Nuclear Power in a Warming World: Solution or Illusion?

Nuclear Power in a Warming World: Solution or Illusion? - Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming - 2008-03-12 - On March 12, 2008, Chairman Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming will hold a hearing at 9:30 AM. in a 311 Cannon House Office Building entitled "Nuclear Power in a Warming World: Solution or Illusion?" This hearing will explore the degree to which nuclear power could provide a solution for addressing climate change. The contemplated future role of nuclear power in reducing global greenhouse gas emissions will clearly require a monumental capital investment, many years if not decades of planning and construction, extensive international coordination, and substantial assumption of risk by the general public and by investors. This hearing will examine the feasibility of achieving such a nuclear expansion, the costs and benefits of this nuclear path, and whether nuclear power can play a leading role in solving the climate challenge. WITNESS LIST: Amory Lovins, Cofounder, Chairman, and Chief Scientist of the Rocky Mountain Institute; Sharon Squassoni, Senior Associate in the Nonproliferation Program of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace; David Lochbaum, Director of the Nuclear Safety Project for the Union of Concerned Scientists; Alex Flint, Senior Vice President of Governmental Affairs, Nuclear Energy Institute. Video provided by the U.S. House of Representatives.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• globalwarming.house.gov
• public.resource.org

[decycle1]

@decycle1 all the energy ti takes to build one ,not to mention the the big giant hole in the ground from mining uranium.

Then figure in the storage of the spent fuel rods which is at least 100yrs or more.

That is with out considering the all the risk of failure.Jersey,Russia ,now japan 3 is a charm time to quit. America has over 30 reactors which could be considered antique and running dangerously over their intended capacity . if you feel safe the you are just ignoring all the facts

[blaine215]

@decycle1 wat is their carbon footprint

[atomunfall]

The operation of nuclear power plants refers to a number of unresolved questions for Which there is no satisfactory answer. With the term of this deadly technology to grow even more problems. It`s astonishing that this is now even considered yet. It is determined at the instigation of the IAEA, which has failed utterly in every disaster.

People do not want nuclear power plants!

[angelialvares]

Yes Nuclear Power Energy is definitely an great radiation increasing technology.Is radiation less dangerous than coal smog. I don't know. I can see smog and avoid it but I can't see radiation and thereore cannot avoid it. I also don't like not knowing why I'm sick or what's doing me in. The best works of art music were created before electricity was invented. From darkness we get rest and inspiration. We need darkness for inspiration. Better to have less lights and renewable energy

[JucheeTV]

985.000 deaths as a result of only one nuclear genocide plant,

not enough for nuclear lobby nazis ?

['Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment' the New York Academy of Sciences'].

Stop that madness - nuclear genocide power - no more - no where !

Nuclear lobby to the court .

[free00to00ryhme]

legalize Hemp and we can use that for energy combined with solar power can power our whole nation. 

[patriciaannpat]

More BULL SHIT feed to the American people !

[decycle1]

nuclear energy is by no means a good idea.The impact is not worth the trade off .the cost is to high and the risk is to risky.they say it has no carbon foot print but that is not true .what i am concerned with is the by product .I would much rather have smog than radioactive fallout.

[Jai666666666]

Earthquakes will take care of the debate for the next 3000 years, you may as well build thousands of them.