Q7. Why are the Green Party opposed to nuclear power?

TSR interviewed leader of the Green Party, Natalie Bennett, to ask the questions the community submitted.

Watch Natalie's answer to

'Why are the Green Party opposed to nuclear power?'

[video="youtube;SMBtK2cD0FE"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMBtK2cD0FE&feature=yout u.be[/video]

Reply 1

Torum

This is something that really bothers me too, I'm not going to deny that nuclear fission plants, waste etc are bad for the planet, but the fact is it is a very efficient means of acquiring energy. Also it is better short term until we actually deal with CO2 problems from coal and gas power stations and properly develop nuclear fusion reactors, like ITER.
I just have a problem with the whole way the greens want to implement there ideals, they should actually learn some simple science.
And one thing all parties should work on the efficiency of energy production because so much is wasted along the line.

Reply 2

aliman65

15

^agreed with Gott. Green party's policies are ludicrous.

Reply 3

tengentoppa

18

I can't believe her argument against nuclear is saying that renewables are a more practical solution. Deluded

Reply 4

username1423899

9

Obviously renewable are a better option but nuclear shouldn't simply be dismissed. It's a proven technology just like green energy but it is incredibly efficient. No CO2, the waste is a problem but the manufacturing of green energy sources is hardly clean either. It's a step away from fossil fuels that needs to be made and can act as the intermediary between ff and renewables as we change our energy mix

Reply 5

username1723547

21

Plus nuclear fusion is very close to becoming a reality, so no waste products which cause atmospheric damage.

Reply 6

username1423899

9

Original post by Mactotaur

Plus nuclear fusion is very close to becoming a reality, so no waste products which cause atmospheric damage.

Nuclear fusion always seems to be perpetually twenty years away. Best to act on what we have now rather than waiting for something that may not ever work.

Reply 7

username1692103

12

Original post by leemer

Nuclear fusion always seems to be perpetually twenty years away. Best to act on what we have now rather than waiting for something that may not ever work.

Nuclear fusion can work... If we fund it then it would be much better than dithering about with emissions etc. because there won't be!

Reply 8

IIEquinoxII

9

Original post by Torum

This is something that really bothers me too, I'm not going to deny that nuclear fission plants, waste etc are bad for the planet, but the fact is it is a very efficient means of acquiring energy. Also it is better short term until we actually deal with CO2 problems from coal and gas power stations and properly develop nuclear fusion reactors, like ITER.
I just have a problem with the whole way the greens want to implement there ideals, they should actually learn some simple science.
And one thing all parties should work on the efficiency of energy production because so much is wasted along the line.

Went to a talk from the lead director of ITER and he said they were fairly confident of achieving sustained fusion by 2018, with it being commercially viable by 2025, fusion is the future.

Reply 9

IIEquinoxII

9

Original post by leemer

Obviously renewable are a better option but nuclear shouldn't simply be dismissed. It's a proven technology just like green energy but it is incredibly efficient. No CO2, the waste is a problem but the manufacturing of green energy sources is hardly clean either. It's a step away from fossil fuels that needs to be made and can act as the intermediary between ff and renewables as we change our energy mix