9 high-profile champions of nuclear power
| Photo 1 of 11 | 
|
Who's on board?
Ever since an earthquake and tsunami triggered a nuclear disaster in Japan last spring, some people might assume that public figures who previously had supported the technology might have had a change of heart.
While a few pro-nuke leaders have turned against the technology (most notably German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who canceled all new German nuclear plants), a few high-profile, influential and powerful leaders still think fission is a way to wean us off oil, stop global warming, and lead us to greater energy self-sufficiency.
Why don’t these people support other forms of energy (such as solar, wind and geothermal), all of which have much lower costs and don’t cause disasters? Many of them do, but they see nuclear as part of the mix, while others may have other reasons, like economics, for supporting the building of new plants. (Text: Starre Vartan)
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
Comments
If any one has any doubts about the nuclear energy and cancer, see the recent Sundance film: the "Atomic States of America."
Where was the peer reviewed science to backup the crazy thesis that the movie tried to protray. Maybe this is why there was absulutly no buzz about this movie.
Jfarmer9
How do we move forward when everyone else is looking to the past. Sure, nuclear produces a lot of power with a great deal of concentrated waste and mining, milling, and refining sites that have to be permanently cordoned off from the public. Can we re-use the waste, only if we don't care about plutonium stockpile management, the high cost of fuel development, and unproven reactor designs that promise us nothing but a non-competitive, subsidized, uninsurable, highly regulated, and highly.... More
Angela Merkel of Germany did not change her mind ,but rather the population of Germany demanded the change. Around the world, 2/3 of the people want an end to nuclear power. In Japan 3/4 of the population wants nuclear power removed.
Yes I have to agree that it is amazing how fear mongering organizations like green peace are able to sway the public. I think every one should realize that not one person has ever died from an acute exposure to radiation in the entire history of western commercial nuclear power this statistic includes Japan. True it might be possible that in 30 years in the Fukushima region there will be a detectable increase in local cancer rates but I can't see how this compares to all those who have and.... More
Most nuclear cheerleaders have no concern for reality, or accountability. They make the same claims regardless of what happens.
Nuclear energy is neither safe nor clean. The threat of a nuclear accident at one of our own aging nuclear facilities is all too real, and the consequences would be unimaginably catastrophic.
Oh please, the meltdown in japan has shown what fearmongering about 'catastrophic consequences' really is: just fearmongering. No-one has died as a direct result of Fukushima - that's amazing for an industrial accident.
Nuclear energy is green, safe, and clean. The tsunami in Japan showed us how fragile life really is. Why would we want to destroy the planet with dirty CO2? Makes no sense to have the answer then reject it because people have the wrong idea of low low doses of radiation. A new UC Berkeley study will turn LNT on its ear, clearing the way for better understanding of the natural world, which naturally contains radiation
There are no CO2 concerns with wind, solar, geothermal, tidal, wave, and other systems. Both nuclear power and coal need to be replaced.
So the mining of toxic rare earth metals for batteries and magnets for renewables is good for the planet? Not to mention that renewables cannot function without fossil fuel back-ups, ultimately making us more dependent on the thing we are trying to stop using...renewables simply aren't up for the job. Nuclear is our best choice (there is no perfect solution) which is what all of these very smart, high profile folks have realized.
This is nothing but a blatant add for Southern Company and nuclear energy. Shame on Huff Post. They are trying to gain ground for nuclear energy since Fukushima. What as crock. The new plants cause "less" cancer. The implication is that they still cause cancer. Shame. You want your children to live in these areas?
Why support nuclear power?
It is better than coal, especially with the new plant design by Westinghouse. On average nuclear power will cause less cancer and deaths than coal. It doesn't have the wide spread pollution that comes with manufacturing solar cells or the use of poisons like arsenic. Nuclear power also uses much less land than solar cells. Provide for continuous generation 24/7 than most of the other forms suggested. If one want to use solar power, winds, tides for power 24/7,.... More
Have you figured the land use of radiation contaminated areas ? How many hundreds of square miles can never be used again for living or farming due to nuclear contamination? We have plenty of space for wind and solar power.
Add your comment
Sign in with one of these accounts or just add your comment below.
create an account