A: The greatest mystery to me is how the American environmental movement can be anti-nuclear, because the environment is so much
benefited by nuclear power, compared to any other way to generate electricity, including solar and wind.
Not exact matches
The key issues include tax;
nuclear power; the living wage (vociferously opposed
by economic Liberals, who dispute the Resolution Foundation's work to demonstrate the economic
benefits and savings to the exchequer); Trident replacement; and higher education where the party may struggle to avoid reopening the self - inflicted wounds of late 2010.
I promoted Keith Kloor «s post on the paucity of coverage of a new peer - reviewed study on the health
benefits of
nuclear power (compared to coal), co-authored
by James Hansen, who retired yesterday after 46 years of planetary and climate science at NASA:
By the way, I'd just like to mention that I am far happier to be arguing about the comparative
benefits of
nuclear power, wind, solar, geothermal, biomass, conservation, efficiency, reforestation, organic agriculture, etc. for quickly reducing CO2 emissions and concentrations, than to be engaged in yet another argument with someone who doesn't believe that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, or that human activities are not causing warming, or that the Earth is cooling, or thinks that AGW is a «liberal» conspiracy to destroy capitalism, etc..
Among other points, Mr. Romm says the «fourth generation» form of
nuclear power discussed
by Dr. Hansen has no greater potential
benefits than other technologies (solar - thermal
power plants, for example) that were not mentioned but that could be deployed at large scale much more quickly.
James Hansen, a prominent climate scientist, calculates the positive
benefit of
nuclear power as having saved about 1.84 million lives
by reducing such pollution.
d. Changing perceptions of the risks and
benefits of
nuclear power leads to increasing public support for
nuclear > allows the NRC licensing process to be completely revamped and the culture of the organisation to be changed from «safety first» to an appropriate balance of all costs and risks, including the consequences of retarding
nuclear development and rollout
by making it too expensive to compete as well as it could if the costs were lower (e.g. higher fatalities per TWh if
nuclear is not allowed to be cheaper than fossil fuels);
Nuclear power, which does not produce earth - warming emissions, is viewed with scepticism
by many environmental activists, who say its dangers outweigh its
benefits.
Nuclear power would provide many other
benefits as well: energy security, reliable energy supply, reduce shipping costs and energy used in shipping coal
by a factor of 20,000 to 2 million, provide fresh water, no need for carbon pricing, avoid 1 million fatalities per year
by 2050,... https://judithcurry.com/2012/08/17/learning-from-the-octopus/#comment-231867.
The head of Illinois anti-
nuclear organization Environmental Law and Policy Center — which is funded
by fossil fuel interests and other energy companies that would
benefit from closing
nuclear plants — has doubled down on his efforts to increase carbon emissions
by closing
nuclear power plants and replacing them with fossil fuels.