Wouldn't the Occasional Nuclear Power Disaster be Worth It to Save the Planet?

Nuclear power has improved a lot but is still not flawless. Even if we were to concede, for the sake of argument, that future nuclear power disasters would result in people dying, isn't that an acceptable cost when saving the planet? Why does the aversion to nuclear power continue when we could use it to get to or close to zero-emissions?

It looks to me like a lot of climate change policies are not the best solutions available.

 

My problem with nuclear power advocates is the safe disposal of spent rods and spent nuclear piles themselves. So far I have yet to hear anything remotely approaching fool-proof disposal and long term containment of such items. If that's ever solved then, yes, it would make sense to go nuclear power as much as possible.

 

You're assuming that climate change activists believe their Jeremiah-like warnings are literally true. It's clear they don't.

 

The planet does not need saving. Global Warming is not happening, per logic, science, and mathematics.

 

I disagree. The Earth's climate IS changing. It's always changing. It has been changing since the dawn of time. It will continue to change until the earth is swallowed by the sun.

What is absurd is the notion that if enough people can be taxed, climate change can be stopped.

 

The Earth doesn't have a climate. There is no such thing as a "global climate". The Earth has MANY climates at any given point in time. THOSE climates are always changing.

If weather is localized, and climate is defined as "weather over a long period of time", then climate (by definition) is also localized, NOT globalized...

Correct. That is indeed absurd.

However, "Climate Change" dogma is also absurd, as it rejects logic, science, and mathematics.

 

>
Wouldn't the Occasional Nuclear Power Disaster be Worth It to Save the Planet?

Ask the people of Chernobyl...Oh, wait.....you cant

 

I think nuclear power plants should be built in desolate areas, barren tundra or desert, far away from any bodies of water.
That way if there ever were a meltdown it wouldn't be the worst thing in the world.

Superconductive power lines could be used to move the electric power over long distances to where it is needed without any losses.

Currently there are air-cooled designs that exist, so nuclear power does not always need a nearby source of water.

 

Mankind has not demonstrated that it can be responsible with nuclear power. We build them on fault lines and tsunami zones, we dont maintain them properly and we put the least responsible people in charge of administering and regulating them.

The technology itself is great, but human error -incompetence really- makes them too dangerous.

 

Nuclear potential is limited since uranium is an non renewable resource.

 

Uranium and Thorum don't need to last forever. Just for a century or two until we come up with something better.

 

I read an article which claimed that there's enough uranium for 35,000 years.

 

I think most support it, just not in their back yard

 

I would suggest the OP ask folks around Fukashima what THEY think. Or ask the Japanese government when they tally up the Trillion dollar cleanup bill in a couple more decades when people can go within a mile of that mess.

 

and you know insurance companies would not cover nuclear meltdown

 

Especially in an "Act Of God" situation.

 

It is not a matter of "saving the planet". It is not a matter of attenuating changes in the climate. It is a matter of responsible use of resources in an intelligent, elegant, artful, truly human fashion. It is a question of beauty over squalor.
Nuclear plants are certainly not an answer in that respect.

 

Not having nuclear plants is not a solution either.

IEA: Nuke retirements could lead to 4 billion metric tons of extra CO2 emissions

 

The title of this thread is a great example on how obsessed the cult members are with the agw hoax. "What's a nuclear accident now and then? Who cares about radiation when cities are disappearing under the ocean as we speak"? Trouble is they are not and you are willing to accept multiple potential real catastrophes based on a failed hypothesis.