Quote:
|
Originally Posted by debaser
The ground? Granted, there are fossil emmisions from mining uranium, but there are fossil emmisions from building dams and windmills, so are they no longer non-emission either? You are nit-picking. Would you rather I use the term "so-low-emission-as-to-be-statisticaly-irrellevant"? It is a bit wordy...
|
I am not nit-picking, I am looking at the reality: When all is said and done, nuclear power plants cause emissions equal to 1/3 to 1/2 of that of a gas-powered plant. Nuclear power isn't low-emission, because of mining, refining, and transportation (mining/refining/waste management).
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by debaser
But you still don't deal with the eco-system destruction problem with locks. River critters have to migrate too you know.
|
And what of uranium mines and waste disposal sites?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by debaser
Over budget, yes. But all projects can. I shudder to think what some of the dams that have been built have cost. Still, from a dollar standpoint over the entire lifetime of the reactor, nuclear is the cheapest large scale power production on earth right now.
|
But nuclear is not the long-term answer. It is reactionary fix. (i.e. "Energy crisis! Quick, build nuclear!") More isn't always better. But this really is a conversation for another thread.
Greenpeace needs to change tactics. What they did was wrong, and not really effective in terms of changing views on the issues. This is why I'd rather support the likes of David Suzuki.