Why does the green party oppose nuclear power?

Watch
IIEquinoxII
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#1
Nuclear Power is the only effective, clean and viable solution to the energy crisis we will face in the future. Why does the green party oppose it?

And before anyone makes the nuclear waste argument, we bury it underground or fire it at the sun. Sorted.
0
reply
1420787
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#2
Report 5 years ago
#2
Jesus (maybe) lived 2,000 years ago. It will take another 10,000 years before Chernobyl is habitable again. For me the risk is too great even with technological advances to use nuclear power as anything but a stopgap measure.
1
reply
MatureStudent36
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#3
Report 5 years ago
#3
It's mainly due to the (perceived) link between nuclear weapons and nuclear power.

Is recommend watching this documentary of you get a chance.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pandora%27s_Promise
0
reply
Aj12
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#4
Report 5 years ago
#4
(Original post by offhegoes)
Jesus (maybe) lived 2,000 years ago. It will take another 10,000 years before Chernobyl is habitable again. For me the risk is too great even with technological advances to use nuclear power as anything but a stopgap measure.
And yet coal has killed more people than nuclear likely ever will. It just does it slower. The safety argument about nuclear reminds me of planes and cars everyone thinks the former is more dangerous, because the accidents are more spectacular. Even though aircraft has a much better safety record.

We don't use soviet era nuclear plants. Ours use passive cooling mechanisms. The chernobyl accident or even fukushima could not happen in this county.

Posted from TSR Mobile
1
reply
ComoVaiConnor
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#5
Report 5 years ago
#5
I live around two miles from where Nuclear Subs are kept/maintained etc- there's been reports of incidents in the last few years, the risks really aren't worth it- in my opinion at least.A couple of links about those incidents- http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-33051905

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-24421402
0
reply
k4l397
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#6
Report 5 years ago
#6
(Original post by IIEquinoxII)
Nuclear Power is the only effective, clean and viable solution to the energy crisis we will face in the future. Why does the green party oppose it?

And before anyone makes the nuclear waste argument, we bury it underground or fire it at the sun. Sorted.
https://www.greenparty.org.uk/news/0...k-nuclear.html <- That's an official stance from a few years ago that briefly outlines why.

Personally I'm pro nuclear - not the only one within the Green Party either. The majority of the party is still anti-nuclear but there is growing support for nuclear as more new members join and more information is learnt about nuclear. Because the Green Party is so democratic, it would require a majority of the party to vote in favour at conference - I saw something on reddit about it that said the support for nuclear was at about 30% at the last conference when an amendment was proposed that was pro nuclear.

Regardless to the view of the party on nuclear, I would say they still have a pretty sensible energy plan. They acknowledge something needs to be done, and have a plan to do something. This government on the other hand seem more content on removing subsidies for renewable energy and travelling in the opposite direction...

I'm in favour of both research into nuclear and new nuclear plants being built, but I certainly don't think it's the only viable option. There are already countries around the world able to provide 100% of their electricity through renewable. Norway for example can produce about 98% of demand - whilst most of that electric is exported, it shows it can be done.
1
reply
IIEquinoxII
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#7
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#7
(Original post by offhegoes)
Jesus (maybe) lived 2,000 years ago. It will take another 10,000 years before Chernobyl is habitable again. For me the risk is too great even with technological advances to use nuclear power as anything but a stopgap measure.
Chernobyl was a freak accident, the scientists there were forced by the government to push the reactor way beyond the known safe limits, nobody is stupid enough to try that again.

As far as true "accidents" go, the average nuclear meltdown would have a much smaller environmental effect than an oil tanker spillage, or the long term effects of fracking
0
reply
IIEquinoxII
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#8
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#8
(Original post by MatureStudent36)
It's mainly due to the (perceived) link between nuclear weapons and nuclear power.

Is recommend watching this documentary of you get a chance.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pandora%27s_Promise
I hate this perception that nuclear power is dangerous. People always just conjure up images of toxic green goo and babies with 8 fingers and think "**** that"

The real chances of meltdown are minimal, and safety in nuclear power has come a long way since chernobyl



Besides, nuclear fusion is only a few years off now
0
reply
Stiff Little Fingers
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#9
Report 5 years ago
#9
(Original post by IIEquinoxII)
I hate this perception that nuclear power is dangerous. People always just conjure up images of toxic green goo and babies with 8 fingers and think "**** that"

The real chances of meltdown are minimal, and safety in nuclear power has come a long way since chernobyl



Besides, nuclear fusion is only a few years off now
Presuming you're talking cold fusion rather than fusion in general (because that's been going for billions of years, we simply can't really create the conditions here on earth), that's a naively optimistic view - cold fusion is going to be miles off even if we ever achieve it simply because it is such a massive challenge.

People quoting Chernobyl or three mile island are miles off - the former was a massive design flaw where feedback about broken mechanisms was done so unintuitively you'd think it was actually fine, the latter due to poor training. Neither demonstrated the danger of nuclear power, it demonstrated the danger of human stupidity.
0
reply
IIEquinoxII
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#10
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#10
(Original post by Stiff Little Fingers)
Presuming you're talking cold fusion rather than fusion in general (because that's been going for billions of years, we simply can't really create the conditions here on earth), that's a naively optimistic view - cold fusion is going to be miles off even if we ever achieve it simply because it is such a massive challenge.

People quoting Chernobyl or three mile island are miles off - the former was a massive design flaw where feedback about broken mechanisms was done so unintuitively you'd think it was actually fine, the latter due to poor training. Neither demonstrated the danger of nuclear power, it demonstrated the danger of human stupidity.
We've already achieved inefficiant cold fusion, where we put more energy in than we get back out, and that's been occurring for the past 20 years

Its thought we may achieve cold sustained fusion by 2017, at ITER in France, which is really the biggest milestone in this project. From there it will certainly take decades to commercialise but nevertheless, sustained cold fusion is becoming a reality.
0
reply
slade p
Badges: 4
Rep:
?
#11
Report 5 years ago
#11
Green activists are environmental extremists.
0
reply
Llamageddon
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#12
Report 5 years ago
#12
(Original post by Aj12)
And yet coal has killed more people than nuclear likely ever will. It just does it slower. The safety argument about nuclear reminds me of planes and cars everyone thinks the former is more dangerous, because the accidents are more spectacular. Even though aircraft has a much better safety record.

We don't use soviet era nuclear plants. Ours use passive cooling mechanisms. The chernobyl accident or even fukushima could not happen in this county.

Posted from TSR Mobile
rooftop solar panels kill the most people per kW/h out of every energy source
0
reply
The Socktor
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#13
Report 5 years ago
#13
(Original post by IIEquinoxII)


Besides, nuclear fusion is only a few years off now
Nuclear fusion has been "only a few years off" for decades.
0
reply
IIEquinoxII
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#14
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#14
(Original post by The Socktor)
Nuclear fusion has been "only a few years off" for decades.
We've been consistently hitting important milestones every few years.

I'm talking about cold sustained fusion, it's very possible we will hit that milestone "in a few years"

This would be akin to reaching the summit, from there everything would fall into place, with commercialisation coming within the next 50 years, and clean, cheaper energy available to the masses within the century
0
reply
MagicNMedicine
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#15
Report 5 years ago
#15
It's usually students and left wing protestors that complain about nuclear power whereas middle class better off people are more pragmatic about it. They should just site nuclear power stations in the middle class areas then it keeps them away from the lefties and gives middle classes cheap easily available energy and might raise their house prices.
0
reply
The Socktor
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#16
Report 5 years ago
#16
(Original post by IIEquinoxII)
We've been consistently hitting important milestones every few years.

I'm talking about cold sustained fusion, it's very possible we will hit that milestone "in a few years"

This would be akin to reaching the summit, from there everything would fall into place, with commercialisation coming within the next 50 years, and clean, cheaper energy available to the masses within the century
That's fine, I'm all for that research, but when we think of energy policy we should think about what we know we can now, not on what we think we may be able to do some time in the future.
0
reply
The Socktor
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#17
Report 5 years ago
#17
(Original post by Llamageddon)
rooftop solar panels kill the most people per kW/h out of every energy source
Can I see your citation for that?
0
reply
IIEquinoxII
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#18
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#18
(Original post by The Socktor)
That's fine, I'm all for that research, but when we think of energy policy we should think about what we know we can now, not on what we think we may be able to do some time in the future.
There isn't much we can do right now, that's the problem, aside from investing in upgrading our existing fission plants and making huge offshore windfarms, I don't think the UK has many options
0
reply
The Socktor
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#19
Report 5 years ago
#19
(Original post by offhegoes)
Jesus (maybe) lived 2,000 years ago. It will take another 10,000 years before Chernobyl is habitable again. For me the risk is too great even with technological advances to use nuclear power as anything but a stopgap measure.
Chernobyl was just a poorly managed, poorly designed system, it can't be compared to better designs with well-regulated management.

Ironically I find this is a case where the anti-nuclear lobby acts in a very similar manner to the anti-wind lobby, as the latter likes to point to the number of birds killed by the Altamont Pass Wind Farm as evidence that all wind turbines kill birds, even though it uses design which became obsolete long ago and it's located in the middle of a major flight path.
0
reply
1420787
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#20
Report 5 years ago
#20
(Original post by The Socktor)
Chernobyl was just a poorly managed, poorly designed system, it can't be compared to better designs with well-regulated management.

Ironically I find this is a case where the anti-nuclear lobby acts in a very similar manner to the anti-wind lobby, as the latter likes to point to the number of birds killed by the Altamont Pass Wind Farm as evidence that all wind turbines kill birds, even though it uses design which became obsolete long ago and it's located in the middle of a major flight path.
Sure Chernobyl as an example was pretty much on the extreme end (we hope) of the spectrum of what could happen, and safety measures are in place to prevent a repeat.

But when exactly did nuclear power become safe? 20 years ago? 10 years ago? 2 years ago? Because incidents and accidents still happen in nuclear power, and if the possiblility of minor releases of highly radioactive material is still present, how can you say with any certainty that major releases aren't possible?

The point of talking about Chernobyl was not to suggest I expect that to be just as likely to happen again, but to highlight how much long-term damage was caused to a region and even now we've only had nuclear power for the blink of an eye.

As for comparing it to coal, well I thought this was a question about Green's not liking nuclear power along with renewables? I would take it as a given that from that context coal power is not being favoured

(Edit: Just to be clear, some elements of that were in response to previous replies to my original post. I got a little lazy )
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Current uni students - are you thinking of dropping out of university?

Yes, I'm seriously considering dropping out (66)
14.93%
I'm not sure (16)
3.62%
No, I'm going to stick it out for now (148)
33.48%
I have already dropped out (7)
1.58%
I'm not a current university student (205)
46.38%

Watched Threads

View All