Nuclear energy is by far the most efficient and environmentally friendly energy source, but only if there are no accidents. If, however, an accident did happen, it would damage the environment in a way I don't believe any other energy source could, wrecking the sustainability of that area for centuries. So, it's kind of a catch-22 situation.
Permalink | Report

I was having a conversation with a person who thought exactly like this question.

The Answer I got from him basically boiled down to a lack of confidence in containment of the nuclear core. They will endlessly reference Three Mile Island and Chernobyl to justify why it really isn't clean energy in the end because of how catastrophic a leak could be. When it comes to how much energy it outputs though and how much protection, inspection, and safety control are in place at plants like that... they glance over it.

I have a friend who works at a Nuclear Power Plant in Iowa, he tells me that it is the most protected, secure, and safe place in the world to be. They have multiple security checkpoints, tons of radiation detectors, and he tells me how safe it is and how they are very good at making sure a leak will never ever occur...

So to highlight the answer to your question, it is the rare Power Plant leaks and the effects they had that make clean energy people not like Nuclear power. Personally, I feel that shows a lack of confidence in the procedures in place at those places to make sure that never occurs. My friend works at one and I have full confidence in the people there.

This might not be all clean energy people, but the person I talked to made it seem like they just don't trust the people who run the plants.
Permalink | Report

Ahh, never say never. :)
To hear some people describe me, I'm about as left of center when it comes to the environment as you can get. Now, hold onto your hat- I'm not against nuclear. I'm actually for it, assuming the safeguards are there just like in any other potentially dangerous situation.
The radioactive waste MUST be dealt with correctly and the plants themselves MUST be well made and maintained. That said, I think nuclear, geothermal, solar, wind, tidal and hydrologic (sometimes) power sources all have a place in the future. All of it must be done responsibly.

Hydrologic dams should not impede the flow of the river to the point the fish can't swim upstream and breed. They should also not prevent all the sediment from flowing downstream and replenishing our beaches the way nature intended.

PV solar cells should not be placed in such tight quarters as to prevent grasses, etc to grow under them for miles around.

Wind turbines should not be placed where they impede bird migration or bat movements.

Tidal generators should be thoughtfully placed so they don't harm aquatic life (like, not right on known oysterbeds or something).

My main point is that everything requires compromise and care. Nuclear is no different- in my mind.
Source(s):
me

Permalink | Report

I think there are a few legitimate concerns with Neuclear energy.

"Nuclear power plants are very clean and efficient to operate. However, nuclear power plants have some major environmental risks. Nuclear power plants produce radioactive gases. These gases are to be contained in the operation of the plant. If these gases are released into the air, major health risks can occur. Nuclear plants use uranium as a fuel to produce power. The mining and handling of uranium is very risky and radiation leaks can occur. The third concern of nuclear power is the permanent storage of spent radioactive fuel. This fuel is toxic for centuries, handling and disposal is an ongoing environmental issue. "

http://www.solcomhouse.com/nuclear.htm

I would add the concern of security. The potential for terrorists to target plants or steal spent materials should be taken seriously.

http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear_power/nuclear_power_and_global_warming/nuclearandclimate.html

The pros may outway the cons but it is very important to keep the disadvantages in mind when waying this against other forms of energy.
Permalink | Report

A lot of environmentalists tend towards being very earthy and non-technical, and the technology behind nuclear energy is just too much science for them to feel it can possibly be safe... coupled with knowlege of how seriously ugly it is when people get blasted with too much radiation. At least when a jet crashes it's fast and you only feel the pain of burning to death for a little while if you were one of the unlucky ones to survive the original impact.

It's so much a function of people understanding just how safe we really can make things be if we're seriously prepared to put a mind to it.

Imagine the reaction you'd get from telling your great great grandparents that an excellent way to travel long distances quickly would be to seat people in rows like sardines in a long stretched-out can of thin alumninum and rocket them through the air at 600 miles per hour at altitudes where the air is too thin to breath.

Fact is... if you could just read the blue prints, you'd see that a lot more thought has been put into the design and construction of the certifiably inspectable nuclear reactor designs we have on the drawing boards already than we've ever put into our commercial jets.
Permalink | Report

look up "CHERNOBYL DISASTER" on line and your question will be appropriately answered. nuclear power for any reason is impractical and dangerous beyond any justfiable reason to support it. notwithstanding the incredible expense to build and maintain a power plant, the risk to the surrounding environment,and that of many miles beyond what we can initially assess, but just for openers, death to every living thing in it's wake if not immediately, resulting in severe radiation burns, radiation poisoning causing a multitude of horrors such as leaukemia, all types of cancers, mutations and birth defects for generations to come! vegetation and every other living thing would be affected-in fact there is no way to evaluate the global effect of such a disaster in years to come! suffice it to say that the whole planet would no doubt be affected in some way!
Source(s):
"Chernobyl Disaster" yahoo search

Permalink | Report