December 07, 2007

Former 'No Nukes' Protester: Gwyneth Cravens now supports nuclear power

Her conclusion? Every day spent burning coal for power translates into damaged lungs and ecosystem destruction. The only realistic -- and safe -- alternative is nuclear. I agree. Solar, geothermal and wind will help but currently nuclear fission is the best solution for high volume clean power.

A family in four in France, where they reprocess nuclear fuel, would produce only enough waste to fit in a coffee cup over a whole lifetime. A lifetime of getting all your electricity from coal-fired plants would make a single person's share of solid waste (in the United States) 68 tons, which would require six 12-ton railroad cars to haul away. Your share of CO2 would be 77 tons.

WN: What about clean coal plants, and carbon-sequestration technologies? Aren't they a practical alternative?

Cravens: At this point, no. There's one prototype in Colorado that the government is trying to sponsor. From a practical point of view, I think nuclear plants could be up and running and replacing fossil-fuel plants sooner than we get clean coal.


Al Fin said...

Ironic that "environmentalists" are making it easier to burn dirty coal than use clean nuclear.

Jack said...

Yep. It's sad that these types have to wait for political and mainstream media acceptance to jump on board -- cognitive bias in action.

Anonymous said...

Ironic that "environmentalists" are making it easier to burn dirty coal than use clean nuclear.
Not really. Humans have a long history of doing exatly the wrong thing, from killing cats during the Black death to concede to Herr Hitler's request for a little more land. I only hope that we recognize our mistake before disaster strikes