Why do Many Environmentalists Hate Nuclear Power?

[GreatOak]

I consider myself an environmentalist. I believe in climate change and care about the state of the Earth like most reasonable people. I also consider myself an outdoorsman who loves hunting and living off of the land. I know we can't rely on fossil fuels forever. I just cannot for the life of me understand why so many people who call themselves environmentalists dislike nuclear power so much. They stubbornly stick to "green" energy, and "green" energy alone when the facts and results prove that nuclear power is both safe and efficient.

These same people can also be ignorant of other resources like Thorium. The people who act like green energy is the solution to all problems that will ever exist and everything else is useless or harmful are not helping anyone. They certainly aren't helping the Earth. They shouldn't be scared of considering things besides "green energy" (even though Nuclear Power can be considered green energy). The only issue I see with nuclear energy is cost, which can be brought down.

http://web.mit.edu/nuclearpower/pdf/...er-summary.pdf
http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/bull...energy-source/
http://www.popsci.com/technology/art...oner-you-think

[Mike-n-Ike234]

I consider myself an environmentalist. I believe in climate change and care about the state of the Earth like most reasonable people. I also consider myself an outdoorsman who loves hunting and living off of the land. I know we can't rely on fossil fuels forever. I just cannot for the life of me understand why so many people who call themselves environmentalists dislike nuclear power so much. They stubbornly stick to "green" energy, and "green" energy alone when the facts and results prove that nuclear power is both safe and efficient.

These same people can also be ignorant of other resources like Thorium. The people who act like green energy is the solution to all problems that will ever exist and everything else is useless or harmful are not helping anyone. They certainly aren't helping the Earth. They shouldn't be scared of considering things besides "green energy" (even though Nuclear Power can be considered green energy). The only issue I see with nuclear energy is cost, which can be brought down.

http://web.mit.edu/nuclearpower/pdf/...er-summary.pdf
http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/bull...energy-source/
http://www.popsci.com/technology/art...oner-you-think

Bold part = You answered your own question. Some people just do not want to listen to reason.

[Flame6]

I *think* the reason is due to risk. The plant in Japan is still leaking nuclear waste into the ocean every day (lets not side track into whether or not it's a significant amount). I also vaguely remember learning in school that there's no way to dispose of the old fuel rods and they generally just end being buried or turned into ammo.

[Granyala]

Nuclear energy never will be safe, because safety is an illusion that does not exist.
If an NPP fails, a VERY large area will be affected.

Also there is the small problem of radioactive waste, that stays active for thousands of years, a timeframe no sane human can overview.

While Nuclear fission and fusion are quite sexy, they simply aren't worth the hassle and the danger in the long run.

[Flame6]

Did some research. I don't agree with MOST of their points. http://www.examiner.com/article/7-re...and-the-nation

[AbsolutePitch]

Yeah, the safety of nuclear power is quite concerning. There's a lot of risk management involved, but even the slightest miscalculation or oversight can lead to catastrophic events. One example is what's going on with the Fukushima plant in Japan right now. There are so many things that could go wrong, in which case the entire country could potentially perish,

[Deleted]

Thorium plants are actually totally safe, they essentially turn off as soon anything goes wrong and can't physically 'meltdown' and cause leaks and all that shit, and they produce about 15x less waste than current nuclear plants. I believe the Chinese are actually spearheading the prototyping of thorium plants. Sad, really, you'd think there'd be some clever folks in EU or the US trying to get this sexy energy source over here.

[CJack14dt]

I always get a kick about how environmentalists go on and on here in Hawaii about how their state is free from the threat of nuclear reactors and they're going even greener with promotion in solar and wind; however, there's 8 nuclear submarines sitting in Pearl Harbor.....

[Jeleh]

Issue with nuclear power is more the waste than anything else. Why money is not invested into cold fusion is a better issue to raise. If it was funded correctly we could probably make viable cold fusion in less than 30-40 years. Sadly where is the money for the energy companies when power is no longer in short supply.

[belfpala]

Yeah, the safety of nuclear power is quite concerning. There's a lot of risk management involved, but even the slightest miscalculation or oversight can lead to catastrophic events. One example is what's going on with the Fukushima plant in Japan right now. There are so many things that could go wrong, in which case the entire country could potentially perish,

OP: Because NUCLEAR scares people.

Guy I'm replying to: there have been, what, two catastrophic events with nuclear plants, and one near catastrophic event. Ever. Compare that with, say, oil. Many catastrophic events.

[Deleted]

Nuclear energy never will be safe, because safety is an illusion that does not exist.
If an NPP fails, a VERY large area will be affected.

Also there is the small problem of radioactive waste, that stays active for thousands of years, a timeframe no sane human can overview.

While Nuclear fission and fusion are quite sexy, they simply aren't worth the hassle and the danger in the long run.

Just an FYI, fusion hasn't been achieved just yet but if it did would be totally safe and a near-perfect end-goal when it comes to energy production, the only bi-product I believe is hydrogen. Kind of requires immitating the conditions of the sun to achieve though, kind of difficult that.

[GreatOak]

Thorium plants are actually totally safe, they essentially turn off as soon anything goes wrong and can't physically 'meltdown' and cause leaks and all that shit, and they produce about 15x less waste than current nuclear plants. I believe the Chinese are actually spearheading the prototyping of thorium plants. Sad, really, you'd think there'd be some clever folks in EU or the US trying to get this sexy energy source over here.

http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/inte...n-new-nuclear/

[Deleted]

http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/inte...n-new-nuclear/

Forgive my laziness, it was about 8 months ago I found out about it and have done little follow-up since. But I like this.

[GreatOak]

The thing we all need to realize is that "green" energy won't solve most of our problems.

http://www.theguardian.com/environme...-nuclear-power

[Granyala]

Thorium plants are actually totally safe, they essentially turn off as soon anything goes wrong and can't physically 'meltdown' and cause leaks and all that shit,

You obviously have no clue about reactor technology or the physics involved.
Every current reactor except for the graphite moderated Tschernobyl type (which is illegal in most states) shuts down the actual fission immediately as soon as the moderator (usually H2O) evaporates.

What causes a classic "meltdown" is the residual heat that comes from the FISSION PRODUCTS breaking down.
Because it is IMPOSSIBLE to suppress the ongoing decay.

That heat is enough to melt through ANYTHING, including reactor shielding.

[Deleted]

Issue with nuclear power is more the waste than anything else. Why money is not invested into cold fusion is a better issue to raise. If it was funded correctly we could probably make viable cold fusion in less than 30-40 years. Sadly where is the money for the energy companies when power is no longer in short supply.

Waste is then sold as a glowing toys to the poor Indian/African kids so its a win-win situation. If my humor is too dark here they really bury it in the bedrock and seal it well.

[mvaliz]

If there's safer methods to use Nuclear energy that does not run the risk of converting vast suburban areas and it's people into radioactive wastelands like Chernobyl, myself and many many others would be all for it. ^_^

[Speaker]

Only idiots put nuclear plants in places that are high risk to environmental disasters such as tsunami's and earthquakes. They are perfectly safe if you build them in a safe place.

[Severian]

As a scientist I can tell you that Uranium and Plutonium are extremely heavy elements, and as a result the break down time (half-life) of these are very, very, very long. I tried to find something definitive on The Wikipedia - I know shame on me - but the hardest number they give is in the proliferation section that says it can take more than 9,000 years to break down, which is fairly close to the number I remember. I should note that this is the half-life not the actual decomposition time.

I can't post links but it's under Radioactive Waste, Proliferation Concerns is the section.

The waste from these reactions will be giving off radiation long after the benefits of nuclear power. The technology is great, but it's not perfect.

[mvaliz]

The thing we all need to realize is that "green" energy won't solve most of our problems.

http://www.theguardian.com/environme...-nuclear-power

I'm sure at some point in history one of your ancestors said Oil wouldn't solve most of our problems with using Coal.

It's not a matter of "if" but rather "when" IMO.