuclear power by extension is scary. There is something haunting about things that can kill you that you can't see, smell, or taste. That's why nuclear disasters make better movies than oil or coal plant disasters.

Yes, but the danger is even smaller. I can name ten oil spills, but you can't name four nuclear disasters. Nuclear power is the SAFEST form of power generation known to man and has caused fewer deaths than any other.

[CaptainChewbacca]

*except maybe solar

[Plekhanov]

snip

What the hell’s your problem? I post a story that I say has led me to think again about nuclear power and you respond by calling my opinions laughable and then launch into a semi coherent bile laced rant which I can only assumed is aimed at me.

What do you hope to achieve by this? The most likely outcome would be to put me on the defensive and totally prevent any further exchange of ideas, if that was your intention then well done because even though there may have been a few reasoned points buried in your post it’s overall tone was such that I have no desire to discuss the issue with you further.

I may well be an idiot with ridiculously ill thought out opinions based upon crappy evidence but in the future will you please hold off the insults until you have tried at least one polite post and been rebuffed by the force of my ignorance. Fuck You

Minor note: this board is about as pro-nuclear as you can get. But why so skeptical about nuclear power?

I’ve noticed a bit of a pro-nuclear feel to the place, which I suppose was one reason I posted the story. I’m sceptical about nuclear energy for a number of reasons: First off it’s good old distrust of the government, the UK government hardly has a stellar record with openness about our nuclear program and any problems it has and whilst it claims to have turned over a new leaf I still have trouble believing much/anything they say about the issue. The fairly regular minor scandals (no doubt whipped up by the media and so forth) suh as the falsification of inspections in our dealings with Japan really don’t help the situation.

As has been mentioned nuclear power just is scary that whole concentrated radiation thing is just worrying, even to someone with even a basic understanding of the science (as I like to think I have), as are the time periods we have to safely store the most dangerous stuff for. This seems a particular problem in the UK as we’re a small, densely populated island and it’s hard to think where we are going to put the stuff.

Also on a purely personal level it pisses me off the nuclear power is subsidised here whereas the coal industry isn’t (unlike in much of the rest of Europe) my home town used to be a mining town, now its just a depressed ex-mining town. However irrational it may be I guess the superior lobbying power of the nuclear industry in comparison to coal hasn’t really endeared me to it.

[Crown]

*except maybe solar

Yeah but with solar power, the sun's solar irradiance is only 1367.6 W/m^2 at Earth orbit which kinda puts a premium on space considering that most solar technologies rarely exceed 25% efficiencies. Realistically they hover at about 15%.

[aerius]

I like to illustrate things this way. To power a good sized city like say...Toronto, you need about 4GW or so of electricity. Even the best wind turbines kick out only 1-2 MW, so you'll need at least 2000 of them, and if the wind dies you're fucked. Did I mention they require 30-50km/h winds for best performance? Solar panels output about 130W/square metre, in bright direct sunlight. That'll be about 30 square kilometres of solar panels. And if it's cloudy or we get snow and the panels get covered, you're fucked. Or you can just build one nuke plant and it'll kick out the 4GW 24/7 rain or shine, sun or snow, well, you get the idea.

[Howedar]

What the hell?s your problem? I post a story that I say has led me to think again about nuclear power and you respond by calling my opinions laughable and then launch into a semi coherent bile laced rant which I can only assumed is aimed at me.

What do you hope to achieve by this? The most likely outcome would be to put me on the defensive and totally prevent any further exchange of ideas, if that was your intention then well done because even though there may have been a few reasoned points buried in your post it?s overall tone was such that I have no desire to discuss the issue with you further.

I may well be an idiot with ridiculously ill thought out opinions based upon crappy evidence but in the future will you please hold off the insults until you have tried at least one polite post and been rebuffed by the force of my ignorance. Fuck You

When you say you're leery of nuclear power without providing any reasoning whatsoever, you should expect your opinions to be mocked.

[HemlockGrey]

Hey! That shit was uncalled for. Plekhanov just said that he was a little skeptical, gave a reason why and said that he was considering changing his opinion. He didn't say "OMG NUKES SUCK SAVE EARTH" or spout any bullshit and jumping on his back and beating him to death with it is obnoxious.

[Plekhanov]

When you say you're leery of nuclear power without providing any reasoning whatsoever, you should expect your opinions to be mocked.

I didn’t start this thread with an ill reasoned rant against nuclear power, which would have thoroughly deserved any number of viscous rebukes. I started it with a simple statement of where I was coming from and where I may be going, EmperorChrostas the Cruel’s post was a totally inappropriate response.

[Crown]

When you say you're leery of nuclear power without providing any reasoning whatsoever, you should expect your opinions to be mocked.

He has a point Howedar. He didn't even post his views other than 'I am changing my mind', and he gets a the third degree for it.

[kojikun]

Solar power causes sun cancer!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[SirNitram]

When you say you're leery of nuclear power without providing any reasoning whatsoever, you should expect your opinions to be mocked.

I didn’t start this thread with an ill reasoned rant against nuclear power, which would have thoroughly deserved any number of viscous rebukes. I started it with a simple statement of where I was coming from and where I may be going, EmperorChrostas the Cruel’s post was a totally inappropriate response.

EmperorChrostas is generally overly aggressive. Ignore him.

Nuclear power's waste is a few pounds of metal. Metal, you will notice, does not have the habit of floating into the sky and dissipating to get clogged in lungs. It's a lump of metal; it sits there. Is this metal dangerous? Yes.. But so is sticking your head into a coal plant's fumes.

Nuclear power produces less waste than any other form of power. If we set up reprocessing, we nearly eliminate the problem. What waste is still left can be dealt with in a massive array of ways.

[Stormbringer]

When you say you're leery of nuclear power without providing any reasoning whatsoever, you should expect your opinions to be mocked.

Howedar, there's no need to rake the guy over the coals. He's obviously trying to get a reasonable discussion of things going and there's no need for that.

Solar power causes sun cancer!!!!!!!!!!!!!

We most start chemotherapy on the Sun immediately!

[kojikun]

Anybody have information on how the French recycle their nuclear waste into fuel?

[CaptainChewbacca]

I like to illustrate things this way. To power a good sized city like say...Toronto, you need about 4GW or so of electricity. Even the best wind turbines kick out only 1-2 MW, so you'll need at least 2000 of them, and if the wind dies you're fucked. Did I mention they require 30-50km/h winds for best performance? Solar panels output about 130W/square metre, in bright direct sunlight. That'll be about 30 square kilometres of solar panels. And if it's cloudy or we get snow and the panels get covered, you're fucked. Or you can just build one nuke plant and it'll kick out the 4GW 24/7 rain or shine, sun or snow, well, you get the idea.

Actually the best wind turbines can generate 5mw. But, there's no way we'd have a place for all of them.

And... sun cancer?

[Crown]

Anybody have information on how the French recycle their nuclear waste into fuel?

Actually anyone have a good online reference to the nuclear power life cycle? I suddenly have the urge to read up about this, and please no Greenpeace propaganda crap.

[CaptainChewbacca]

Anybody have information on how the French recycle their nuclear waste into fuel?

linky

[Shinova]

Chernobyl and Three Mile Island probably left too much of an impact on the minds of the impressionable general public. But the fact is, nuclear power tech has come a long way since those days. Modern reactors are built so that they are physically incapable of going into meltdown, meaning its physically designed to jam all the control rods in and stop the reaction cold at the instant of a problem, and you don't need someone at the controls to do that; not to mention it's all automated.


So I say go nuclear all the way, and use that fuel reprocessing thing France has. But I have a question though: Once they reprocess the fuel and use that, what does that turn into?

[Howedar]

When you say you're leery of nuclear power without providing any reasoning whatsoever, you should expect your opinions to be mocked.

Howedar, there's no need to rake the guy over the coals. He's obviously trying to get a reasonable discussion of things going and there's no need for that.

And likewise, when I said precisely nothing, all you monkeys can get the hell off my back.

[Plekhanov]

Another reason I’ve never liked nuclear is because I find alternative forms of energy so appealing. I’ve always loved the idea of solar, wind, tidal… energy I don’t really know why but they’ve always seemed beautifully elegant solutions no matter how impractical they may be to serve all our energy needs. The argument that if the subsidies poured into nuclear went to alternative sources we’d see some real progress in those areas has also had some appeal

I’ve been to the alternative energy village in Wales and just found the whole place incredibly pleasing at a really basic almost emotional level, then again I did choose to cycle a few hundred miles to get there so I’m clearly in the target audiece for alternative energy stuff.

I’m afraid no matter how much sense the figures make I’ll never find nuclear as appealing as “alternative sources” and I still wouldn’t want to live next door to a station.

[Plekhanov]

So I say go nuclear all the way, and use that fuel reprocessing thing France has. But I have a question though: Once they reprocess the fuel and use that, what does that turn into?

And where can we put it? I know some countries have large deserts you can burry it in, the UK doesn’t this is always going to be a major political problem for us. I’ve yet to hear someone give me a straight answer as to where the UK is going to put all its high level waste and how we are going to persuade the NIMBYs to put it there.