Have Greenpeace committed a blunder by getting a Judge to rule against nuclear power?

Question

I have been informed by experts on this subject that nuclear power is our best option in future years, most importantly because alternative sources of power like coal and oil are contributing massively to global warming and the horrendous results on humanity this will cause. I am also advised nuclear power causes only a tiny percentage of the alfa, beta, gamma radiation we all absorb daily, most of which comes from natural sources like the sun which we can not avoid getting into our bodies. So how can Greenpeace who claim to be concerned with the future of Earth and people support the opposite. Do they actually know what they are on about when they spend sums going to court.

Answer 1

This is an excellent question. As was said by the Minister today, Green Peace are apparently always opposed to anything with word "nuclear" in it apparently because of the nuclear bomb's horrendous destruction and they do seem not to know "what they on about" when talking about peaceful use of nuclear energy!



Green Peace seem now to be admitting they have made a blunder in their assertion that they are not after all criticising nuclear power but criticising the government for inadequate consultation on whether nuclear power stations should be built, having apparently just woken up to some of the facts Wamibo outlines?



But time is on nobody's side in deciding where we are going to get our future energy needs from, now everybody is discovering global warming is indeed a real threat to this Planet and coal and oil power stations cause it but nuclear power stations do not. Nuclear waste is a problem but hopefully can be resolved, while it seems the harmful effects on this Planet of global warming can not be solved because it is worldwide, not just something within the U.K.



A further consultation period will be of little value and end up concluding the same as the last one with an additional huge cost on the taxpayer - money that could be so much more wisely spent other than on a pointless consultation exercise.



YES Greenpeace have made a huge blunder in their continued mischief making and served nobody's interests, and the sooner they cease to exist the better for mankind.

Answer 2

"...Whether nuclear power plants present a problem while running normally is a side issue to the devastation they can cause if there is an accident. And no one can be certain that nothing will go wrong..."



If is the biggest word in the English language. If Lord Nelson had turned to talk to someone during the battle, he might have lived longer. If Hitler had been admitted to Art School, we might never have fought WWII. If if if...



No no one can be certain that anything WILL go wrong, either. Perhaps Greenpeace could lobby authorities and companies to better prepare for contingencies than be so adversarial. I know I'll get thumbs down votes, but, I used to work for Greenpeace, and am unimpressed by their lack of vision.

Answer 3

The problem is, a lot of "experts" are assessing in terms of efficiency rather than environmentalism. Whether nuclear power plants present a problem while running normally is a side issue to the devastation they can cause if there is an accident. And no one can be certain that nothing will go wrong. This is what Greenpeace have a problem with. I think if a there were a British Chernobyl more people would agree with them.

Answer 4

i have worked in nuclear power stations, not just one but a number of them. i have found that the people who work in them are not supermen, they are just like us. by that i mean they get tired, they get complacent and they make mistakes. think of your job and what you do everyday,sometimes you let things slide by, you are not in the mood or you'll do it tomorrow. they're just the same sort of people as you and it leads to accidents. there have been accidents and mishaps and the public have or never will hear about them. thankfully they have been minor ones. if we engage on a major program of building nuclear power stations we will magnify the likelihood of a major accident. as so far most nuclear sites in this country have been publicly run they have been reasonably tightly regulated, the next generation proposed will be built and run by private companies, ( with a lot of taxpayers money though). they will not be so tightly regulated because they have to make a profit and regulation slows do and restricts the profitability. bit by bit the regulation will be chipped away as the managers and owners of these sites complain a whine to the government of the day and a business friendly civil service will happily give way. it happens now with the oil business, pharmaceutical and bio-engineering. gradually standards will slip and there may be the possibility of a major accident. you may say that the nuclear industry in the US is private and has no problems, (debatable),but the penalties for contravention there are far more draconian and apply to the whole management from the top to the bottom. any deaths through negligence will mean that directors will face charges of corporate homocide. in the UK they will not, as always the blame will filter downwards. this is not a deterent for slack management, so there will be slack management and there will be a drive for profit over safety because the responsible parties will not suffer any real consequences. who will pay for the clean up after a nuclear accident, it will be the taxpayer not the company or its shareholders. as with all of the present PFI deals it will be the business that will make the money and us that take the risk. to be honest putting people in charge of a nuclear power station is a bad idea because they are just human. greed and incompetance will win out in the end.

Answer 5

No they haven't and here's why:

1) Nuclear power is a very efficient source of energy but and it is a very big but!, it still leaves behind a waste. This is a waste which is very dangerous as we all know. Where is this waste going to be kept? Will it be safe? Do you think that anyone in the UK would like the depository near them? If not where could it be sighted? Perhaps abroad? It gets a little complicated.



2) This for me is the most important issue. There has never been a full investigation into the true costs of Nuclear power. The Government of the time always down plays the cost as you would expect. Nobody has ever come up with estimate of the cost for dealing with the waste that is going to hang around for millions of years. It can therefore be said that in the long term it is not the best value for money.



We as human beings are beginning to realise that we need to take care of our futures as well as our present. Nuclear power is a short term solution to a long term problem. The UK needs to invest in a wide range of renewables in order to deal with its energy needs and the government needs to grow up!!

Answer 6

Hello,



(ANS) Frankly, you've totally misunderstood whats going on here!!



No.1 The green peace court case has nothing to do with nuclear power directly. The green peace case was about the fact that the labour government under Tony Blair said they would consult with the British Public about the issue of nuclear power stations. That is we the public would get a chance to decide on the future or not of nuclear power stations as a method to produce power in the future. The Blair government failed to keep its promise to debate the issue thats what the court case was about. Green Peace WON!! the case and showed the government had NOT kept its promise to include the public in any decision.



No.2 The problem with Nuclear power stations is that whilst they do indeed produce high quality, & high amounts of electricity (nuclear power is about 10% of the total UK energy production) and YES! they are extremely low in CO2 output. The nuclear waste that these power stations produces IS a very real problem as spent nuclear fuel rods contain highly radioactive substances which are dangerous to human health and have a half life that lasts thousands of years, so sorry the Nuclear energy option isnt problem free in the future either.



**This is why the siting of nuclear power stations has remained so hughly controversional, & will always remain so. Much of the nuclear waste from power stations has to be encased in concrete & glass and buried hundreds of feet down mine shafts well away from humans. This is the best way we have found to safely store nuclear power stations waste output. It remains a really serious problem and the amounts of waste are only increasing over time too.



**The nuclear power station & electrcity from nuclear process's has to be included into a balanced mixture of energy sources. We cannot do without nuclear power wheather we like it or not.



IR

Answer 7

Not too long ago a container came through one of the ports of the UK. When opened they found the bodies of 22 Chinese people that were trying to illegally enter Britain. I wonder if digitsis or anyone else that disputes global warming due to CO2 can tell me what killed them. Yes cows and other things contribute but when you see traffic and factories churning out CO2 the way they do, there can be no doubt. Of coarse you could say well I will not be here. To the Americans that agree with ther govt. not joining the rest of us I can only think thank God you have another political party and I hope they come in soon.

Answer 8

why don't they spend there time and money on ideas that will give us a sustainable power source all they seem to come up with are negatives to nuclear power coal and oil maybe all the hot air they spout can be used in some way they have enough of it. Get real greenpeace we don't want to go backwards we need to move forwards

Answer 9

Greenpeace? Don't make me laugh...



If the doomsayers are correct, and fossil fuel consumption is behind climate change, our current power production is the main source of the CO2 that is claimed to be behind it all..



The Green lobby seem to have it that the answer lies in wind power. However, a wind turbine barely makes enough power to run the energy-saving bulb in my hallway, and just ruins the countryside and chops up birds.



Otherwise, Greeen like to target motorists, but compared to power generation, transportation emissions are almost beggar-all.



Nuclear isn't perfect, but it provides plenty of power, and very little emissions. There is a risk from terror activities, for example, but we have to work and try to minimise such impact, because there's no other practical and effective solution.



Groups such as Greenpeace clearly don't appear to live in the real world, and would happily have us all back to the stone ages tomorrow if they could, it appears. Power stations have very high emissions at the moment,and they will just have to accept that Nuclear is the most practical way forward available.



Wind turbines and solar panels won't do us any favours whatsoever.

Answer 10

If you think nuclear power is cheap, clean and safe read 'The Nuclear Barons'. And this book was written before Chernobyl and lots of other less drastic occurrences.



Clear felling is not about thinning trees BTW it is about clearing trees completely, that's why its called 'clear'. Even thinning trees out changes the ecology making the habitat unsuitable for many species. One large untouched wood is worth a hundred times its area in isolated trees or copses.



The sheer ignorance of these anti-environmentalsts is frightening to behold.

Answer 11

The judge did not 'rule against nuclear power', he ruled that the government's public consultation procedure was 'flawed'. Personally, I think if the choice is between relying on foreign fuel supplies and wind turbines (a joke) for our energy needs and nuclear power. I know nuclear power is an unattractive proposition, but it is the least worst choice, it's either that or the lights start going out.

Answer 12

Definitely. Although there are some obvious reasons that nuclear power could be bad (contimination, terrorist attack) these are only slim chances, and if it's all managed properly, there's very little chance of anything going wrong. besides, its clean and can be very cost-efficient, so greenpeace now look like technophobic hippies, when they should embrace any possibly environmentally friendly (and life-saving) method of making pwer.

Answer 13

I don't know whether neuclear power is a good thing or not. I don't know if man made global warming is a reality or not. What I do know is that Greenpeace have wasted their money because regardless of the courts ruling and regardless of public opinion the government will carry on regardless and do what they want! Welcome to the democratic dictatorship of the UK.

Answer 14

If a fraction of the money required to regenerate the nuclear energy industry was spent on natural energy producing we would in the long term save trillions and help protect our environment.



More money should be invested in alternative sources of energy in particular wave/wind power, underground heat, solar power etc.



Nuclear power is a flawed idealogy - have we learnt nothing from Chernobyl!!!

Answer 15

I do hope that all the supporters of this motion are prepared to put their names down. so that if (sadly we really mean WHEN) we hit an energy generation crisis.. in around 10..15 years) these nay sayers can volutarily dissonnect from the network.



its either that or build a shed load of gas fired power stations.. mind its looking as if we wuill have to do that anyway given the time constraints that it takes to get virtually any power generation plant and the supporting infrastructure up to speed.



for many self styled environmental campaigners its very easy to say NO, especailly to nuclear (and to be fair their are soem good reasons why you may say no to nuclear), but they are often aslo against hydro dams, tidal barrages. buts oddly enough they are in favour of wind turbines.. which are demonstrated to be an unreliablesource of power.. they are fine as a top or at the margins.. but they require massive over provision of wind turbines.. some figures suggest you need a minimum of 3 times the rated power, and ideally you need to cover a vast area in order to ensure that the wind turbines are spinnign somewhere.... otherwise you need to back it up with conventional plant.. yes thats right to generate say 1Mw of power you probably need somewhere between 6..9Mw in, say, 3 differnet areas ,of wind turbine capacity AND 1Mw of conventional capacity. (effectively the best mechanism for that is going to be gas fired plant..)

Answer 16

If you have blind faith in the government that they will do what is best for you come what may then yes they have.



If you believe in democracy and that your right to vote means that the people who you vote for should listen to your thoughts and opinions and therefore major decisions will be made democratically by the people of the country rather than a bunch of politicians who may have their own agendas then no they have done the right thing.



I think Greenpeace have given the government a wake up call. We should not let them ride rough shod over us. We vote them in don't we. They should therefore consult us over major decisions.

Answer 17

I think the issue Greenpeace have is not so much with nuclear power itself; more with the nuclear waste.

Answer 18

yes! greenpeace have basically buggered the lot of us! nuclear is the best form of energy for us to be going to at the moment! obviously greener energy is needed but at this time we don't have the infastructure to use tht effeciently! nuclear is the only option we have at this time and the government shouldn't be stopped doing something that is actually slightly good for the planet! they've made so many dumb decisions this is actually one thats good why not let them do it!?

Answer 19

Yes,

If the global warming zealots are correct and I have serious doubts, it would be ironic that the environment was irreversibly damaged because of a so-called environmental protection organisations actions.

If human activities are responsible for the heating up of the World, the only realistic and effective way to combat it is nuclear energy.

Renewable energy will never provide us with sufficient energy for our needs and to claim that it will is to be blatantly untruthful.

Answer 20

The Judge hasn't ruled against nuclear power, he ruled against the consultation process and how it was carried out. They are two totally different things... apparently!

Answer 21

I think its because of the potential risks...if it could be controlled and didn't produce dangerous waste then id go for it, i don't know what other sources of power could be used but it should be looked into

Answer 22

You have asked the question and been answered by people you trust.Can I ask why Greenpeace should want to betray every thing they stand for?

Answer 23

Nuclear power is the only form of generation where the output is so poluting that the only thing we can do with it is bury it because we have no clue what to do with it.



Thats Greenpeace standpoint and it seems entirely reasonable to me.

Answer 24

I'm sure the wonderful people at Greenpeace mean well but I do feel they are very one dimentional in their thinking. Anything against their view is automatically bad, so in answer to your question yes I do think they have made a mistake

Answer 25

UK Judges are senile old buggers - who have no idea what real life is... Watch this space ..Mi££ions of tax payers money will be wasted - when the government appeals this decision..and wins...

Greenpeace should call it a day .. and stop wasting every-ones time and money with their stupid ideas..

Answer 26

Global warming is a natural phenomenon and it is caused by vegetation - not by mankind.

Furthermore it takes place over tens of thousands of years, there is a warming cooling cycle which has been well studied and documented.

The latest 'scare' is nothing but a diversionary tactic to divert attention from the really serious issues that the current government will not or can not address.

The difference to global warming caused by human activity is miniscule.

Greenpeace may have some good causes but this is not one of them.

Answer 27

Yes it is a huge blunder nuclear power can be provided cleanly and safely. Global warming is a major problem and greanpeece are being very stupid in this course of action.

Answer 28

I wonder what greenpeace will have to say when they switch the incubators off?

Answer 29

Yes! The Kyoto accord and Green Peace are more concerned with crippling the economy of the US primarily. Why are big CO2 polluters like China and India exempt? When the socialist/anti-capitalist movement in the west died they needed somewhere to hang their hat - Greenpeace and the environment seemed a likely place.

I am becoming more and more skeptical of global warming being caused entirely by man. More and more scientists and climatologists are disputing Al Gore's claims. Who are you going to believe Al Gore and Hollywood or people that have gone to university and study this?

Answer 30

Silly sod!!! - what do you do with all the nuclear waste generated by the power stations which has a half-life of hundreds or thousands of years - where do you put it?? Sellafield is rapidly filling up and we don't have the space to store it anymore. By International agreement we cannot bury it in deep trenches at sea and would you want a nuclear storage hole at the bottom of your garden??? - I think not

Answer 31

living underground away from the fall out could be ok

Answer 32

Hope so.... I love to see people like them end up with egg on their faces :D

Answer 33

I guess not. We are all going to perish anyway, no matter what we do. It's too late.

Answer 34

they're a bunck of tree-huggers that can't see the Whole bigger picture..... I belive clear cutting in moderation ( trees space trees space) is GOOD as it will help drasticly slow the spread of forest fires..... yet they wanna save every last tree on the planet......