SPECIAL FEATURES:
9 high-profile champions of nuclear power: Who's on board?
9 high-profile champions of nuclear power
photo 1 of 11
Photo:
Michael Kappel/Flickr
Sign in with one of these accounts to add your comment.
Malthus
Feb 28 2012 at 11:37 PM
The easy solution to all of the pollution and human caused warming is a reduction of the human population to between 500 million and 300 million (down from the current number of about 7 Billion). At that level of human population, the inefficiency of green energy solutions becomes moot, as does Carbon footprint and the ability of farmers to produce enough food for everyone using only organic and free range methods of agriculture and animal husbandry. In fact, prior to industrialization during the 18
.... More
th and 19th centuries, the human population of the entire globe averaged from 275 million to 350 million for about 30 centuries (with some exceptions during extreme plague). It appears that many of those supporting enforced "green" living, have either not considered that population size is the primary problem, or that they consider it to be a normal and desirable state of affairs that only a fraction of one percent of the people alive should live free and out of poverty and want. I think assuming a zero sum condition of life is incorrect.
Caroline
Jan 27 2012 at 12:23 AM
If any one has any doubts about the nuclear energy and cancer, see the recent Sundance film: the "Atomic States of America."
John Farmer
Jan 27 2012 at 5:14 AM
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
ArthurBorges
Apr 12 2012 at 9:50 AM
Since when has an absence of peer review prevented production and airing of "documentaries"?
All you do is list a expert consultant in the generic; hardly matters if he even exists!
elidyl
Jan 26 2012 at 7:49 PM
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 indebted
.... More
version of our energy future. Competition, costs, convenience, private equity, insurability, and sustainability have the central values motivating our future energy choices. Nuclear promises us nothing, other than a very big bill, a big kettle of boiling water, waste and contamination for 3,000 generations, and a great deal of uninsurable risk shared by taxpayers, governments, and local landowners … and bailing out the industry every time they get into trouble.
aligatorhardt
Jan 26 2012 at 9:10 AM
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.
John Farmer
Jan 27 2012 at 5:30 AM
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 will
.... More
die from fossil fuels and global warming.
Look, the fact is our society demands electrical power. It has been proven those who live with electricity live longer. Nuclear provides the best on demand source of very low global warming producing electricity. Japan has not changed this fact.
Nuclear yesterday, Nuclear today, and Nuclear tomorrow.
Jfarmer9
Huw Jones
Jan 27 2012 at 8:56 AM
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.
aligatorhardt
Jan 26 2012 at 9:00 AM
Most nuclear cheerleaders have no concern for reality, or accountability. They make the same claims regardless of what happens.
Caroline
Jan 25 2012 at 11:55 PM
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.
Atoms4Peace
Jan 26 2012 at 12:30 AM
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
aligatorhardt
Jan 26 2012 at 9:02 AM
There are no CO2 concerns with wind, solar, geothermal, tidal, wave, and other systems. Both nuclear power and coal need to be replaced.
Suzy
Jan 27 2012 at 12:20 PM
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.
Caroline
Jan 25 2012 at 11:30 PM
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?
Joe Warner
Jan 25 2012 at 11:12 PM
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, one should
.... More
look at the environmental cost of providing large scale high efficiency batteries or the use of thallium in high temperature superconducting coils. I have seen reports of that deaths from maintaining wind turbines per kilowatt-hour will be higher than that anticipated by nuclear power. Also, the future use of thorium for fission will completely eliminate accidental melt down. For small nuclear power generation capacity the use of sterling-engines with the nuclear material providing the heat is a very interesting concept that NASA is currently developing.
Who's on board?
Ever since an earthquake and [skipwords]tsunami[/skipwords] 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
From our sponsor
Email
Join the conversation