Nuclear Benefits? v Pure Energy

I'm working on a project to reduce carbon emissions in Washington state. Assuming a nuclear fuel cycle using average quality CO2 only produces a savings of 50% over an equal-sized coal, gas or oil fired plant. This fact surprised me until I looked at the whole fuel cycle.

It's so sad u choose to turn a blind eye towards nuclear's benefits, & ignore "greens" drawbacks. How's that fair & balanced?

Nuclear can be used constructively or desctructively but is itself neutral. Just ask France, a country that gets 70% of its power from nuclear w/o any problems thx to human ingenuity.

Nuclear power is far superior to so-called "green" technologies for those willing to look into it. In fact, nuclear energy IS green energy.

I think the video is using atomic energy as a metaphor for how humans have used technology destructively, instead of with wisdom and compassion.

Atomic energy certainly has it's uses, but what kind of ecological footprint does uranium leave? Depleted uranium has a half-life as long as 710,000 years. The only thing "green" about nuclear power is the glow from spent fuel rods!

Opposing nuclear cuz challenges still exist would b like opposing moon exploration cuz 3 astronauts died. We instead forged ahead and succeeded!

Solutions: 1)Bury the waste until we think of ways to neutralize it (which will occur LONG before 710k yrs), 2) Recycle-reuse in a fast breeder reactor leaving NO nuclear waste at all.

To lack faith in nuclear is to lack faith in humanity ingenuity.

Nuke plants release ZERO carbon emissions while providing power to millions--i.e. green energy.

If the same attitude were applied 2 the goal of moon exploration we'd never have made it there. 3 men lost their lives--so what did we do? Did we give up? No, we forged ahead.

Nobody's saying there aren't challenges 2 overcome. Which of humanity's seeds will u choose 2 nurture? I choose 2 have faith in humanity's strengths. Thx 2 human ingenuity there has not been even 1 death directly caused by radiation exposure in the nuclear power-industry.

As for the population boom, the planet can absorb it if we manage resources more efficiently in four general areas: energy, water, waste, and transportation. Generators exist now that create power without using oil. These can power air-to-water converters that exist or desalinization plants. Waster can be converted to energy and it can be cleaned so it's water can be recycled. Finally, hybrid vehicles using super efficient batteries and new power sources exist now.

Cherenkov radiation is blue, not green.

Two basic questions about sustainability.
First, For a given population size, what do we do with people that have a quality of life beyond the limits of sustainability?

Second, for a given quality of life, what do we do with the extra people when the population grows beyond the limits of sustainability?

I believe that the "haves" are realizing that they can't have happiness in an unstable, polluted world. They will need to change--either through realizing that we're all in it together or through taxes on their lifestyle. For example, if they want to drive a Hummer, tax it. At the same time, give people an alternative that's cheaper and non-polluting.

This video is poking fun of the early experiments promissing nuclear energy as a utopian answer for humanity's needs. It's not saying that nuclear energy has no benefits in the modern age.

France is often quoted for being the most nuclear country. However, that's not by accident. The French electric utility is government owned and it gives zero percent loans to itself. The reason for all that nuclear power was so that they could join the nuclear club by harvest plutonium for their nuclear weapons program.