France Generates A Large Part Of Its Energy From Nuclear Power, Why Can't We Do The Same?

Environmentalist don't trust nuclear. They rather build coal power plants while waiting for solar technology to become commercial.

I absolutely support nuclear energy. I think it is the only alternative to coal and oil, that can provide an adequate amount of power and is cost effective. The other alternatives are simply too expensive for the majority of people to afford.

FutbolGK#22, I have been thinking and I can only think of two incidents of nuclear meltdown, Chernobyl and Three Mile Island. Three mile Island was only a partial melt down and did not result in a single death, injury or case of cancer. Chernobyl was responsible for the deaths of 56 people and projections say it could result in up to 4,000 cases of cancer. Think about the hundreds of people worldwide who are killed in coal mining accidents every year. Nuclear power is by far safer and cause less environment damage than what we currently use.

Because liberals are global warming deniers Who are purposely going against the recommendations of the UN Climate Panel That nuclear power, is the only way to prevent and lower green house gas emissions. By replacing fossil fuel power plants with nuclear power.

Our experience at Three Mile Island has taught that human (or even computers) will always make mistakes, which is unacceptable in the design or operation of a nuclear reactor.

Also, there is no acceptable solution for the disposal of 'spent' nuclear material. Where does France dispose of its reactor material?

Mining uranium actually generates greenhouse gases.

As the quality of the ore decreases, the manufacture of the uranium will be even more energy intensive and that is not even accounting for the emissions from managing the waste.

Therefore, you can chart the emissions from nuclear which will inevitably increase over time and become fossil fuel intensive.

Another problem is that it will take too long to set up nuclear reactors all over the world.

Renewables such as geothermal, tidal etc are extremely reliable and much easier to control. They also don't profit the mining companies - maybe you should ask why nuclear is favoured over these options. Personally, I think that we'd be crazy not to look at renewables.

...Rather than give a person a fish - teach them to fish; you feed them for the rest of their lives with no further assistance required.

Renewables are not only limited to solar and wind, although wind is the cheapest of all renewables and will likely be favored in many countries.

Have you thought about nuclear waste? We already have tons and tons of the stuff, with no plan on what to do with it. This is highly toxic, and will remain so for tens of thousands of years. Before we build new nuclear plants, it might be a good idea if we figured out how to take care of the waste from the plants we have.

Nuclear power isn't cheap either. Some people would have you believe it is, but they're looking at the marginal cost, and ignoring the cost to build the plants. In fact, states with more nuclear plants pay more for power than those with fewer - or none. If we want to pay more for power, why not do so with generating methods that are known to have no adverse impact on the environment - like solar, wind, hydro, etc?

The real answer is more complex. True, we need more power, and clean power at that. But we need to use less power. We need to require vehicles get better mileage. Everyone needs to drive less, use mass transportation, ride bikes, walk, etc. We need to turn down the heat, use less air conditioning, add insulation and storm windows, replace light bulbs with efficient ones, recycle, and be smarter with our consumer purchases.

Just because the French do something, it doesn't mean it's a good idea...like nuclear testing on Mururoa. Nuclear power may be clean in terms of CO2 emissions, but it's extremely hazardous when it comes to disposing of the waste. The best answer is simply to use less power!!

Two reasons:

1 The governments in North America are beholden to Big Oil. Big Oil contributes many dollars to political parties and as the expression; " He who Pays the Piper Calls the Tune" ....

People, Government and Big Oil play upon the Chernoble incident as an incident that could happen here.

The effects of that incident, however tragic, I believe are negligible compared with the pollution caused by the production and use of oil and natural gas. It would be prudent to factor in the costs of doing business including on -the-job accidents. The fact that some oil producing countries use their oil revenues to support murderous dictatorships and other fiefdoms that hold that human rights are not an issue and whose social morality belongs in the distant past.

Don't get me started on coal, which we (my Province) have in abundance

because not enough people are bitching about not having enough nuclear power