What is your opinion on nuclear energy?
![]() Previous Question Which is the best proposal for reducing carbon emissions?| Poll Archive | Next Question Should all energy companies be required to produce a certain minimum amount of renewable energy? Energy and The EnvironmentComments (5)
This opinion poll is inherently dishonest. It limits the choice to two options organized by the author to push for the first one. While (less educated) Americans may have accepted the myth of nuclear energy's supposed lack of carbon emissions anyone who has studied the industry knows there is a substantial (hidden) carbon footprint derived from the mining and processing of uranium.
The caveat here is that if nuclear energy were to be utilized, there would need to be a global/multi-national agreement on using nuclear energy. The likelihood of that is nearly non-existent.
There needs to be more public education on the pros/cons of using nuclear energy. I think most people are making snap judgements without fully knowing the process and/or consequences.
There is a reason no nuclear facilities have been built in North Amercia for +25 years. The fact that nuclear power has lower GHG emissions relative to coal should hardly be considered relative to the overall more important issue today, which is sustainability. One Chernobyl event in the Bread Basket of North America, and our ability to feed future generations would be seriously jepordized. Embracing nuclear versus coal is still the same game of Russian roulette. Instead of the extreme potential for unprecedented climate change (i.e., from coal), we face the potential for starvation and persistent environmental toxicity (i.e., from nuclear). What are we to do with the waste? What are we to do when uranium runs out? Who will pay for the decommissioning of old nuclear facilities? Who will pay the bill if there is a meltdown?
|


It's not the answer but it's part of the answer
Posted by Adam Yoffie | June 24, 2008 4:01 PM