United States Secretary of Energy Steven Chu speaking at Bright Green in Copenhagen. Part 2

United States Secretary of Energy Steven Chu speaking at Bright Green in Copenhagen. Part 2 of 3.

This section contains Steven Chu's controversial comments on nuclear energy ~ 5:57.

Partial Excerpt:
"I personally feel that nuclear power has to be part of the mix of the century because it is carbon free and it is baseload. I believe the nuclear reactors are much safer, the designs today."

"So what are the issues? Are they going to be economical number one, and if they are designed properly we hope so. Are they going to be safe? The other thing is waste. I think the nuclear waste issue is a solvable problem, we know a lot more than the United States knew twenty five years ago..."

"To my mind the more serious problem which will require international cooperation is non-proliferation, once you have nuclear reactors, you could have, you have the option possibly of turning some of that into some bomb material, but, I think, again that is solvable."

These comments contrasted sharply with comments by Dr. Helen Caldicott, who spoke inside the COP 15 the day earlier. Helen Caldicott stated that a nuclear reactor produces 250 kg of plutonium per year, and that 5 kg of plutonium is enough to produce a weapon.

Category:

Science & Technology

Tags:

• Steven Chu
• Nuclear Power
• COP 15
• Bright Green
• Copenhagen.

[azezel2311]

There is a Canadian firm that has a reactor that will burn either uranium or thorium. There is an ample supply of thorium in the world. There is 4 times the amount of thorium in the world at tin. Also thorium waste products have a radioactive life that is a fraction of uranium and plutonium. Another thing I have never heard of a thorium bomb. China, India and Russia are becoming more interested in it for those reasons.

[SaveTheFoothills]

What about the environmental destruction and high costs of mining uranium?

[shellius]

By the way, Helen Caldicott is a hysterical nutcase. I heard her on Earth Beat radio two months ago and she sounded like she was close to being involuntarily committed. She makes things up. Flat out lies too.

[shellius]

What's controversial about nuclear energy is that many big environmental groups are against it without actually understanding the new designs. 3rd and 4th generation nuclear plans are much smaller and safer than current ones. But thanks to enviro groups in the 90s they were never developed. It's not "controversial" to build new nuclear plants again, in fact it would be smart. James Hansen is also for it. So are many envirnomentalists, you just don't hear about them.