 Author |
 Post
|
 |
|
Joined: Jun 14, 2006
Posts: 14 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Soft-spoken
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Other & 20
Country: Canada
Province/State: Ontario
City: Toronto
|
We need to urge our governments to take action
August 8, 2006 - 12:26 PM
|
|
I would like to ask why even the green party or NDP are so opposed to nuclear power, if the leading engineers in new power sources and climate change specialists (i.e. James Lovelock) explain that in order to attain even just the stabilization of our climate (given the power that people refuse to stop consuming) we would require all coal burning powerplants to be replaced by nuclear power by 2010. To beleive that we can avoid castastrophic climate change without the help of nuclear power is to be completely ignorant. Yes, there is toxic waste, but that is the least of our worries. Other technologies are just not advanced or cost-effective enough to compete with our consumption. So unless they can coax people into cutting their power usage by at least seventy percent, we're really in for it.
We need to give the governement this message, I think the general public would like to survive global warming, and we have to tell them because frankly when we're the ones baking and drowning, the people who really govern us (industry, corporations) will be sitting high and dry behind closed doors in some remote protected climate protected area.
paix, luv, unita
Be
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
G
Joined: Jul 31, 2006
Posts: 2 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Tongue-tied
User is
Offline
Country: Canada
Province/State: Newfoundland and Labrador
City: St. John's
|
Re: We need to urge our governments to take action
August 8, 2006 - 09:11 PM
|
|
Your concerns are valid, for sure. Global warming is such a force to be reckoned with. It has divided many.
However, I would warn about giving credibility to nuclear for a number of reasons - the main one being, it does not reduce carbon emission in the slightest. Not one puff. It increases it.
You see, nuclear materials (namely uranium and plutanium) are very carbon-intensive to extract and refine.
Think about all the trucks and equipment needed, for example, to harvest minerals from the ground. Plus all the equipment and energy needed to refine and transport and store Nuclear materials. If one does the math, Nuclear really doesn't add up compared to such solutions such as microrenewables
It's also very cost ineffective:
A 1990 study by five national laboratories surmised that increasing research and development budgets by just the cost of building one nuclear power plant ($3 billion spread over 20 years) could enable renewable energy to provide a half to two-thirds of the total energy then used in the United States by 2030.
So nuclear may look like the quick-fix, but quick-fixxes are what have gotten us into this mess. This time, let's use real solutions.
I hope I could help - what do you think about all that?
Chad
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Chris Williams
Joined: Sep 28, 2005
Posts: 26 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Talkative
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male, 28
Country: United Kingdom
Province/State: West Midlands
|
Re: We need to urge our governments to take action
August 9, 2006 - 06:21 AM
|
|
James Lovelock? Well, he is clever but very few experts agree with him.
NUCLEAR:
TOO EXPENSIVE
*Costs more than wind - In 2002 the *UK government estimated that nuclear could cost over 40% more per kWh than on/off-shore wind.
*Waste of money - Construction costs are large and unpredictable with delays causing greater losses. Windfarm costs are known, smaller and falling.
*Hits taxpayers - Disposal of existing waste will cost around £56 billion. More reactors mean more waste, with no guarantee that costs won't be passed on to the public.
DANGEROUS WASTE
*Highly radioactive - Nuclear waste can remain dangerous for tens of thousands of years.
*Deadly inheritance - No one has yet demonstrated a safe way of disposing of it .
*Accidents do happen - Leaks and near misses cannot be ruled out.
ENVIRONMENTALLY UNFRIENDLY
*Way off target - Doubling nuclear power would reduce greenhouse gas emissions by at most eight per cent.
*Not emission free - Mining and transporting uranium, building nuclear plants and storage of nuclear waste all produce carbon dioxide emissions.
*Only electricity - It will not replace petrol and diesel - currently responsible for around 22 per cent of UK carbon emissions.
SECURITY THREAT
*Weapons - Uranium enrichment plants can be misused to make nuclear weapons.
*Vulnerable - No nuclear reactor could withstand a direct hit from a jumbo jet.
*Nowhere to hide - A successful attack could have an impact 40 times worse than the explosion at Chernobyl.
ALTERNATIVES
*No need for nuclear - The UK's vast renewable resources combined with simple energy-saving tactics provide a safer, cleaner and more sensible solution.
*Secure supply - Renewable sources could generate more than half our current electricity needs by 2025.
*Quick technology - All the major renewable technologies can be implemented within three years. We'd be waiting at least ten for nuclear.
*Bright idea - A programme to phase out inefficient light bulbs could save a whole reactor's worth of electricity by 2020.
*Forward thinking - We could save fifteen reactor's worth by investing in the potential of using waste heat to generate electricity.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Robert Margolis
Joined: Nov 15, 2000
Posts: 480 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Blabbermouth
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male, 46
Country: United States
Province/State: Florida
City: Palm Beach Gardens
|
Re: We need to urge our governments to take action
August 9, 2006 - 10:19 PM
|
|
Renewables are great, but they cannot supply the huge amounts of power the world is going to need over the next few decades. China and India are growing their economies fast and even if they use ultra-efficient technologies, there will be a large demand for electricity.
If you could perfect a CHEAP superconductor, then renewables could be expanded to the degree necessary. If not, the choice is carbon sequestration or more nuclear or a combination.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Joined: Jun 14, 2006
Posts: 14 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Soft-spoken
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Other, 20
Country: Canada
Province/State: Ontario
City: Toronto
|
Re: We need to urge our governments to take action
August 11, 2006 - 11:24 AM
|
|
thanks man that enlightens things,
and I do agree solar and wind the future, quite soon I will be purchasing a solar panel, maybe not the best or biggest but its a start. I'm just pointing out that people refuse to beleive that they can reduce their consumption or that renewables are the answer, so we may be resorting to nuclear power( consider that I am talking about the U.S. and Canada some of the biggest polluters per capita when it comes to developed countries). But did you know that 25 percent of materials used to power nuclear power are from dismantled nuclear weapons? Also nuclear power technology is advancing very quickly, because it is being invested in much more than other technologies. Also take into consideration that nuclear power supplies around the clock. The U.K is way ahead of the gang, it's sad to say but north america is ruled by some of the greediest "civilised" people on earth. Better renewables should be the future, but hope of that developing here is diminishing.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Robert Margolis
Joined: Nov 15, 2000
Posts: 480 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Blabbermouth
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male, 46
Country: United States
Province/State: Florida
City: Palm Beach Gardens
|
Re: 25%?
August 14, 2006 - 04:56 PM
|
|
Not sure what the 25% is referring to. Plants are built of concrete and steel and use uranium that is enriched, but not to weapons level. It is almost like saying that since I use gasolene in my car and that is most of napalm that 80% of my fuel is napalm...
While certainly North America and Europe can cut some energy use, the growing needs of the rest of the world will result in a net increase in energy need. If we can come up with something better that's great, but we may need some nuclear to get through these crunch times.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Matthew Louie
Joined: Sep 25, 2006
Posts: 4 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Tongue-tied
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male, 29
Country: Canada
Province/State: British Columbia
City: Cowichan Bay
|
Re: We need to urge our governments to take action
September 27, 2006 - 02:50 PM
|
|
Not only do our governments must stand up for our environment but we do ... our companies, organizations, groups, networks and ourselves as individuals ...
join the Earth Charter Initiative ... to find out more visit www.earthcharter.org there is also the Earth Charter Youth Initiative for my peeps out there ...
I will finish with this:
Treat the Earth well ... for you did not inherit it from your parents ... it is on loan to you from your children.
- Indian Proverb
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
|
Display posts from:
|
