Nuclear Power Survey Results
Results as of 13/02/05 15:52:59 (survey now closed)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Results for: Opinions on Nuclear Power -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1) What is your opinion on nuclear power in general?
OTHER text responses - I am against nuclear power, due its waste being left long after we are dead and buried, for future generations to deal with - it's good, but there are problems - and conservation of energy would be better than generating more - Fission can be dangerous. Fusion is clean, safe and within reach - if only we provide the money - The best of a bad lot if properly managed. - It is an important, 24/7 component of energy supply and should be part of a broader mix. - I see it as a last resort in a desperate situation - Its a good source of energy but what about the waste? - I worry that it may annoy the goblins 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2) What is your opinion on global warming?
OTHER text responses - Health of people working in or near reactors - Human error and lack of attention to planning and detail when building reactors plus how to take the reactors apart safely when they are finished with?. - decommissioning costs - Health risks to workers in the industry and their families - How to store medium and low level waste - Not really helping to lower the release of greenhouse gases - Expences incurred in building / running / disposing of waste will be passed onto the consumer resulting in higher bills. - Fear of another accident worse than Chernobyl - Re: Environmental costs, this refers to extraction of raw materials - Lack of governmental drive to tackle the problem and address any areas of public concern. - Governemnt must get wholeheartedly behind it quickly or there will be insufficient trained and experienced staff and no incentive for new graduates to join. - proliferation of nuclear weapons - Costs of dismantling/disposal - That it will breed complacency towards investment in true alternative energy sources - Future Generations Health - The affect on the price of beer - Not so much 'how' to store the waste, but 'where'. Getting anyone to agree will be a nightmare.  -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4) What effect do you think that global warming will have on global environments?
OTHER text responses - It will affect us all, but I don't think we have full knowledge of how. - It will affect us all. - So we go back to a greenhouse world faster than before Hmmm. - It will affect us all - no buts - Famine, wars, collapse of civilisation as we know it - Will affect us all and impact in ways we probably can't fully appreciate yet - It will significantly impact the entire planet - it will affect all of us, poor countries (at whatever level) may find it more difficult to adapt. - Increased extreme weather events around the globe - flooding, icestorms, gales; ocean warming leading to breakdown of circulation (El Nino); potential disruption of fish stocks - weather extremes, hurricanes, flooding...... - It could trigger a release of methane hydrates causing a mass extermination - Global environments will all be subject to potential change. The impact will depend upon the criteria being measured. - It will affect the whole planet rich or poor causing dramatic changes in climate, agriculture sea levels which in turn will cause huge population displacement and all the problems that will cause. - I think the effects of global warming will be very far-reaching and affect everyone in one way or another. - On balance global warming with have a positive effect but this has been little explored. There will, of course, be some negatives but currently these have been over exagerated. - It will affect us all, irrespective of wealth. - It will affect us all but exactly when and how is unknown - It will affect us are in very unpredictable ways. - Complete devastation and the collapse of civilisation - Bear in mind I live at 400m above sea level. The real answer: I don't know what effect it will have; I don't think anyone knows - and I'm worried - It will affect us all - full stop. - There will be a regional effect on Western Europe when the Gulf Stream ceases to flow - disease, vast migrations,war,famine - It will affect us all badly, not mainly low countries, for many different reasons. - It will turn the sky into a strange, vomit-inducing, shade of yellow - It will affect us all in some way, but low lying countries more and poor countries will struggle harder to deal with the affects  -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5) Do you think that the adoption of more nuclear power can be the answer to global warming (as a means of reducing carbon emissions sufficienty, while, of course, still continuing to advance renewable sources)?
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6) If you answered 'yes' or 'yes but only as a stop gap' to the last question, how would you like to see nuclear power implemented?
OTHER text responses - oops - More investigation and implementation of alternative power sources (solar and hydro-electric, wind farms etc) Much more use could be made of Rivers for hydro-electric power( perhaps at individual city/town level) - Fusion power plants. - I have assumed that viable alternate fuels will be available in the not too distant future, and that NP will be phased out as these are brought on 'line'. - I think it could help but I believe the safety questions it raises are too serious to see it implemented any further - Existing nuclear power stations replaced with more efficient units as soon as possible - New plant will replace those that are nearing the end of their lives. As above, I am not sure we even know enough to concentrate on this issue but if people really believe in anthropogenic CO2 and global warming this is the only short to medium term option that allows a continuance of life as we know it and an economy that can respond to the negative sides of global warming. - I would like to see improved use of the big fusion reactor the Earth orbits. No, I don't mean more solar panels. I mean harnessing the power of the Sun from space. - This doesn't really belong here, but in 5) you don't allow the option - could be, but there are better less risky options (that it could actually distract from pursuing) - All the above - As far as I can see no changes take place that buffet the status quo and changes that take place that buffet the status quo are unlikely to work - All 3 of the above - as many nuclear plants as we need but used alongside renewable energy sources which should eventually replace nuclear as much as possible. - In personal implants - All of the above  -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7) If you answered 'no' to question 5, what do you think would be the best way of tackling global warming?
OTHER text responses - a combination of the above but more importanty a change in economic systems towards true sustainability - Use of renewable energy, and conservation of energy, but more importantly, a change in global trade, to reduce transport fuel, lorries, ships, planes - cutting worldwide internal combustion engine use - Money being actively invested in improving renewable energy technologies maybe on the same scale as that ploughed into weapon development, as no single renewable at the present can supply all of our needs without environmetal costs of a different kind. I think industry needs to reduce energy use as well as the household users. New buildings and industries should have to meet tight standards all over the world. - A combination of renewable energy, conservation and emission cleaning technology - Reduce demand for energy (including travel) - Renewable energy, conservation, increased environmental awareness and reduction of footprints - Re: Q8 In my opinion some of the options are ranked equally, but the script does not allow selection of more than one power source at the same level. Perhaps this could be altered? I connsider Tidal and Hydro to both be ranked as 4. ... - actually, I'm undecided as to Q5, but you didn't give that as an option. I think there is a problem in that 'stop gap' is too undefined... - Full range of conservation measures need to be followed, e.g stricter building regs, maximising passive solar gains for heating of buildings. - Clean coal technology as a stop gap - Of course, these should be used as well in a mix of measures. - Even answering yes to qu 5 doesn't rule out the best ways of tackling global warming in the long run as being any of the above - sort out transport and industry - plant fast growing trees, ban fuel-transport (go back to harse and cart!) except emergency services, freeze air extract co2 use carbon to make objects, i.e.substitute for graphite, plastics or something(?) use windup objects and energy savers, recycle. - Telling everybody to keep their freezer doors open all the time. That'll soon cool things down.  -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8) If you think that we should make more use of renewable resources, in which order of importance would you place these? (1 = most important; 7 = least important) We should perhaps limit 'importance' to how important in the UK - as obviously different countries can make more or less use of different resources, dependent on what resources they have! (I'm not sure how this works - probably the chart is a better guide)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9) If you are against nuclear power, is there anything which would make you change your mind? (Tick all that apply)
OTHER text responses - More openness and transparency from government and other interested parties - big question of trust (or lack thereof!) - combination of everything but I would like to see it disapear. - the waste can never be satisfactorilyt stored - see my previous comments about Q5 - ...due to the dangers of accidents and the appalling after-effects of such accidents. - Even though I am in favour, we must not blinker ourselves from improvements in economy and safety where this is really shown to be necessary. - If I were persuaded that renewables and conservation were not going to work, or not work fast enough, when nuclear could - If it could clone Kylie  -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10) Nuclear power is considered, by many, to be a stop gap - if it is adopted as such by the UK government and others, what do you think should replace that stop gap?
OTHER text responses - Local generation in rural areas. Individual generation by households. New research into renewables that have not been tried yet. Very tight energy conservation regulations for industries and buildings. - Reduced demand - better use of energy so we don't need as much of it - Unknown "future tech" - energy conservation - a realisation that energy usage cannot increase indefinitely (assuming no, as yet unknown 'miracle power source' appears), so less travel I'm afraid and all the other stuff ( oh dear, ) - If timescale is as short as is suggested in latest media coverage of global warming, then the question of a stop gap is not wholly realistic, other than maintaining exiasting facilities. Drastic reduction in consumption by industrialised nations is required. - Reduced energy consumption is far more important - Nuclear is not the only way forward. Where they can be justified, all these should be followed up as aprt of a broad strategic mix. - Far more efficient use of solar output. Some kind of orbiting collection system would be best. - lifestyle changes; efficiency measures; rationing; legislation - I do see some long term potential in fusion, but it is unproven and renewables are likely to be capable of development faster, in which case the need for fusion may be limited. - All of the above. - reduction in use of energy - Burning hippopotami - If proper research funding were put into this, it should be possible long before current nuclear resources are exhausted  -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11) Where do you live?
OTHER text responses - I have recently moved to Ireland from England (Yorkshire) - Canada - Singapore - NGC 12973 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 12) What is your age group?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 13) Please tick:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- THANK YOU!Back Home |
