Why are people still opposed to nuclear power?

Question

Why are people still opposed to nuclear power?

Answer 1

Creates nuclear waste which takes years and years and years and years to decay and it poses threats to humans and the environment.

Answer 2

I spent 8 years in the USN as reactor plant electrician. I felt nuclear power was a safe alternative then, and I still do.

Three Mile Island and Fukushima both show that even when events occur that were far beyond anything the plants wee designed to sustain, the engineering of the containment structures protected the public and prevented a major release of fission products to the environment.

This is not an argument to dismiss the dangers of a meltdown. In both incidents reactors had been in operation prior to the loss of cooling, and in both cases core damage occurred. Had the containment not worked, people's lives would have been in danger.

But the fact is that the containment did work, the engineering was sound, and no member of the public even received a measurable dose.

Commercial nuclear reactors have been in operation in western countries since the middle 1950's. No member of the public has ever been injured by one of these plants.

That record cannot be matched by any other commercial source of power we have today.



The most telling argument for nuclear power is to look at the alternatives.

Coal - the environmental damage from using coal as a primary source of power is pretty obvious to all. From strip mines to acid rain to ash piles and air pollution, king coal has killed more people and ruined more land than any power source you can name. Yet it is the most plentiful source of power on the planet, next to uranium. Do we really want to go back to king coal? Really?

Oil & Gas - There is more oil and gas on this planet than the doom and gloomers keep telling us, it's just located where it is harder and harder to get. And also further and further from where most of it is used. The Exxon Valdez and the Gulf Oil spill are poster children for the hazards of getting this energy source from where it is hidden to where we need it. But it could be worse

The real horror story will be the day an LNG tanker goes up in a populated area. Depending on the conditions, the resulting damage could rival a thermonuclear strike, and make Brownsville, TX look like a wet firecracker.

Hydro power - Here is the US, we are taking DOWN dams not building them, as we realize the damage done to the fish stocks and environment exceed the benefits gained from using rivers as a power source. In the rest of the world, all the easily controlled rivers have already been taken. What's left is either hideously expensive (the Three Gorges) or where no one need the power.



What's left? - not a heck of a lot.

Please do not go on about wind power, or solar power, or tidal power. None of those technologies have scaled anywhere near as well as their promoters have claimed and none of them have been able to deliver reliable power 24/7.

Can they help?

Yes.

Can they be a primary power source? - no

The idea that we will live our lives based on how the wind blows or the sun shines is ludicrous.



Some day, we will figure out how to contain the thermonuclear genie, and fusion will provide us with unlimited power that does not pollute. But we have been chasing that dream for over 50 years, and we still have not got anywhere close to a commercially viable answer.

We will have to make a choice, let our civilization regress and fall for lack of power, or use the resources we have as well and as wisely as possible. Nuclear power is one of those resources.

We need it

Let's use it.

Answer 3

so how are we supposed to stop earthquakes? japan is a big reason and proof of several things. one that people will take short cuts to save money. short cuts can lessen safety. second that there is always something you cant prepare for. i dispute the wind turbine deaths. ive never seen a story of even one death. other then geese that is. i would also say that nuclear power has security problems isnt that one of the reasons we are nervous about iran? i would also add that noone has figured a good solution to the waste products. wind solar and geothermal are better options.

Answer 4

Im with you I could bathe in the stuff.

Answer 5

I am not against nuclear power so long as its only used by responsible countries like Britain.

Answer 6

fukushima proved that there is no absolute safe way to produce nuclear power by fission, I think. There is always something that's going to happen, Chernobyl was human error, Fukushima was nature. I'm sure there's more to come...



edit:



The point I'm trying to make John Trottier, is that there will always be something far beyond anything the plants are designed to sustain. (other examples: wars, terrorism and viruses like in Iran, like Tom R says, etc) There will always be something not planet even if it's not human, like a meteor or something else. Chernobyl had terrible consequences on people's health

I seriously doubt your claims about Fukujima's health consequences. And just the fact that countries dispose of radioactive waste material illegally (dump it on someone else's "back yard") just to avoid spending money to dispose of it properly, tells us there is a big problem here... Money and expense cutting (one of economy's main objectives and the reality overall) is incompatible with nuclear fission power plants.



You're too fast to dismiss renewable energy sources. You forget that some countries in Europe have more than half their energy produced by these means. My country, for example produces around 40% of its energy by renewable sources. And the technology is really developing at an accelerated rate. I can easily envision a future completely sustained by renewable sources.



Just the energy the earth receives from the sun is more than we use on the entire planet. We just don't know how to grasp it yet.

Answer 7

Dr William Reville (Environmental Radiation Committee of the Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland) stated "It is alarming that amateur opinion in the specialised areas of health and radiation would take such strong precedence in the public mind over the considered study of hundreds of scientists." The media are largely to blame by alarmist reporting and by comments from journalists who by and large have no scientific training and so are unable to correctly interpret scientific data.



Charities and groups like Greenpeace rely on donations and no one is going to give money for a cause, such as saving the polar bears, when they will survive another 10,000 years. They have to manufacture a sense of imminent crisis, that the polar bears will start dying next year unless you give them money, and then the crisis will be averted. It is the same for nuclear power, they have to scare people to get there money.



BBC did an interview with the director of Greenpeace, Gerd Leipold, regarding the 1995 Shell Brent-Spar oil rig controversy where Greenpeace apologized for lying and making false claims (even though their aims of getting publicity had been achieved, at the expense of the environment). Leipold defended his position by saying: “We as a pressure group have to emotionalise issues and we’re not ashamed of emotionalising issues.”



I lot of the opposition to nuclear power seems to come not from where melt downs have occurred but by bleeding hearts 1000 miles away from the accidents. It is interesting that even after Chernobyl the Ukraine still relies on nuclear power and is planning to increase their reactor fleet from 15 to 22. Since 1991 coal mining accidents in the Ukraine have killed 4,900 miners which is more than the total victims from the Chernobyl meltdown.



In June 2011, three months after Fukushima, a pro-nuclear politician won in a landslide election to be Governor of the Aomori prefecture in Japan. Aomori has 1 nuclear reactor and had 4 more planned. A pro-nuclear mayor who supports building a reactor in his province won a landslide election against his anti-nuclear opponent in Yamaguchi Prefecture. Then in August 2011 a pro-nuclear Prime Minister was elected in Japan, Yoshihiko Noda, who stated he would reduce reliance on nuclear energy but never get rid of it completely.



On 15 April 2012 a pro-nuclear mayor named Ishihara who promoted coexistance with nuclear power won an election against 2 other anti-nuclear candidates who didn't want to restart the Hamaoka reactor in Shizuoka Prefecture. Ishihara won 12,018 votes, well ahead of the 6,840 for Katsuhisa Mizuno and the 1,891 for Haruhisa Muramatsu. Voter turnout was 76.69 percent. It's amazing that 30,000 protesters against nuclear power seem to have more power than the rest of the nation. The polls and images that the media choose to promote are all of Japanese protesting nuclear power.



The amount of waste produced by nuclear power is 2 pounds for each person lifetime energy needs (fits into a coke can) compared to 68 tonnes of coal put into the atmosphere per person.



Forgot, You may be surprised to see countries like Austria and Portugal with renewable powering over 50% of their energy needs. Keep in mind their combined populations are less than 20 million and the worlds is 7 billion and electricity demand is expected to increase by 75% by 2030 and people want it to replace coal (and some here obviously nuclear as well). Germany is withdrawing support and subsidies for solar power because its too expensive and their wind turbines used to have average capacity factors of 30% but are now only 17% because all the windy locations are taken first and then they must be installed in less desirable areas. The capacity factor for nuclear power is 90% and doesn't decrease the more that is installed. Hydro power is nice but can only be placed in specific locations and lets not forget the Dam that burst in China in 1975 that killed over 150,000 people.