A look at French nuclear power on 60 Minutes NOW

[Subdivisions]

A heads up for those interested in how we're going to mitigate Peak Oil and Global Warming...

[malaise]

1. France has the cleanest air in Europe

Go France.

[youngdem]

2. Things have gotten SO very fucked up for the Left to now be CHEERING nuclear power

Yet, here we are.

Sad really.

[Solo_in_MD]

8. Its the best choice today

while solar and other renewables reach level of economical prodcution

[jab105]

3. The problem with Nuclear power is what to do with the used

radioactive waste...

That, and the fact that what do you do with the nuclear plant once it is closed (most have a 30-40 year life)...

Nuclear is not the way to go...

[malaise]

5. France is recycling their waste

but there are still issues re nuke energy.
What I've always loved about France is its respect for science.

[piedmont]

9. And the fact that the fuel is non-renewable

Switch to nuclear plants and end up at "Peak Uranium" eventually.

[benEzra]

11. Sure, in a few million years (assuming waste is recycled)...

Switch to nuclear plants and end up at "Peak Uranium" eventually.

Sure, in a few million years (assuming waste is recycled)...

Personally, I think nuclear power (properly managed) is a Good Thing.

[originalpckelly]

4. WOOHOO! That way not only will we have CO2 in the atmosphere...

the soil will be radioactive and infertile for thousands of years! WOOHOO GO HUMAN RACE!

[Subdivisions]

10. I've been against nuclear power since I was kid and first

became aware of the dangers...as I watched the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Mile_Island_accident">Three Mile Island accident as it unfolded. That's nearly thirty years of opposition to nuclear power. I've even protested against it with the likes of Greenpeace.

However, in the interim, Global Warming has manifested itself as a relatively new danger. I've been forced to reconsider my position with respect to nuclear power. I'm becoming more convinced that if we are to continue to generate electricty without a continued assault on our atmosphere that we might have to talk about nuclear power.

Yes, meltdowns are a concern. Chernobly is proof enough that such a catastrophic failure of a nuclear power plant can mean the loss of life and of a geographic area for hundreds or thousands of years. But now, due to Global Warming, we must consider the consequense of NOT converting to nuclear power. Afterall, what's worse? The loss of relatively few lives and the use of the land within a 60-mile radius of a nuclear accident, or the billions or lives and the desertification of countless millions of hectares, perhaps entire continents, of land that Global Warming could wreak for eons?

Edited to add: According to the guy (sorry, don't recall his name but assume he's a nuclear power guy) who was interviewed by Steve Croft, there hasn't been a major incident since TMI and not a single person has ever been killed by a nuclear accident in the US. Also, the lady they had from France said that they have had no "important" incidents in the lifetime of their nuclear power program. Imagine the quality of the air in France.

[chelsea0011]

6. And they are using global warming as the reason we need it.

Bush now is pushing nuclear after denying global warming for years. What a world.

[Igel]

7. Now.

Fr started the nuclear push in the late '70s to be independent (as much as possible) of importing oil. They've used little carbon-based fuel for electricity generation in the last 15-20 years; their hydrocarbon goes for trucks and cars, plastic production, and the like.