The Buzz: Is Nuclear Power the Answer?


This weekend, ScienceBloggers discussed the virtues and downfalls of a world run on modern nuclear power. Benjamin Cohen sparked the dialogue on The World's Fair with an interview with author and environmentalist Rebecca Solnit, famous for her opposition to nuclear power. Within just a few hours, Built on Fact's Matt Springer responded, categorically arguing against Solnit's piece and citing events at Chernobyl as an overly hyped specter. "Chernobyl is to modern nuclear power as bloodletting is to penicillin," he says. Ethan Siegel followed in suit on Starts with a Bang, where he offered compromise by pointing out that "any non-renewable energy source is not 'the answer' to our energy problems," but also mentions "how superior in every way nuclear power is" to alternatives such as coal. Will the planet be a cleaner, safer, more sustainable place by creating jobs for more Homer Simpsons, or are we opening the floodgates for a bunch of Blinkies, Springfield Nuclear Power Plant's three-eyed fish?


More like this

What do we think about nuclear power? Benjamin Cohen of The World's Fair is not a fan. I am. Modern nuclear power has a lot going for it. In no particular order, here's the reasons that appeal to me. It's reliable. No worrying about solar or wind availability, and it works anywhere. It's safe…
One nice new feature we've got here on scienceblogs is the Editor's Picks feature, found on the front page. While browsing it this weekend, I was drawn to this provocative article. In it, Benjamin Cohen writes of his interview with Rebecca Solnit, who says the following when asked about nuclear…
Few technologies give rise to more spirited debates among environmentalists than nuclear power generation. So it was with some trepidation that I started to read an essay on the subject in last week's Washington Post. This is the same newspaper that took six weeks to run a rebuttal to George Will's…
Way back in August 1988 on Usenet I wrote: Waste heat does not contribute significantly to global warming. It is all (if it's really happening - we probably won't be sure until its too late) caused by the greenhouse effect. I agree with Brad - burning fossil fuels could well be more harmful to…

IS this picture form Simpsons ???

Although Nuclear Power has risks the chances of a real melt down is less than 1/1000. Nuclear Power has small risks and leaks but the plants are checked for safety. In 1986 the RMBK reactor was unstable and consisted of inferior technology. The carbon graphite tips actually increased the chain reaction of the Plutonium. Nuclear weapons could be converted into nuclear fuel.

Coal Plants are 50% reponsible for Climate change and global warming a extremely serious condition. If we don't act quickly in the next 5 years it could be too late. Small nuclear plants were other forms of power isn't ready could replace coal plants.

Nuclear power is not the answer unless we get smart and some of us start living in space, on the moon, or Mars. On the earth, however, using nuclear power is foolish. It is much too dangerous. Sure, accidents at nuclear-powered plants are relatively rare. But, when they occur, they tend to be devastating and there is no way to make the use of nuclear power perfectly safe. We would be better off using natural gases and finding ways to exploit the deposits of methane hydrate and retrieving methane from sewage and garbage.