I, personally, am not. The nuclear plants have their own carbon footprint, which is a good deal more than the footprint of wind, hydro, or solar. It is possibly greater than the carbon footprint of biomass or geothermal, and, in fact, the only power sources with a larger carbon footprint than nuclear are fossil fuels. This is because the construction and decommissioning of nuclear plants, and the mining, refining, and enrichment of nuclear fuel are all carbon intensive. Also, we have no idea how the waste is going to be handled, so we are somewhat unsure of the total cost of nuclear power in terms of carbon emissions.
Consider this: In Vermont, where I live, we are in the middle of a political decision over whether or not to permit a nuclear plant to continue operation. The amount of electrical power put out by the plant is some what less that what would be saved if the uninsulated or poorly insulated living and working buildings in the state were insulated. The saving of doing that job is mostly fossil fuels. If the fossil fuels saved were applied to distributed power generation, with the waste heat being recycled to heat buildings (which cannot be done with nuclear power because the plants are to far from cities) the carbon footprint for electrical generation would be reduced for electrical generation to about four to five times the carbon footprint of nuclear power. In addition, the electrical power grid would be more robust and reliable.
Such distributed systems can be converted to use biomass instead of fossil fuels. Wind and solar can be added so the base-load plants can burn less fuel when renewable power is supplied. By the time you are done, the nuclear plant is replaced with locally fueled power.
Nuclear plants will have to be built, but not for combating global warming. They will have to be designed to reduce nuclear waste as a way of dealing with it. We have a supply sufficient to power noncritical reactors for several centuries. In the meantime, the waste is dangerous. There is no excuse to make more.
Clearly other people will have other ideas.
i dont quite know but i think that they do?
You don't need nuclear power, energy can be generated using other methods, fossil fuels, hydro-electric etc. However nuclear power does reduce a countries reliance on fossil fuel, which can be particularly important for countries with few fossil fuel reserves of their own. Nuclear power stations do not release CO2 into the atmosphere so do not directly contribute to global warming. Many countries are looking at an investment in nuclear power to help meet CO2 emissions targets. Nuclear power stations are also required to make plutonium for nuclear weapons. Plutonium does not occur naturally and can only be made from uranium in nuclear reactors. Any country with a nuclear weapons program will have a civilian nuclear power industry for this reason.
We use nuclear power because it produces cheap electricity and they reduce the need to import fossil fuels.
You don't need nuclear power, energy can be generated using other methods, fossil fuels, hydro-electric etc. However nuclear power does reduce a countries reliance on fossil fuel, which can be particularly important for countries with few fossil fuel reserves of their own. Nuclear power stations do not release CO2 into the atmosphere so do not directly contribute to global warming. Many countries are looking at an investment in nuclear power to help meet CO2 emissions targets. Nuclear power stations are also required to make plutonium for nuclear weapons. Plutonium does not occur naturally and can only be made from uranium in nuclear reactors. Any country with a nuclear weapons program will have a civilian nuclear power industry for this reason.
The plan to reduce energy costs are to switch from fossil fuel to nuclear energy because nuclear energy can be recycled to help the earth so it doesn't pollute! Plus their is more nuclear energy than fossil fuel so therefore you pay less.
west
The largest nuclear power user in the area is the sun. It powers all life on Earth by its heat and light Local nuclear power plants: * Reduce GHG emission * Reduce acid gas emissions * Have lower waste volumes
India is developing and needs more electricity to do so. The justification for nuclear is surely to try to comply with the latest trends and hopefully agreements to reduce carbon emissions. India and China have been identified as major contributors to CO2 emissions, which are being discussed at Copenhagen as I write. If India builds more nuclear plants this will reduce the burning of coal and help to achieve the world wide targets to be set at Copenhagen (hopefully).
Power plants can purchase scrubbers to remove some CO2.
wet-scrubber units
build more nuclear plants
Because they want to reduce their carbon emissions, and they prefer to use renewable sources of energy. France has several nuclear power plants, and Germany has a large number of solar farms.
He believes in shutting down coal fired plants, as to reduce emissions to stop "global warming".
Not exactly. Office Plants can be useful to reduce carbon emissions from office machinery. If you are interested in implementing this in your office I recommend speaking to a office plants company, I recommend <a href="http://www.breathing-space.co.uk">Office Plants</a> Supplier Breathing Space, I to wanted to put Office Plants in my office to reduce carbon emissions from the office computers, printers, fax machine etc. They helped me choose plants for my office.
Build more nuclear plants
We can reduce emissions by recycling waht we can and walking, cycling or taking public transport! HELP SAVE OUR WORLD!
egr valve
No. Trading programs move emissions around, but don't reduce anything.