Quite a few environmentalists who want reduced use of fossil fuels for our energy also oppose nuclear power. If so, what do you suggest we use to produce such massive amounts of energy-what is your energy plan?
Many of them have no alternative, they just don’t like reality, although some will put forth alternatives. None of them would allow society to continue as is.
Also, they don’t really understand the issues, especially with nuclear power. For many the word nuclear sets them off the way the n word sets off others.
I will try using less and generating some green.
I have a very efficient car & don’t drive for entertainment; I have almost all high efficiency bulbs; I heat my house like it’s the 1970’s; my water pipes are insulated; I hand wash my dishes; I don’t buy a lot of new stuff. We’re putting in a personal solar installation.
(I am amazed at the amount of energy people use for little or no reason. )
Many lot fall into the category of no nukes OR carbon neutral. Natural gas seems to be a good way to reduce dirtier and more carbon intensive fuels (also a motor fuel)
Yes lets abolish that law of conservation of energy and that pesky 2nd law of thermodynamics. Many people will have useless degrees but humanity will benefit from this change in reality 
I don’t think that this is really true. It isn’t the 70’s anymore. I see a lot of rational discussion about nuclear power on left-leaning or ecologically focused websites. I think the incident in Japan may actually benefit the nuclear industry - a disaster of biblical porportions ending up having very mild consequences.
I’m not an environmentalist, or anti-nuke, and only anti-fossil fuel for political reasons. Still, there are wind, solar, hydroelectric, and geo-thermal sources of energy available now that I think should be utilized to the maximum. That would at least reduce the need for the less desireable alternatives. I doubt that all of them together will supplant nuclear and fossil fuels, but I don’t see good reasons to ignore them.
Each of the “alternative” energy sources have their problems/limitations. Wind power? Kills birds. Solar? Requires a lot of manufacturing that produces pollution, plus is not all that scalable. Geo-thermal? In some areas, earthquakes are being blamed on the injection of water into active areas. Many of the best areas for hydro power are already in use, and environmentalists want many of them shut down due to the changes it induces on wildlife.
Basically, nothing is free, and you can’t please everyone.
I despise the idea, seemingly peddled by some here, that the “solution” has to be immediate and without a downside whatsoever, or else the “environmentalists” point of view is useless.
The solution is to reduce energy consumption, research and develop more renewable energies, continue to work to reduce reliance on fossil fuels, make safer, cleaner, more easily disposable nuclear energy, and improving the infrastructure of energy production.
It’s an entire comprehensive plan that relies on a multitude of sources and scientific research into alternatives. It requires the continued use of fossil fuels for, likely, quite a while. The intimation in the OP and some of these posts that, unless there is an immediate plan to overnight replace our energy production infrastructure and sources, we shouldn’t do anything, is catastrophically stupid.
I’d prefer we get off fossil fuels but that doesn’t make me anti-nuclear power.
What alternatives are there? Keep investing in R&D for solar until there is grid parity, then offer incentives to get industry and residential homes to install them while remaining connected to the grid. Solar produces the most energy when demand is highest (mid-day).
I’ve read wind could make up 20-30% of our energy usage. I don’t think it can do more than that, but 20-30% is good.
Invest more in small scale renewable energy (solar, geothermal for individual homes or residential buildings, when possible).
I’m sure tons of minor things can be done. What we are actually going to do in this country though is keep debating if climate change is even real until Chinese manufacturing and R&D surpasses ours on renewable energy and we end up buying all the tech from them since it will be cheaper than coal.
They’ve designed wind turbines now which don’t attract birds as much as they did before, and it may have been a red herring anyway.
Pretty snotty. The fact is we push a variety of answers. Conservation is a real good start Then solar, wind and lots of other energy systems are doing quite well when people have open minds.Those will all help
Some countries are creating a lot of their energy needs with wind. Others are doing well with solar.
But stupid nukers can’t get over the fact that it is a stopgap method. There is not that much nuke fuel left. It takes a crap load of money to build. The plants take a decade to get on line. They produce waste that is useful to terrorists. The waste is radioactive and will poison everything it touches for generations. Whats not to love about that?
There are plenty of energy sources that are on the drawing boards that are very promising. that is where our stress should be, not in an old and expensive energy that promises a lot and delivers very little at extremely high prices.
Nuclear power doesn’t produce massive amounts of power, so replacing nuke is pretty darn easy.
Claims of our burgeoning power demands remain uncited, and I highly doubt them. In 2009, our energy consumption dropped.
Nuke power is the worst thing we could encourage the poor, unstable developing world to adopt.
Reduce, reuse, recycle. “We” don’t have an energy crisis. The developed world does. And not even all of that. Look at Denmark…or most other countries besides the US (and, sadly, Canada):
http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=wb-wdi&met=eg_use_pcap_kg_oe&idim=country:DNK&dl=en&hl=en&q=denmark+energy+usage#met=eg_use_pcap_kg_oe&idim=country:DNK:USA:GBR:ZAF:SAU:CHN:CAN:BWA:BEL:RUS
It’s certainly true that there are many pieces of a solution, and we shouldn’t reject something just because it’s not a panacea. But even when you put conservation, wind, and solar all together, you still fall significantly short of the mark. It needs to be conservation plus wind plus solar plus something else, and at least one of those something elses, at least at current levels of technology, will always end up being either fossil fuels or nuclear fission. And it’s all well and good to say that we should do more R&D on wind and solar and tide power and all the rest so that someday they will be able to fill the gap, but meanwhile, what should we do right now?
Ok, then for fission do we need more research? I don’t think we need it for solar (solar cells maybe, but solar heating technologies seem to be ready, though limited), windmills seem to be ready, we’ve done hydroelectric for a long time (I’m no environmentalist, dam those rivers) and tide power too, and geothermal has been up for a long time too. I don’t think we need R&D there, we just have to pay for the infrastructure. I think the only real question is how many and what type of new nuclear plants we must build to close the predicted gap from using less oil. I don’t like coal, but oil has had an effect on global politics, undesirrable IMHO, and I’d rather see more pollution short term from coal than maintaining alliances with despots who own the oil. We can get coal in a safer manner (again, not an environmentalist, blow the tops off the mountains). Shale gas is getting interesting, we can run fresh water lines in to people who’s taps catch fire. I think it’s just an infrastructure issue, and profit issue.
Note: I say I’m not an environmentalist, but I don’t think we should just destroy the environment because it’s easy. But I’d rather see a few fresh water sub-species disappear for a new hydroelectric plant than another deep water oil spill that contaminates the food supply. I rather blow the tops off mountains than have miners die underground.
Wind turbines kill 440,000 birds a year, cats kill 500 million and half those cats are domestic (the other half feral). It is a fairly minor issue IMO.
The heavy duty “Nukes Yeah!” side of the discussion is hopelessly naive.
We have 104 nuclear power plants in America, each designed to have a 40 year life. They are on average 30 years old. Even if they all get 20 year extensions (and I’d really want to know how concrete and steel and welds hold up after 40 years of radiation exposure as we do that) we are still going to be taking many of them off line over the next several decades.
How many nuclear power plants do you think we can build and how fast?
Do you realize that there are only four foundries in the world that make the high pressure vessels that contain a nuclear plants’ core? Two are in China. One is in Russia. One is Japan Steel Works which is the only foundry that makes vessels in one weldless piece and with its capacity of 6 per year has already been unable to keep up with orders. (I have no idea if it was damaged in the earthquake/tsunami but the island it is located on, Hokkaido, is directly north of the epicenter, so it is possible.)
In addition the skilled nuclear workforce, especially engineers, are greying.
Please note - not enough to keep the current stock running, let alone to run hundreds more.
It would be an ambitious goal to keep nuclear’s net share of electricity generation stable over the next several decades and thinking of nuclear power as a means of displacing coal plants is just unrealistic. Odds are that even with our underwriting the cost and the risk of building new nuclear for the utilities that more will age out than will be built.
The goals right now are to not replace an aging nuclear plant with a fossil fuel one, to displace the dirtiest coal plants with something less dirty, which includes natural gas, and to increase both efficiency and conservation.
Right now we should monetize the carbon, do wind where we can, solar where we can, geothermal where we can, each in both distributed systems and in utility scale systems tied together in grids. We should implement energy storage systems and make efficiency worthwhile. We should displace the oldest dirtiest coal plants with natural gas plants and make it worthwhile to co-fire coal with biomass as a means of decreasing a coal plant’s net CO2 effects. And we should attempt to replace our current nuclear stock as it ages out.
A lot if we decide we really need to. More manufacturing facilties can be built, more people trained.
What I expect to happen is that we’ll wait…and wait…and wait, until the oceans are rising and our cities are going dark. Then we’ll be simultaneously trying to rebuild our energy infrastructure while coping with blackouts and worldwide disaster.
The foundries? Sure, a few years of construction and the absolute assurance that the product will be sold.
How long does it take though, do you think, to train a generation of nuclear engineers and to bring them up to speed, when there aren’t even enough programs extant to do that? Doable? Yes. Realistic, not so much.