Home » 2006 » 05 » 25 » Bush says more Nuclear means less Greenhouse Gases
Bush says more Nuclear means less Greenhouse Gases
Â
Â
Â
Â
Â
Â
Â
Â
President Bush says that greater use of nuclear power is the way to reduce greenhouse gases blamed for global warming. Bush said “Nuclear power helps us protect the environment and nuclear power is safe,” in addressing a crowd at the Limerick Generating Station nuclear plant 40 miles northwest of Philadelphia, Bush said “let’s quit the debate about whether greenhouse gases are caused by mankind or by natural causes. Let’s just focus on technologies that deal with the issue.” Critics believe this sudden shit from immigration to issues concerning global warming is in part a response to Al Gore’s new documentary “An Inconvenient Truth” [you can find a discussion on this documentary here].
Â
America has not build any new nuclear power plants since the Chernobyl incident in 1986. This recent call by the President has critics worried. Danielle Brian, executive director of the Project On Government Oversight (POGO) commenting on the Bush speech said “We hope the administration and the Congress will acknowledge the severe threat to our nuclear power plants because of inadequate security, excessive government secrecy and a lack of whistle-blower protections for nuclear plant employees,”
Â
Source: Reuters, report by Tabassum ZakariaÂ
United States is largest supplier of commercial nuclear power in the world, with more than 100 commercial nuclear plants generating about 20 percent of the Nation’s electricity. Nuclear power generation requires the mining, conversion and disposal of material that are radiological and hazardous.
By the end of the day, when we pit nuclear energy against green technologies like solar and wind energy we can clearly see that nuclear power generation is not renewable, not clean and definitely not safe. Increased focus on renewable source of energy and conservation of natural resources is the only path that would lead to sustainable development.
Footnote: Founded in 1981, POGO is an independent nonprofit that investigates and exposes corruption in order to achieve a more accountable federal government.
Photo Courtesy: Nucleartourist.com
Â
Posted by Moderator on May 25th, 2006 filed in Al Gore, Alternative Fuel, Bush, Global Warming, News, Nuclear, Ozone, POGO, Urban 6 Comments »
May 29th, 2006 at 7:15 pm
focusing on renewable energy sources alone will not help supply the demanding energy needs.
safe nuclear energy combined with renewable sources might be the way to go. but we definately need to get deeper into how to deal with spent nuclear fuel and rods.
also let common sense prevail: decades old advice still good today: turn off the lights when not in use/use dimmer lights, AC when needed, heat can be a few degrees lower at night/programmable thermostats, etc.
recycle, recycle, recycle.
a little goes a long way.
May 30th, 2006 at 1:49 pm
I still think that we will be able to supply all of the worlds energy needs from Green power (from hydro, solar, wind, etc).
I am not against progress, I am simply against progress without sustainability aspects built in.
What do you think one should do with all the nuclear waste? Dump it in an unused mine some place in Africa or India? How about the danger of someone flying a plane into a reactor? It’s not beyond reason to assume such situations anymore, is it?
May 31st, 2006 at 9:24 am
Apart from the sun, wind energies that could be captured and stored, plant products and other byproducts of various industries which are organic in nature (biomass) could also be utilized to meet a part of our energy needs thus reducing the demand for fossil fuels and the risks of nuclear fuel.
Renewal biomass and biomass fuels can be piped in the present natural gas piped systems with a few modifications.
Apart from the environmental benefits this will also help reduce the solid waste disposal problems and meet localised demands. The costs of transmission and conveyance are also reduced.
June 1st, 2006 at 8:27 pm
it may not be possible to switch over to renewable energy sources atleats in the next few years. till then, i support the use of safe nuclear energy. no industry is safe from acts of sabatoge; but it is prudent to say that a nuclear disaster would affect a larger area.
again, disposal options need to be investigated.
at the rate we’re going, it would take several decades to go renewable.
speed up the rate and you still need supplements.
when the day comes that renewable energy is being used 100%, rejoice!! we all aim at contributing to that day.
June 1st, 2006 at 11:38 pm
We seldom think of why green energy is not such a viable alternative (at this time at least) after all…consumers, yes, we should demand more green energy, we should be willing to pay extra cash for it (yeah its more expensive- at least for now) and then stick with it.
If we want something, the big corps will provide it for us, they need our money, so they will do whatever we fancy. If they can build and commission a nuclear reactor in 3 years, I bet they can install solar panels in a much shorter time.
June 8th, 2006 at 1:23 pm
hear, hear…i do agree.