# Interest group forums > Energy and Resource Conservation Forum >  The Power Saga "Debate"

## insulin

I have a few questions regarding power generation. I want to know about the good the bad and the ugly. Yes I am talking about green-power, conventional-power "Fossil fuel"  and nuclear power. 

I say that nuclear power is sustainable and if used properly it is a safe way to generate energy. Also the nuclear waste if stored correctly and safely will just become harmless rock again in a few hundred years or so.

Now let us look at the foot-print of a oil or coal mine. Let us see how much of these materials is burned everyday and then look at the foot-print of a nuclear waste storing facility then you may notice a big deference between the two. 

Also green-power can never generate as much power as a nuclear power-plant can. Or can it? 

I am looking forward to your replies   :Smile:

----------


## Dave A

I always find it wierd when I see nuclear being promoted as a relatively "green" power alternative. I have this picture in my mind of Greenpeace activists in small boats buzzing around a cargo ship carrying either nuclear fuel or nuclear waste.

So were the greenies screwed up then, or have they lost the plot now?

----------


## insulin

Please don’t miss understand me. Nuclear power is a danger and can destroy everything if not properly used. But the truth is that Green Power can also provide for us if we use our power smartly. Nuclear power is not a green power system but it can give a lot of energy with little impact if we take the time to do it right. The fact is that a large nuclear power plant can provide the whole of Africa with power easily the whole continent with a single power plant. It will not be bigger than the power stations you see now and will basically eliminate the mining industry thus the positive impact on the earth will be significant. Nuclear power will also allow totally green systems to be planned and build and will give humanity the time it needs to research and develop green power to a perfect system that will then in turn eliminate the Nuclear power plant. The thing is Nuclear power give us the ability to stop the mining industry. Yes I know you think of jobs and all that. There will not be job loss for a long time because there will be job creation in the cleanup and rehabilitation of the mining grounds to get to in good natural health thus I think the impact might possibly be a good one.

----------


## duncan drennan

There is plenty of FUD surrounding nuclear energy, and it is certainly not as clear cut as the nuclear companies would have us believe. Unfortunately they have thrown a lot of money at it, and enrolled a number of environmental activists to give their cause credibility.

As a start have a look at this summary of some of the issues involved with nuclear energy (and then download the entire guide if you are interested).

----------


## garthu

My opinion is identical to Insulin, then Duncan chucked a spanner in the works! Thats pretty hard hitting if correct and therefore Nuclear could actually be a disaster. There options at the bottom are where the planet is headed already, slowly! 

Again the same issue raised from "earth hour" the only solution to almost every issue, be it power now, is hugely negative population growth (which would come with it's set of consequences and challenges). Its pretty clear that nuclear may not be the answer then - think im gonna look up that wind generator thread again! But being in gauteng, it would probably only be effective 100 days of the year..




> So were the greenies screwed up then, or have they lost the plot now?


Maybe they believe that this battle is close to won with the information on hand - but thats are a far reach from my side

----------


## Dave A

> There is plenty of FUD surrounding nuclear energy, and it is certainly not as clear cut as the nuclear companies would have us believe.


I'll agree with the FUD, then and now. For example, how reliable is that summary?

I'm afraid the green movement has lost a lot of credibility in my eyes.

Don't get me wrong - the cause and goals are great. But what tends to happen is they take an emotional position and then start scratching together facts to back that position up. However, they'll also ignore all the hard evidence that doesn't fit their position. 

And the green position on nuclear over the years is an excellent example of this.

----------


## duncan drennan

> I'm afraid the green movement has lost a lot of credibility in my eyes.


Fully agreed. The FUD is definitely a two way thing, and nuclear is a prime example of flip-flopping from the "green" side. Greenpeace started as an anti-nuclear group, largely motivated by stopping the proliferation of nuclear products (energy and weapons, but at that stage weapons had centre stage). 

The word "green" is associated with so many different movements and philosophies (with wildly varying views) that it is hard to even say what "green" is.

One thing that I did appreciate about that summary is that the guy admitted that the infomation is not clear and independent studies are needed. The writer has also been working on this issue for quite sometime - I actually ended up there after a search for a comprehensive article on the same subject that he wrote in 2006.

We have to do our best to clear up the FUD, I'm just not too sure how we're going to get there.

----------


## insulin

Let me say I feel that that big round thing in the sky can do a bit more than bower your sun calculator. However this is the point I want to make. Let us say that sun power and wind power together with the best of thermal heat pump technology can produce a good amount of power. Is the next step not to evolve our actual technology that uses this power to use as little as possible and still perform in there given functions? Can it be that the problem is not how much power there is but rather how we use it?

----------

Dave A (21-Mar-09)

----------

