Bruno Comby and Frédéric Marillier are both French environmentalists who believe global warming is real, dangerous, and has to be stopped. But Marillier heads the anti-nuclear campaign of Greenpeace France. He advocates renewable energies rather than a nuclear industry that he argues is expensive, dangerous and unreliable. Bruno Comby is president of Environmentalists for Nuclear Energy. He believes nuclear power is needed to help reduce co2 emissions and that global warming poses a bigger threat than nuclear catastrophe. Two different approaches to saving the planet now, in Agora.
17 Responses
More people die each year because of Ashma related illnesses through the burning of coal. Nuclear is safe, reliable and cost effective. Green peace are only interested in political power not solving the situations that have led to enviro failures. Sorry for bringing the FACTS into the argument.
like a nuclear weapon, EVER. The “explosion” in the reactor was steam escaping and blowing the lid off the reactor because the fire in the reactor boiled the cooling water.
PS. I looked at your profile. Django Reinhardt is amazing!
I’m disappointed that younger people in general are too dismissive of dangers of Nuclear Power. With the exception of the intrinsically safe Nuclear Battery “hot tub”, (with 25 MWe output), no one in the Nuclear Industry seems to want to talk about real dangers.
Incidentally, Belarus Physicists insist the second Chernobyl unit #4 explosion, 4 seconds after the first, was nuclear in nature, releasing one T Joule. No western-style containment building would survive that energy release.
Have most of you lost your mind?
First of all, quit yapping about your wind turbine and so called “nuclair power solutions”.
There is an other alternative that hasn’t been mentioned at all yet in this post which is magnets.
It is people like you who bring the world closer to destruction because you are too lazy to do heavy research but give answers fast instead.
There are already cars that can maintain a speed like your regular car (and not golfcars).
Search youtube about this matter.
It appears that when you can’t win the argument through reason, you simply play the ‘fear card’.
I have been against nuclear for as long as I can remember. But Comby makes some really good points. I will definitely do further research
the waste is a metal stick encased in a cask that’s damn near impossible to compromise
worrying about it leaking is like worrying about a rod of steel leaking
And yet Greenpeace supporters refuse to look at the data that suggests that wind turbines will NEVER offset the carbon emissions and ecological damage they cause.
First, fix the grammatical errors. Second, get your head out of your ass, there are plenty of very intelligent, pro-nuclear environmentalists. This argument is essentially Scientists and Engineers presenting the facts while Greenpeace sheep bicker and bitch.
What the hell are you talking about? none of what you said even made sense. 1)…. what? 2) I suppose your referring to the possibility of nuclear waste temporarily irradiating its surroundings, but making water or earth in the immediate area (a couple meters if unprotected) mildly radioactive for a couple days is a far cry from destroying it all together. You need a better understanding of nuclear waste, but i don’t have the time to deal with a case as sad as yours.
shut up! that is a lie.. is what the owners of the energy companies want you to believe.. think about 2 things 1) no renovable and limited source of energy = money on it, so dont trust what industry is tell you. 2) 1 single keg of nuclear wasted can destroy 1000 tons of watter and 1 kilometer of normal ground, and can you imagine the whole world working on NE in any aspect?.. what about the waste?
Most expensive? Hardly!
Our small eastern-european country (Estonia) needs a new powersource to replace the aging coal solution. We don’t have any rivers so hydro is not an option. Solar power is also out, because we don’t get much sun. Our alternatives are wind and nuclear.
To get the same amount of reliable electricity from wind turbines, we would need to pay 5x more.
nuclear energy is the only hope for ecological disaster!!
No serious and truthful environmentalist will ever agree with nuclear energy: it is the most dangerous energy, it is very pollutant and also the most expensive one.
Bruno is right-nuclear energy is the only solution.
Bruno Comby, if your reason for desiring nuclear energy is combat global warming then how do you deal with this fact: The construction of a typical nuclear plant is so energy intensive that it takes 18 years of operation to offset the carbon released during its construction.
Do you think we have that much time before we actually begin to reduce emissions?
Well both sides are wrong.
We aren’t short on potential renewable energy by any stretch of the imagination.
greyfalcon. net/ greenenergy.png
However transport can easily be electric.
greyfalcon. net/ electriccars.png
greyfalcon. net/ quickcharge
greyfalcon. net/ quickcharge3