Why are most alarmists against using nuclear power?

I would state that all tree-hugers are against nuclear energy, and all of them are alarmists.

They call themselves Environmentalists but that term isn't accurate, "Ultra Left Radical Environment Political Activists" would be a more accurate term. They are usually against almost all kind of technological progress, they don't like humans, they think humans disrupt the Earth equilibrium because they don't belong to the environment.

Take GreenPeace for example, the Canadian government doesn't recognize them as a non-profit organization because they don't believe Greenpeace is doing anything tangible.

Environmentalism picked up where Communism left off.

They are suffocating humans and their spirit of innovation!!!

Edit..

They believe Nuclear power isn't green and they Always bring up Chernobyl as the reason why they are against it.

There are lots of "alarmists" who do support it.

Personally, I'm not one of them.

Oddly, I keep hearing the term "cheap nuclear" thrown around. Where do people get this idea? Nuclear never has been cheap. EVERY nuclear power plant ever built went over budget in construction. EVERY nuclear power plant ever built costs more to maintain and run than was planned. Now we're even starting to see problems where the utilities don't have the money to dismantle the damn things when they get decommissioned. That doesn't sound cheap to me. Those against renewables are so quick to dismiss them on the basis of cost, and then turn around and suggest nuclear. Huh?

The second reason I'm against nuclear is waste. The truth of the matter is, the US has no way of dealing with it. Nuclear has been around for 50 years and there is still no long-term solution to the waste. Nuclear waste currently sits contained in concrete surround the plant. It's hard to monitor and hardly long-term. We'll bury it in the mountains? Oh yeah, that's only taken 50 years, $800 billion, and is STILL not finished. Ooops, more costs to nuclear. Sure, we could reprocess it like the french do. Unfortunately, the process has the unfortunate consequence of producing weapons-grade materials. This is a security risk the US government will never take.

A third reason I'm against nuclear this that of example. A big threat to the world is that of nuclear proliferation in the hands of dangerous countries. Of course, they're completely able to hide the research of nuclear weapons behind the guise of "nuclear power", and the US can't say anything about it because we can't deny them the benefits of nuclear power that we have.

Nuclear power is certainly green, cost and time don't really matter the cost is high but time wise, it is about the same as a large dam project ~10-15 years.

Given the consequences of a failure nuclear is not a viable solution, there is no other power source that can cause such a wide spread and long lasting problem if there is a failure.

Given the the spread of the Chernobyl radiation detectable in dairy products across Europe as far away as the U.K.

While many report talk about the safety of nuclear power the fact is any system can fail, and while these reports try to claim that Chernobyl doesn't count because the Russians didn't build to the same quality. Three Mile Island and the several, more recent Japanese plant failures suggest that non Russian reactors are not foolproof.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_Japa...

While ROBERT is making comments about the mentality of his work security guard, he may want to check the volume of the material that exists just in the U.S. it can be measured in thousands of tons (that's not counting contaminated soil and water) and the cost of getting material geosynchronous orbit, still not quite enough to escape Earths gravity

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=301

Average cost per Lb $9,243/$11,243 and these are 2001 prices

The heaviest lift rocket is the proton (Russian) it can lift 5–6 tonnes to geostationary orbit, it not that hard to work out how many 100s of launches it would take to even make a dent in U.S. nuclear waste at around $95M per launch.

Who says they are? Why are you making such a broad generalization about a large group of people with no supporting evidence? That's so unlike deniers...

At the very least you should have worded the question to ask "why does it *seem* that...."

From my experience most AGW proponents support nuclear power. Personally I don't purely because it's more expensive than many renewable energy options, which are also cleaner and can be built more quickly. It's also a massive economic risk to taxpayers, who have to fund the projects since they cost ~$8 billion per reactor, and literally always go over budget and over schedule, if they're even completed.

I have no problem with nuclear power itself. I think concerns about the safety and radioactive waste are relatively minor problems which can be overcome. But it's not an efficient use of money.

Are they?

I'm certainly not against it in principle, though there could be an argument against it on cost grounds. With our ever increasing population, we are unlikely to have enough spare land to meet our energy requirements from crops in the future, I think nuclear power could well have a place in the mix!

I think nuclear fusion will probably be the answer eventually, though I understand this is still a long way off.

I am not an expert though, I could be persuaded either way by a good case. The important thing is that we get our GHG's under control, less important is exactly how we do it!

Because they're not about going green or conserving energy.

The "environmentalist" movement was taken over by socialists who do not like progress. Their goal is to shut down economies based on capitalism and freedom.

That's why they support energy "solutions" that don't work, like wind and solar. If those become viable, expect the "greenies" to be against those methods too.

It's never ending with that lot.

"China Syndrome" was bogus and used to formulate bad opinions about nuclear energy. Ignorance is abound.

fukushima proved that there is not any absolute secure thank you to offer nuclear skill by skill of fission, i think of. there is often something it is going to take place, Chernobyl became human blunders, Fukushima became nature. i'm helpful there is greater to come again... edit: the factor i'm attempting to make John Trottier, is that there'll consistently be something a techniques previous something the flora are designed to take care of. (different examples: wars, terrorism and viruses like in Iran, like Tom R says, etc) there'll consistently be something no longer planet whether it is not human, like a meteor or something else. Chernobyl had poor effects on human beings's well-being I heavily doubt your claims approximately Fukujima's well-being effects. And only the fact that international locations delay radioactive waste components illegally (sell off it on somebody else's "returned backyard") only to circumvent spending money to delay it appropriate, tells us there's a large undertaking here... money and cost slicing (considered one of economic gadget's important goals and the fact prevalent) is incompatible with nuclear fission skill flora. you're too rapid to brush off renewable capability components. You forget that some international locations in Europe have greater advantageous than a million/2 their capability produced by skill of those skill. My u . s . a ., working example produces around 40% of its capability by skill of renewable components. And the technologies is definitely coming up at an sped up cost. i will actually envision a destiny thoroughly sustained by skill of renewable components. only the capability the earth gets from the solar is greater advantageous than we use on the total planet. We only don't be attentive to a thank you to hold close it yet.

For the same reason they are against space based solar generation. They are both practical and sustainable non fossil fueled options and this is the problem. The real money behind the hydrogen highway and other non practical solutions like wind power is fossil fuel suppliers that are trying to squeeze more profit out of their existing resources. So the AGW movement is really all about giving some big oil and coal millionaires like Al Gore and T-Boone bigger profits until their resource runs out leaving the world hanging without power when that day comes.

Added comment

Nuclear fuel is 100% rrecyclable and in fact nuclear is the only power source that produces more new fuel than it consumes. Nuclear with out recycling has fuel for maybe a couple of hundred years. With recycling the same fuel will last several million years. Is not going green all about sustainable recycling, then go nuclear not coal which just makes Gore richer!

Do you have a source for that claim? No? Wonder why.

Most people who are concerned about AGW do support nuclear power. While it's fun to build this little strawman and dress him up as a hypocrite, it doesn't change the fact that he's not real.

Nuclear power would be wonderful. Tons of cheap, clean energy, BUT if things go bad they go VERY bad, as in tens of thousands of years bad. Also what to do with the waste ? Storing it for thousands of years isnt feasable or safe. Building rockets to send it into the sun would be costly, nobody can really say what effect it would have on the sun, and think about the possiblity of rocket failure. I mean KA-BLOOEY !!! thousands of pounds of radio active material spread over how much land mass. Or even worse, say the rocket gets up into the atmospher and then explodes. All that material would be spread globally , then how do you even attempt a clean up, and who pays for it ??? ----Its great and it works, but the potential for LONG term disaster is too great of a risk. Besides do you want you kids growing up next to a plant ?