a coal power-plant gives off more nuclear radiation into the atmosphere and it’s surroundings than a nuclear power plant.
keep that in mind.
The movie The Day After Tomorrow is crap. The theory behind it, a shut down in the North Atlantic Circulation, may have some validity. But this would happen on a much longer time scale (decades), so the events depcited in the movie are laughable.
Disclaimer- I haven’t seen the movie, so I’m basing my statements on secondary sources.
Source it, but the problem will still remain: What can be done with a spent nuclear fuel rod?
Why not go Luddite? I mean we’ve devolved/evolved transportion into a single wheel…
see this is how it works.
in a nuclear power plant, the only thing it gives off is heat, and nuclear waste. the nuclear waste is always controlled and never allowed to reach the “outside world”, it is then dumped into big “bunkers” deep underground where the radiation cannot escape.
in a coal power plant, it uses coal, right? and the coal is not 100% pure coal, it will have some impurities, one of these being radioactive material. Even if the concentration of radioactive material is only 0.001%, the millions and millions of tonnes used adds up to a substantial amount of radioactive material which is released into the atmosphere/environment.
the spent fuel rods go deeeeeeeeeeep underground and stored so that the radiation could never escape. personally i wouldnt mind if they had the bunker in my back yard, it’s pretty safe.
There are other types of nuclear reactors besides the common pressurized water reactors and similar reactors. The other types of reactors use different types of fuel. No need to worry about running out of fuel in the near term. Just need to continue research and development on different types of reactors. And also continue research on fusion and other sources of energy. You only need to sustain long enough till the next generation of power generation becomes viable.
I don’t see how it will be possible to have any significant and sustainable reduction in CO2 emissions without going nuclear. Electric and plug-in hybrid cars will also be necessary, but will need clean (non CO2 producing) electric power to make a maximum impact.
I don’t see a realistic way around that. If you want to make actual reductions in CO2 emissions you need to support nuclear power. That leaves the environmentalists with a choice between two evils. Which evil is worse? To me the answer is very clear.
Going Nuclear
Patrick Moore endorses nuclear energy before US Congress
There. Fixed it.
I myself don’t believe too much in global warming, but if the prospect of it scares people into helping the environment, then I wont say anything.
On the matter of nuclear power, nuclear fission (i think) is the process that creates waste. Nuclear fusion, on the other hand, creates (to my knowledge) almost no waste at all and is much more powerful than fission. The only problem is being able to create a reaction and sustain it.
On the matter of resources, even if we don’t have infinite resources, we have the resources we need right here in the United States. That means we don’t have to rely on countries that have a large population that wants us dead for fuel.
Then again, I’m no expert on these things. Please feel free to point out any flaws in my argument.
You know…I’ve never quite understood the anti-environmentalism movement.
We all live on this planet, doesn’t everyone here have a vested interest in what happens to it? It also seems like this has turned into do a republican vs. democrat thing?
So maybe we’re causing global-warming, and maybe we’re not. I think there’s sufficient evidence for us to be concerned and look into it further. Can people seriously think that with all of the stuff we’re doing to our planet that we have no effect?
whats fluctuation
just kidding its when stuff varays and changes
Wheal my stand point is that the world is in dire need of some major help they say that in 40 years there inset going to be a fish left in the water IN 40 YEARS no im young but I no that 40 years ant that long and we decently need a new solution fore transpiration I daunt no how match carbon is being pumped in to the atmosphere but it will probly scare apron I thick what needs to be dun is that we should use the energy from the wind from turbines to make our energy and then convert it in to hydrogen to run our cars and things like that Ide be more construable doing that then having 1000s of nuclear plants everywhere over the globe …………………… tim
And it’s all located under the Slick Rock Trail, NOOOOOOOOOOOO!
Let me be clear; nuclear can help, but it won’t be the magic fix that some people make it out to be (I wonder if they own Westinghouse stock?) Fusion technology is about 30 years from being viable, and has been for 50 years.
And we will still have the waste problem, hugely compounded if we start using Plutonium breeder technology.
There is no significant anti-environmentalism movement.
Just because someone doesn’t follow Greenpeace’s views or the Sierra Club’s views doesn’t mean they are against the environment.
Lots of people are for responsible use and management of natural resources. But that view gets painted as anti-environmentalist. That’s not a fair label. Responsible management means keeping the environment sustainable. Lots of people are for that.
But the environmentalism movement wants hands off and to them responsible management is abuse.
Save the anti-environmentalist label for those who truly are.
I’m against global warming for two reasons:
- It doesn’t exist.
- It takes focus away from real environmental problems.
I’m all for taking care of the environment, but running in the streets screaming about the Global Warming Apocalypse makes it much harder for real issues to be dealt with.
My view exactly. Sure, I admit the earth might be going through a warm spell. But like I think I already said (sorry if I’m repeating) in several years or so it’ll most likely start cooling off again.
Also, “global warming” isn’t really “global”. Didn’t Siberia/ Rushia have an unusually extreme cold winter last year? And South Africa had an unusually long snow, with snowstorms in places that didn’t normally get snow. Even here in Montana, it got down to -15 F middle of october. Which is pretty cold for so early in the fall. Call that ‘global’ warming?
Or the earth might explode in exactly 10 years and kill us all!!! According to Al Gore. 
I think God is up there with a nice little dial, and he just turns that ever so slightly, just to mess with us. Then, he sits back and laughs as humanity goes crazy.
HAHAHAHAH
By “doesn’t exist” you mean it’s not man-made, right?
Because if you’re saying average global temperature hasn’t been rising lately, you’re slightly out of sync with the measurements.
That’s too bad because my favorite solution is to cut down the rainforrest, burry the timber to prevent it from rotting, and let new trees grow and capture carbon from the air. Sometimes that suggestion can get you a 
before they realize you’re joking :).
I’ve toured the local nuclear power plant several times. They have a fake control room for training. This sounds exactly like the trainer. He’ll say, “Watch this.” Then turn a dial to create a problem and watch the trainees go crazy. It’s pretty fun to watch.
They tell me there that life in a nuclear power station control room can be described as hours upon hours of sheer boredom punctuated by moments of sheer terror.
