Skip to main content

Another Blogger for Nuclear Energy

Meet URUBURU:
A lot of people realize that global heating is the biggest environmental problem mankind currently faces. On a short term, nuclear energy is the only realistic and economically viable option to fight this.

Greenpeace, however, will not accept this as a fact nor start promoting nuclear energy as a lesser evil than fossil energy. Since the organisation has been very succesful in fighting nuclear energy since the seventies (and boosting CO2-emissions), this would be like a guilt confession admitting they are an actual accomplice of the greenhouse effect. Which, of course, they are.

By sustaining old fashioned, dogmatic and simplistic environmentalist ideas, organisations like Greenpeace show they are ultimatley more interested in their own survival as a charitative organisation, than in the endurance of our world.
As we've seen in the past, not everyone associated with Greenpeace is engaging in hysteria any longer.

UPDATE: Meet the Neo-Libertarian:
If you're worried about global warming, carbon/methane pollution, or the cost of oil/gas, then let's get some more nuclear plants in construction. More research would also be really great (especially if they ever prove cold fusion as possible).

It's great for the people scared of global warming, because it doesn't throw carbon, methane and other heat-trapping elements into the sky. Personally I have my doubts about some of the features of global warming theory, mostly focused on our inability to really prove much of anything about it, but it's moot if we move to nuclear power.

For those concerned about the negative effects of air pollution, nuclear power's negative pollution is more easily contained and controlled. I'll concede that disposing of nuclear waste is definitely an issue, especially given lengthy half-life issues, but I'll take pollution we can handle, transport and bury over pollution that's simply thrown up into the air. Nuclear waste is one of the biggest problems connected to the source, but I'd argue that it's more controllable and ultimately safer.
And here's the New York College Republican on why New York needs nuclear energy now:
There's never been a better time. Petroleum-based fuel prices are at their highest, making public awareness about the importance of "energy independence" (don't the words just roll off your tongue?) at the highest you'll see it for a long time (before the supply problems *really* start to set in)... These aren't your grandfather's nuclear power plants: their cores run for longer without refueling. They're more efficient, providing more energy and producing less waste, and most importantly, they're safer.
Technorati tags:

Comments

Matthew66 said…
ABC News (Australia) reports that Greenpeace Australia has condemned the latest report on Chernobyl. It has found other "evidence" that supports its view that nuclear power is dangerous. This does not surprise me. Ideologues usually ignore or condemn evidence that does not support, or contradicts their views, and go to great lengths to find "evidence" that supports their view. Personally, I prefer to examine all the evidence available from reputable sources (and I consider the UN to be a reputable source) and draw conclusions from that. This sometimes leads me to change a previously held opinion, including changing my previously held view that nuclear power is too dangerous to use. I now believe, based on reports such as the 2001 UNSCEAR report and many others, that nuclear power is the safest option for new baseload electricity generating facilities, and for desalination of water in preference to damming rivers for drinking water.