experts say nuclear power needed to slow warming
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_CLIMATE_SCIENTISTS_NUCLEAR_POWER?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2013-11-03-06-44-13***disclaimer: i am against nuclear power -- however this was in the news.
i am skeptical and remain against it.
PITTSBURGH (AP) -- Some of the world's top climate scientists say wind and solar energy won't be enough to head off extreme global warming, and they're asking environmentalists to support the development of safer nuclear power as one way to cut fossil fuel pollution.
Four scientists who have played a key role in alerting the public to the dangers of climate change sent letters Sunday to leading environmental groups and politicians around the world. The letter, an advance copy of which was given to The Associated Press, urges a crucial discussion on the role of nuclear power in fighting climate change.
Environmentalists agree that global warming is a threat to ecosystems and humans, but many oppose nuclear power and believe that new forms of renewable energy will be able to power the world within the next few decades.
That isn't realistic, the letter said.
= new reply since forum marked as read
PDJane states
Nuclear energy is expensive; the plants were built to last for forty years and have reached the end of their operating life; most of them are dangerously outmoded and fragile.
PDJane; you've been listening to the anti-nuke propaganda. First, nuclear power plants were NOT designed to last for 40 years any more than a bridge is designed to last for 40 years. The time 40 years is just the length of the original license after which the regulators re-examine the plant before allowing it to continue operating. You can think of it like the 6 year term of a driver's license. After you drive for 6 years; are you "washed up" as a driver. NO! The state just takes that time to re-examine your driving record, and can take you off the road if you don't measure up.
If you understood how water is used in a nuclear power plant; you'd understand that the water issue is a red herring. The water used IN the plant is recirculated, and doesn't get "used up". Nuclear power plants, like coal and gas use water as the mechanism to dump "waste heat" to the environment as is REQUIRED by the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. They typically take water from a river, lake, or ocean and with the addition of the waste heat, either return the water to the place where they got it; or it goes up a cooling tower and will eventually become rain, just like Mother Nature does. Here's a diagram to show that INSIDE the plants, the water is RECIRCULATED:
The yellow loop which cools the reactor, is completely contained within the reactor containment building. The blue loop that goes through the turbine and is the working fluid of the Rankine steam cycle is also a closed loop that is recirculated. Only the loop with the open ends at right draws in water, heats it, and discharges it to the environment. The whole nuclear "uses up" water hype is a bunch of malarkey.
Additionally, there's not a large health effect even when you take mining / waste disposal into consideration. Nuclear fuel is MILLIONS of times more energy dense than chemical fuels; which means that for a given amount of energy, nuclear requires a MILLION-TH the amount of fuel.
Nuclear power and Rankine steam cycles are NOT wasteful. Unfortunately, you don't know about the Laws of Thermodynamics, particularly the 2nd Law; which puts LIMITS on what we can do. We've had practical steam power for OVER 2 CENTURIES and have been constantly working to improve it. However, the Laws of Physics tell us that there is a point which Mother Nature won't let us go beyond - she makes it PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE. You might also want to look up the "Carnot Efficiency". Scientists have known about these limits for nearly 2 hundred years; but "environmentalists" still haven't discovered those limits.
The good thing about science is that it is true, whether or not you believe in it.
--Neil deGrasse Tyson
PamW
Everybody is blaming the death of the Pacific Ocean on Fukushima, when in fact the oceans are dying from CO2 acidification, plastic trash, sewage, blown-out oil wells and overfishing.
Meanwhile Germany and Japan are shutting their nukes and everybody is declaring victory even as we jack up the world's fossil fuel pollution.
Winning!
Before someone calls James Hansen a coal/nuke shill? Under the bus with you! 
