'No Quick Fix' From Nuclear Power

humoly writes to tell us BBC News is reporting that while many are calling for nuclear power, new nuclear plants are not the answer to combating climate changes or the wavering energy concerns for the UK. From the article: "The Sustainable Development Commission (SDC) report says doubling nuclear capacity would make only a small impact on reducing carbon emissions by 2035. The body, which advises the government on the environment, says this must be set against the potential risks. The government is currently undertaking a review of Britain's energy needs."

Comments

Re:Okay?

[dangitman]

You're right, and the most "practical" way to keep that energy use down is to have a mass genocide and remove 1/4 of the world's population that is quickly coming into massive industrialization.

That doesn't make any sensel. Why would reducing our energy consumption result in genocide? If anything, wars over energy will cause genocide and war. Pollution causes death. Resource wars create death.

Nuclear works anywhere and anytime. It is the most viable option for replacing the energy production of the world.

No, it doesn't. You have to get the fuel from somewhere. Uranium is quite concentrated, it is not universally available. Just look at the problems some countries are having obtaining nuclear fuel.

Since you're suddenly looking worried about the desecration of land.... how about we put wind turbines on that land? I'm sure that isn't "desecrating" anything.

Wind farms cause very little desecration, because they sit on top of the land, with a very small footprint. Mines cause a lot of damage. And most of the world's uranium is located under sacred indigenous land, which we don't have the right to desecrate for our energy needs.

Nuclear isn't the magic bullet, but all of your alternatives are non-functional. They require the world to magically have zero population growth and zero increase in industry.

Why? You don't give any reason why this is true.