Would you support nuclear power that was totally useless to the nuclear weapons industry?
Sure. And I support nuclear power that is totally *useful* to the nuclear weapons industry, so long as it’s being used in a country that already has nuclear capabilities anyway. I’m already living about 55 miles away from one nuclear plant, and would feel perfectly safe moving closer to it. Much safer than I would living next to a coal plant.
I agree with Dawei, I would (and do) support it either way. There is no doubt that a need for alternative energy sources is immediate. While technology on renewables improves I think it is imperative that fossil fuels become an energy source of the past. However, with nuclear it seems that emotion often blurs the line between efficacy and possible mal-effects. In reality there have been only two disasters with nuclear, Chernobyl and Fukushima. The effects of Fukushima are yet to be fully realized but it’s doubtful that it will surpass Chernobyl. In my opinion that is overall a fairly good safety record for an emerging technology especially when one considers the additive human error that lead to Chernobyl and the excessive natural disaster that lead to Fukushima.
I have never felt that nuclear weapons depended on nuclear power. The weapons industry would develop nuclear weapons anyway. No my main concerns have been 1) adding to radiation – I do not believe there are safe levels of radiation. Any dose could be harmful but the more doses one receives the more likely it is that damage will result. 2) the catastrophic consequences of accidents – I do not accept that the consequences of Chernobyl have been trivial. There have been deaths, there have been illnesses, huge numbers of people have been forced to move and huge quantities of food have been destroyed. The consequences in Japan seem likely to be equally severe. 3) the threat of terrorism or war related incidents. 4) the as yet unknown cost of dealing with waste. No long term solution has yet been found but it is evident that it will be extremely costly. 5) the foolishness of building another fossil fuel habit (uranium is a fossil fuel and finite, like all the others). I was disappointed that
Yes, but it would have to be a fast neutron plant that consumes 95% of it’s fuel, not 3% like the current plants, which result in large quantities of highly radioactive waste. Fast neutron plants could even consume the current stockpiles of waste. Furthermore, the plant would have to have fail safe shutdown, and not be reliant on pumps for cooling that are subject to failure. The reason I support a safer generation of nuclear power plants, is because I don’t think alternative clean energy will be adopted quickly enough to prevent severe global warming. I do not support the current technology used in nuclear power plants.
