Stop plans to build more nuclear power stations

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by radfax on July 8, 2008 at 11:41am

Link to sign petition

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Sal on July 8, 2008 at 1:49pm

Nuclear power is the best alternative we have. The nuclear waste is NOT hazardous to health unless there is prolonged exposure--not merely coming into contact with it. Here in the US, we have a perfectly fine place for storing nuclear waste: Yucca Mountain. However, thanks to unfounded fears and misunderstanding of nuclear energy, it has not been utilized. Nuclear power is efficient, safe, and we can build more plants at will---without wasting time and money on long-term, experimental energy sources.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Phoenix on July 9, 2008 at 9:15pm

safe you say? I'm sure these people would beg to differ.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Sal on July 8, 2008 at 6:10pm

Actually, the transport of nuclear waste isnt dangerous at all. I recommend you see Penn & Tellers episode on it:
youtube.com/watch?v=tXHRi9ziPWA (Part 1 of 3)

It debunks just about all the fears you mentioned.

Whats funny is that all of the examples you cited of nuclear plant accidents occurred when nuclear power was in its infancy. Mentioning Chernobyl is quite humorous, as you ignore that the accident happened (not only long ago) but in a nation on the verge of collapse. As for 3 Mile Island, no one was harmed, cancer risks didnt increase, etc.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by radfax on July 8, 2008 at 10:33pm

Hey YOU, do you work for the energy department. Mmm, that's the trouble with some people they're so self inclusive and short sighted. Look at the bigger picture. If there is any misunderstanding , quote; "unfounded fears and misunderstanding of nuclear energy", then I think it is on your part.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by David C. Byers aka DC13 on July 9, 2008 at 12:10am

valid points all around, let's keep it civil, thanks for the post and the petition!

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Sean on July 11, 2008 at 3:14pm

The dangers of Nuclear energy are not limited to meltdowns. Uranium mining is extremely dangerous, and damaging to the environment. Ask the Navajo Nation.

There is no easy solution to energy problems. We need to reduce consumption, and invest solely renewable sources like wind and solar. Our money should be funding further research on these methods of generating power. What could the scientists at LANL achieve if our money was spent on that? Oil and Nuclear have their differences, but they have one thing in common: they perpetually generate money, and we can't solve the problem unless someone loses a source of income. But they ought to have enough money by now.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by grant on July 15, 2008 at 4:03am

we should not take nuclear energy off the table, we just need to be sensible about it. nuclear energy needs to be one component in a larger plan to get energy into the 21st century. a combination of nuclear, wind, solar, tidal, geothermal, and biological carbon sequestration would be a good way to go. by diversifying our means of energy production we can have contingency plans when problems occur. nuclear waste is dangerous, but to think that humans are incapable of figuring out how to increase safety is ridiculous. We can figure it out, but we wont if we admit defeat before we even try.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Sean on July 15, 2008 at 3:05pm

No. We are not at war with learning to harness nuclear energy. I bet you 5 bucks it will not care if we 'admit defeat'. The fact that nuclear energy damages the environment, causes a range of irreversible health problems, and kills people, should not be thought of as a challenge. That means stop. It isn't worth it. Human beings are incapable. Not of solving the problem, but of recognizing that some problems aren't problems. A cliff is only a problem if I decide to walk off it. But where will I be when I solve that?

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by ENEMY WITHIN on September 25, 2008 at 9:35pm

I CAN'T BELIEVE THAT A SO CALLED SOCIALIST GOVERNMENT WOULD THINK THAT HAVING A NUCLEAR POWER PROGRAMME IS A SOLUTION TO OUR ENERGY PROBLEMS, IMAGINE WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF A STATION WENT CRITICAL IN THE U.K, WE CAN'T JUST GIVE UP ON FIFTY SQUARE MILES OF LAND IN THE U.K, LIKE THEY DID IN THE UKRAINE, WE SHOULD BE INVESTING IN OTHER ENERGY SOURCES, WIND WATER AND NOW WE CAN MAKE IT CLEANER COAL,I IN LIVE SOUTH WALES WHERE THERE'S STILL AT LEAST TWO HUNDREAD YEARS WORTH OF COAL UNDER GROUND, WHICH CAN NOW BE RECOVERED WITHOUT THE NEED FOR DAMAGING DEEP MINING, BUT BECAUSE OF THE U.K'S NARROW MINDED LEADERSHIP, WE'VE ENDED UP SLAVES TO GREEDY ENERGY COMPANYS, DARREN 'ENEMY WITHIN'.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Old Guy on October 22, 2008 at 7:56am

I agree with Sal, nuclear power is the best energy source we have. I'd like to see the anti-nuclear nut jobs give up their electrical and/or other energy use for a while and see how that suits 'em. That's like greenhouse gas nut jobs driving massive SUVs, they talk the talk but don't walk the walk.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by mike fallwell on November 9, 2008 at 2:57pm

Thorium: Earth's Forgotten Treasure

As we face soaring energy prices, future shortages, and the alarming prospect of dramatic climate change brought about by fossil fuel waste, the one thing we desperately need stands out in stark relief: an abundant supply of clean energy - the Holy Grail of the modern world.

Oil and natural gas are running low. Wind power is limited to a few locations, biofuels require much more land than we have, and solar is still far from practical after decades of intensive research. Nuclear fusion has made even less progress. The supply of uranium for conventional nuclear power will run out within this century. Right now, almost every new power plant has to be fueled by dwinding supplies of natural gas or uranium, or by dirty coal, which spews out not only vast amounts of carbon dioxide but millions of tons of toxic soot, poisonous heavy metals, and radioactive isotopes.

Whenever the construction of a nuclear reactor is delayed because of a false hope in "renewable" energies that never materialize, a coal or natural gas plant has to be built instead, polluting the air we breathe and driving global warming faster and faster. But even conventional nuclear reactors produce waste, and because they use only a tiny fraction of the energy in uranium, that resource is also being depleted.

Enter Thorium. Half a century ago, a different kind of nuclear reactor was invented, one that burns Thorium - an inexhaustible supply of fuel, and much cheaper than the enriched-uranium fuel used by current reactors. It can even use the nuclear waste from other reactors as fuel! The Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor, or LFTR for short, operates at low pressures, so it could never explode like the reactor at Chernobyl, and its liquid-fuel design makes it physical impossible to overheat, like the reactor at Three Mile Island.

Unfortunately, it was the Cold War - energy was still cheap, global warming was just a theory, and the LFTR wasn't good for making weapons-grade plutonium, so it was abandoned. Now, a growing group of scientists and engineers are working to bring the LFTR back to life - to free us from filthy coal and turn stockpiles of nuclear waste into the clean, cheap energy we need.

▶ Reply to This

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page