• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Green Guru supports nuclear power

Mycroft

High Priest of Ed
Mycroft
Joined
Sep 10, 2003
Messages
20,501
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.
Click to expand...

It just seems so ironic to me.

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/environment/story.jsp?story=524313
 
I consider myslef an envioronmentalist and Ive always thought nuke power is the way to go.

Sure its far from perfect but when you weigh the pros/cons it seems to be a good idea. The technology has been around for years and weve really improved on the safety concearns.

If you look at the green gurus they basically want us all off the planet. THey are TOO green.
 
Not so ironic. It's a "lesser of two evils" thing. There comes a point where you have to ask what's worse - nuclear waste or the pollution caused by the combustion of fossil fuels?
There's a sad number of "woo-woo" environmentalists who will oppose it just because it's nuclear power, but the more pragmatic ones will support whatever's best for the world.
 
Whats the big beef with nuke power??? The waste? If youve ever driven through Nevada you know there is plenty of room to dump our nuke poop.
 
Nasarius said:
Not so ironic. It's a "lesser of two evils" thing. There comes a point where you have to ask what's worse - nuclear waste or the pollution caused by the combustion of fossil fuels?
There's a sad number of "woo-woo" environmentalists who will oppose it just because it's nuclear power, but the more pragmatic ones will support whatever's best for the world.
Click to expand...
I've always had a fairly positive attitude to nuclear power but isn't the worlds supply of nuclear full fairly limited? I was under the impression that it's not going to last very long, if we begin using it as our main source of energy.
 
I kinda waiver on the whole environmentalism bit. I really think the rabid environmentalists and the anti-environmentalists are both way off-kilter.

As for nuclear power, really, the only problematic thing is making sure there are enough safeties in place to limit the risk of a meltdown, and finding a safe way to dispose of the waste. That last bit is the most problematic, really; that stuff's going to be hot for a long, long time and we only have so many granite caves to store it in.

Myself, I'm more interested in what's coming down the pipe in terms of fusion. Not that "cold fusion" business, obviously, real nuclear fusion.
 
Cleon said:

Myself, I'm more interested in what's coming down the pipe in terms of fusion. Not that "cold fusion" business, obviously, real nuclear fusion.
Click to expand...
As far as I know the scientist claim that they will make it work in around 30 years, of course according to my farther they said the same thing 30 years ago :p
 
Absent a breakthrough in solar power, nuclear power is the least of evils. But there still remains the question of how to get that power into an automobile. We are nowhere near a breakthrough in electric-powered cars. Still, it would be an improvement over coal- and oil-fired power plants.
 
Kerberos said:

As far as I know the scientist claim that they will make it work in around 30 years, of course according to my farther they said the same thing 30 years ago :p
Click to expand...

Interestingly enough, right after I posted something came up on Slashdot about a working reactor in the works:


http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/05/24/1333202&mode=nested&tid=134


(Edited to add: I'm not a nuclear engineer or anything, and my knowledge of this stuff is very limited. Be gentle. :D)
 
Kerberos said:

As far as I know the scientist claim that they will make it work in around 30 years, of course according to my farther they said the same thing 30 years ago :p
Click to expand...

I guess around the same time as the oil runs out, which is also always 30 years away.
 
Kerberos said:

I've always had a fairly positive attitude to nuclear power but isn't the worlds supply of nuclear full fairly limited? I was under the impression that it's not going to last very long, if we begin using it as our main source of energy.
Click to expand...

People have said the same thing about oil. The truth is, yes, it is limited in supply but still abundant enough to make sense to use as a source of power.

--Edit - and used fuel rods have plenty of recoverable, usable uranium left for recycling.
 
Kerberos said:

As far as I know the scientist claim that they will make it work in around 30 years, of course according to my farther they said the same thing 30 years ago :p
Click to expand...

Last I heard, the biggest problem affecting fusion is keeping the fuel from dispersing after reaction. Superconductor/magnet theory still has a long way to go until we can make a sustainable fusion reaction.
 
Kerberos said:

Well I meant work as in being a usefull way of producing energy, the reactor in question is for research, not for energy production.
Click to expand...

Just read that story. Very interesting. A 500 second containment is miles beyond the current experimental fusion reactors, if it works.
 
Also, I believe that not a single test of a fusion reactor has so far achieved the break-even condition (in other words, all experiments so far have consumed more power than they produced).
 
As a rabid, liberal environmentalist in the U.S., I say go for the nuclear power...

When we do, however, we have got to make the development of waste containment facilities an equal priority to the development of nuclear plants.

Good point, coal mining is much more dangerous than any nuclear accident has been. The consequences of continued global warming and dependence on foreign oil FAR outweigh the dangers of nuclear.
 
shemp said:
Absent a breakthrough in solar power, nuclear power is the least of evils. But there still remains the question of how to get that power into an automobile. We are nowhere near a breakthrough in electric-powered cars. Still, it would be an improvement over coal- and oil-fired power plants.
Click to expand...

A co worker of mine has one of those hybrid Honda Civics. It looks like a regular car and she gets 50miles per gallon. Ifwe werent so hooked on big V8's we could really get our moneys worth in gas.


Now if only we could harness the power of Shemps ego! Enegy problems solved!!:p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom