Why are green politicians opposed to clean nuclear energy?

[Martinus]

Could someone explain this to me, please?

Thanks.

[Brezel]

Nuclear energy demands investments that could have been committed to renewable energy sources. Waste created in fission energy production (if that is included in your definition of clean nuclear energy)  needs to be storaged for a very long time, in essence longer than what one might expect the current civilization to exist. So there is the problem of future generations finding the nuclear deposits and not knowing how to deal with them.

[barkdreg]

-nuclear waste that needs storage for some 1000 years
-Fukushima, Chernobyl, Three Mile Island and others smaller incidents

and in some cases a kneejerk reaction relating to the nuclear armanents industry

[Brezel]

Also, mining for uranium is harmful as it creates emissions and destroys biospheres.

[Tamas]

Gawd.

-"longer than current civilization will exist" Thankyouverymuch. Either we will have a human civilization after the nuclear age, or we won't, in either case, the nuclear waste storages deep undeground will not bother anyone

-renewable energy is a big fat joke compared to nuclear when it comes to efficiency. We have 7 billion people and growing to support with energy, and if you want to do that via windmills and solar panels, well, it won't work, and let's not get started on the production and maintenance energy and resource needs of these

-nuclear energy is clean. AFAIK, extremely clean compared to the energy it produces. Any serious green organization should champion that, and continued research on cold fusion.

So, they oppose it because they are ignorant, and afraid of radiation.

[Martinus]

-nuclear waste that needs storage for some 1000 years
-Fukushima, Chernobyl, Three Mile Island and others smaller incidents

and in some cases a kneejerk reaction relating to the nuclear armanents industry

Chernobyl is old technology and last time I checked inland Germany is not particularly at risk from tsunamis.

[Tamas]

Also, mining for uranium is harmful as it creates emissions and destroys biospheres.

Whereas water and coal power plants do not have that, right Or windmill farms intefering with the flight paths of birds. You can't drop a stone without disturbing nature, because, you know, we are not less part of it than a tree in the rain forest.

[Tamas]

-nuclear waste that needs storage for some 1000 years
-Fukushima, Chernobyl, Three Mile Island and others smaller incidents

and in some cases a kneejerk reaction relating to the nuclear armanents industry

Chernobyl is old technology and last time I checked inland Germany is not particularly at risk from tsunamis.

Tell me about it. If our people had any sense, we would be busy building an other nuclear plant, or two, to sell electricity to the Germans when they will have blackouts in ten years.

[Brezel]

Whereas water and coal power plants do not have that, right Or windmill farms intefering with the flight paths of birds. You can't drop a stone without disturbing nature, because, you know, we are not less part of it than a tree in the rain forest.

I think solar has the greatest untapped potential of the common energy sources. But 7+ billion people perhaps can't be part of the nature as we knew it. So, it is fundamental that material consumption targets need to be brought to more sustainable levels and human population must be brought down. I'd prefer non-violent means.

[Tamas]

Non-violent means? Such as starvation and epidemics?

[Brezel]

Non-violent means? Such as starvation and epidemics?

Contraception.

[Viking]

Could someone explain this to me, please?

Thanks.

Because they are not looking for a solution that works, they are looking for internal moral satisfaction. That means opposing everything that is not perfect. It is utopianism run amok.

[barkdreg]

Chernobyl is old technology and last time I checked inland Germany is not particularly at risk from tsunamis.

Both true. Yet even the most modern plant can have a malfunction and if it does it can result in a disaster.

[garbon]

So there is the problem of future generations finding the nuclear deposits and not knowing how to deal with them.

This seems like an odd / egotistical / pessimistic point of view to take.

[Viking]

What people too often forget about Fukushima is that there were four reactors there and those four were subject to the fourth strongest earthquake since the invention of the richter scale and two crashed and two shut down safely. The ones that crashed were the older obsolete kind and they crashed because the local electricity grid and road system failed. They ran out of diesel for the generator after the electric grid went down. The two modern reactors (1970s designs) worked and shut down perfectly safely.

The really sad and patetic bit here is that reactors three and four were intended to replace reactors one and two. But Toukyo Electric kept them online because they couldn't meet demand and they had no prospect to building further nuclear power plants.

I'll go as far as to say that one of the barriers that could have prevented the fukushima meltdown was modern powerplants and these powerplants have not replaced the antiquated ones because of environmentalists.

Right now the age distribution of the current nuclear reactors worldwide


The bulk of those reactors under 20 years are not being built in sensible western countries but in (yup you guessed it...)


A further issue is that almost ALL processed nuclear waste today is being stored, basically, in a closet onsite at sites specializing in the processing of spent fuel (places like Sellafield) rather than being stored safely in specially designed storage locations.


This is bad and stupid.