Skip to main content

View Diary: Nuclear Sailors Then and Now - Exposed & Abandoned (91 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  You may be sick of it (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mamooth, hawkertempest, Munchkn, erush1345
    And sick of those idiots that say nuke opponents are murderers because...coal.
    But it doesn't make it any less true.

    Germany shut down their nukes, and replaced them with COAL. That will kill people on balance, as well as break their pledge for CO2 reduction.

    Also, did you happen to miss the most recent predictions of nearly double what had previously been predicted for the temperature rise by 2100 due to fossil fuel induced climate change?

    What about 'existential threat' do you not understand? Nuclear power is dangerous, radiation is dangerous, but you would have to have multiple Fukishimas EVERY GODDAMN YEAR to equal the threat from fossil-fuel induced climate change, not to mention the everyday catastrophes such as trains exploding, oil spills, and hundreds of thousands of deaths from pollution.

    German made the wrong choice, and people will die because of it. Your defense of this is morally wrong.

    •  and Germany is bringing more (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Joieau, Jim P, Bronx59

      Renewables online every year. Coal is on the outs.

      Nice try.

      “Vote for the party closest to you, but work for the movement you love.” ~ Thom Hartmann 6/12/13

      by ozsea1 on Wed Jan 01, 2014 at 01:43:54 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Nice Try?! (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Munchkn

        That's your response? That eventually those extra people killed won't matter because eventually those coal plants will eventually be replaced by renewables?

        Sickening.

        http://ens-newswire.com/...

        One coal plant in the US, yes ONE, is responsible for about 80 deaths per year under routine operation. Germany is likely worse due to the type of coal that they use.

        Their decision killed people, and will continue to kill people until their last coal plant is shutdown, and that's even ignoring the extra contribution to global warming.

        Then, and only then can you say 'nice try'. And that's only if you don't mind casually dismissing those extra deaths accumulated in the meantime.

        What is wrong with you people? Why don't these deaths, the contribution to climate change MATTER to you? Please explain it to me because it leaves me rather bothered by an apparent callousness that I don't expect to see here.

        Why do you seem to care only care about deaths from radiation? Why do you casually accept the many-times the number deaths from coal plants with a 'nice try'?

        Do you believe I'm making it up? Do you not understand the link between coal power plants and increased mortality?

        •  once more, and simply, so you understand (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          randallt, Joieau

          Anti nuclear power ( in its current business model )/ pro coal.

          Get that false meme out of this diary.

          “Vote for the party closest to you, but work for the movement you love.” ~ Thom Hartmann 6/12/13

          by ozsea1 on Wed Jan 01, 2014 at 03:12:25 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  That isn't a false meme (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            erush1345

            when Germany replaced its nuke plants with coal.

            That same Germany you used in your 'nice try' response.

            This isn't a false meme when Japan shuts down its nuke plants and replaces them with fossil fuels.

            This isn't a false meme when we still have ~600 coal plants spewing death into our air in the US. Many of those coal plants would not be here if the US had more nuclear plants.

            I reject your position as naive. The past, present, and near future consequence of anti-nuclear activism is more coal.

            James Hansen was right.

            •  nukes are already dead (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Joieau, ozsea1, oldpotsmuggler

              Duke Energy in Florida just recently ended its plans to build two new nukes here, and it didn't have anything to do with naive tree-hugging hippies or Greenpeace or opposition (there was virtually none)----it had to do with the benjamins. The cost of both nukes had already quadrupled, and they haven't even stuck a shovel in the ground yet.

              Nukes can't compete economically.  That's what killed nukes back in the 70's, and that's what still kills them now.

              They're a nonstarter. (shrug)

              In the end, reality always wins.

              by Lenny Flank on Wed Jan 01, 2014 at 04:32:46 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  They weren't shut down in Germany (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                erush1345

                because they were too expensive to build.

                And part of the economic cost for nuke plants is due to activism, such as legal challenges for siting. So, I don't think you can say activism has had no impact on the cost or availability of nuclear power in the US. Do you really think they were an impotent movement?

                Sure, I'm sure you can find projects here and there that failed for non-activist reasons, but that doesn't translate to every potential nuclear installation.

                Now, as far as the economic arguments, you may be 100% correct regarding the current economics of coal vs. nuclear. However, that's not at all a persuasive argument of what should be built, is it?

                •  I wish that were true (4+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Joieau, ozsea1, oldpotsmuggler, Bronx59

                  I would very much like to be able to claim that the environmentalist anti-nuke movement can take credit for killing nukes in the US. Alas, we cannot. We lost every fight, and never stopped one nuke from being built. The death of nukes in the US was all about the electric company's money. Still is.

                  If you add up every nickel from every legal challenge over the past 75 years, it doesn't equal the cost of one containment building. Legal fees and costs are peanuts to the industry.  

                  PS--the electric companies don't give a flying fuck about what "should" be built.  All they care about is the benjamins--and nukes are bad for the benjamins. Feel free to wave your arms and lecture them about it if you like.  I doubt they'll pay much attention to you, though.  (shrug)

                  In the end, reality always wins.

                  by Lenny Flank on Wed Jan 01, 2014 at 04:52:59 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  You didn't explain Germany to me. (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    erush1345

                    And the 'cost' from lawsuits isn't just the money paid to lawyers, but the delays in construction which hurt far, far more.

                    Also, the discussion here isn't so much about the realities of corporate greed, but a discussion of what should be done. What is good, what is bad.

                    That's the whole point of political activism, no? If we could rely on people and companies to do the right thing, then there would be no need for a particular type of activism.

                    With health care, we talk about regulations, how single-payer is likely the way to go, how corporate greed is a problem. Yet, with all the obstacles, delays, and massive costs that are endemic to the problem of health care, we don't blame health care or say it's not worth doing.

                    Nuclear power may be similar. Something that can only be done right when you take corporate greed, next-quarter revenue sheets, and shareholders out of the equation. In this discussion there already was mention of the contrast between military-run nuclear facilities and the corporate world.

                    In the 1990's, telecommunication companies took billions of our dollars to build a fast internet. They failed to deliver. Time and again companies face major obstacles and cost overruns when trying to deploy fiber optic internet. Verizon has stopped it's FIOS rollout.

                    It's a tough, expensive problem. Yet, we don't say that fast internet isn't a good thing, do we?

                    Corporate greed just is not a good partner with nuclear power, especially compared to the faster, easier, and cheaper coal.

                    That doesn't mean coal is better, nor does it mean that we shouldn't advocate to replace coal by ANY MEANS necessary, even if that means includes nuclear.

                    Finally, regarding your assertion of the impotence of the anti-nuclear movement, I think you give them far too little credit:

                    http://en.wikipedia.org/...

                    In terms of nuclear power, Forbes magazine, in the September 1975 issue, reported that "the anti-nuclear coalition has been remarkably successful ... [and] has certainly slowed the expansion of nuclear power."[18] California has banned the approval of new nuclear reactors since the late 1970s because of concerns over waste disposal,[200] and some other U.S. states have a moratorium on construction of nuclear power plants.[201]
                    A legislative moratorium is entirely due to anti-nuclear activism.
                    •  do you know why no nuke was built in the US any (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Bronx59

                      time after the mid-70's . . . ?

                      Because no electric company ordered any. Why not? Because nukes can't compete with coal or natural gas. Period.

                      Nobody pressured Duke to shut down their plans for two new nukes. They did it for the benjamins. That's all they care about.

                      In the end, reality always wins.

                      by Lenny Flank on Wed Jan 01, 2014 at 05:31:46 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  I think in the end you'll probably (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      oldpotsmuggler, melo

                      have to go ahead and admit to yourself that the real problem with nuclear technology is... nuclear technology. It cannot be 'done right', the waste issue is extremely serious and never scheduled to get any better ("somebody might think of something someday" is not acceptable anymore), and nobody wants the damned things now that we know - despite the decades of blatant lies - that they do melt down, explode, burn and dump craploads of cancer-causing nuclear shit on all of us. Oh... and there's no way to ever 'fix' them once they do melt down, explode, burn and dump. They cannot be turned off once they've been turned on. That means they should never be turned on.

                      I realize there are still die-hards out there, and I have no power to keep them out of my diaries. I also understand why y'all don't spend time writing your own diaries promoting 'Clean, Safe, Too Cheap To Meter' nukes here at DKos, as outside your little doo-wop group nobody's buying.

                  •  You said: (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Joieau, erush1345
                    We lost every fight, and never stopped one nuke from being built.
                    This claim is completely ignorant of and contrary to the history of nuclear power in the United States.

                    1.  The Clinch River Breeder Reactor proposal was defeated after sustained criticism and protest.

                    2.  The Consumers Energy Midland Nuclear Power Plant in Michigan was never built after extended citizen opposition but not before CE spent many millions on it.

                    3.   Many electric utilities never completed previously ambitious plans for multiple nuclear plants as these project were subsequently cancelled.

                  •  Agree, Nuclear Power has failed due to cost (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Joieau

                    If it were profitable, environmental and safety concerns would be run over like possums in the road. Look at fracking for natural gas.

                    Waiting decades for the Government to gift the industry with a site for ultimate disposal of spent fuel is simply a sign that the technology can't make it in the real world.

                •  ps--they were shut down in Germany because they (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Joieau, ozsea1

                  too expensive to REPLACE.

                  Many of their nukes are already reaching the end of their planned lifetime (just as they are in the US). That whole line about "too cheap to meter" . . ?  Uh, yeah, that never quite worked out. They turned out instead to be horribly expensive money-losers. And that's why electric companies don't want them.  They're not in the business of losing money.

                  In the end, reality always wins.

                  by Lenny Flank on Wed Jan 01, 2014 at 04:56:02 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  What? (0+ / 0-)

                    They were shut down as a reaction to Fukishima.

                    http://en.wikipedia.org/...

                    Where are you getting your information? It's 100% wrong.

                    •  you asked why the Germans replaced nukes with coal (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      chmood

                      The answer is crashingly simple----coal is cheaper.  That's why the power companies agreed to it virtually without a fight.  They WANT to replace their horribly expensive nukes with cheap coal or natural gas.  Benjamins.

                      The electric companies don't give a flying fuck about "global warming" or "environment". Benjamins.

                      In the end, reality always wins.

                      by Lenny Flank on Wed Jan 01, 2014 at 05:28:26 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Agreed to it? (0+ / 0-)

                        It was government action, not a business decision.

                        You're simply making stuff up. If it was cheaper to shutdown the nukes and build new coal plants, the companies would have done it long before the German government made them, no? There was no law preventing them from previously shutting down their nukes if your 'crashingly simply' answer were true. Why do you persist in perpetuating this false idea? It was not cheaper to build new coal plants than to keep operating already built nuke plants.

                        Obviously, the companies don't care about global warming, that's why we have to rely on government to make the right choices.

                        Germany made the wrong choice:

                        http://www.businessweek.com/...

                        •  you're quite mistaken (0+ / 0-)

                          Nukes have already been declining, globally, for years now, even before Fukushima:

                          http://www.project-syndicate.org/...

                          Why?  They can't compete economically.  (shrug)

                          In the end, reality always wins.

                          by Lenny Flank on Wed Jan 01, 2014 at 05:43:16 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Dude (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            erush1345

                            I gave you a direct link that demonstrated quite explicitly that Germany's reactors were shut down by the government in response to Fukishima.

                            I'll quote directly:

                            the first back-to-back increase since at least the 1980s, after Chancellor Angela Merkel’s decision to shut nuclear plants led utilities to burn more coal.
                            Economics had fuck-all to do with the decision. Unless you have direct evidence demonstrating that the German power companies shut down their nukes on their own and built new coal plants for economic reasons coincidentally right after Fukishima, you're talking out your ass. And that's being rather polite considering all of the evidence you're flat out ignoring.

                            another quote:

                            Merkel in 2011 ordered the country’s eight oldest atomic reactors that provided near CO2-free power to be unplugged. She wants to shut the remaining nine by 2022.
                            and yet another:
                            To fill the gap, her government wants utilities to build 10,000 megawatts of modern gas- and coal-fired generators this decade, replacing older plants
                            So, to summarize. You're wrong about this. Again.

                            Now, if you want to argue that building new nuke plants is more expensive than coal. You'll get no argument from me.

                            But once again, we're selling out our future for cheap coal.

                          •  you're quite mistaken (0+ / 0-)

                            Nukes have already been declining, globally (including in Germany) for decades now, years before anyone even heard of "Fukushima".

                            Even stalwart nuke industries like France have been steadily declining.

                            Why? Because nukes can't compete economically.

                            In the end, reality always wins.

                            by Lenny Flank on Wed Jan 01, 2014 at 07:10:18 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  None of what you said (0+ / 0-)

                            has any bearing on the fact that Merkel shut down nukes as a political response to Fukushima.

                            France? Declining? 100% wrong:

                            http://www.world-nuclear.org/...

                            one wonders where you get your information since it often turns out to be incorrect. I would strongly suggest you use other sources.

                          •  Can't even summarize your own "points" well... (0+ / 0-)

                            trying to stay alive 'til I reach 65!

                            by chmood on Thu Jan 02, 2014 at 07:41:54 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                        •  "You're simply making stuff up." (0+ / 0-)

                          Less of a strain on you to have it made up for you, I suppose, but the money's all on the other side.

                          Listen to something besides the voices in your head, someday...

                          trying to stay alive 'til I reach 65!

                          by chmood on Thu Jan 02, 2014 at 07:40:51 AM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                  •  PS (0+ / 0-)

                    Why would anyone uprate demonstrably false information?

                    I mean, it's not even close to a difference of opinion. It's 100% factually, no question about it, wrong.

                    This is a very, very odd place.

                    •  classic case of projection (0+ / 0-)

                      thank you for volunteering yourself for such an excellent example.

                      You've been thoroughly pwnd. Now, go away.

                      “Vote for the party closest to you, but work for the movement you love.” ~ Thom Hartmann 6/12/13

                      by ozsea1 on Thu Jan 02, 2014 at 10:55:39 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

        •  Do you not understand that (6+ / 0-)

          a) you need 2-4,000 nukes to replace coal
          b) that that means, given our average rate of major accidents with the 400 in place, 1 a decade, we'll have 5 to 10 Fukushima/Chernobyl/TMI s a decade,
          c) that renewables are replacing coal faster and cheaper than nuclear could possibly, ever, even if you could find the $2 to $5TRillion you'd need to build the plants
          d) that the plants remain dangerous even after they are no longer generating and require care for decades, decades, decades
          e) that the waste problem is still not solved after 60 years of hearing 'the problem will be solved'
          f) nukes have a heavier carbon footprint when the whole process is analyzed than renewables

          I don't understand why people keep offering this transparently stupid 'nukes or coal that's what we've got' when the trends in place show that renewables are growing the world over; plans for growing renewables the world over are in place and market forces are accelerating such growth; we'll get along quite well without either killer-fuel presented to us as the only options.

          Plus, you, and nobody on the fucking earth can say exactly what percentage of death, illness, birth defects, etc stem for the yearly-rising 'normal background radiation' levels; from local and constant emissions of 'safe' nuclear plants.

          All you can say and be honest about it is: there is no safe level of radiation exposure, and nobody can say what the death / illness / deformity rate is from this dying dinosaur's products.

          You can say populations who live near plants show higher incidents of cancer and trouble. Even though feeders at the nuke-industry teat deny it.


          Actual Democrats: the surest, quickest, route to More Democrats. And actually addressing our various emergencies.

          by Jim P on Wed Jan 01, 2014 at 03:23:36 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I do understand (0+ / 0-)

            a) sounds about right

            b) new plants would not be Chernobyls, nor would they be Fukishimas. They would have the safety record of modern day plants. However, let us grant you for the sake of arguement that we would have 1 Fukishima per decade for the next 100 years.

            Now compare that against a 7 degree temperature rise, plus the millions dead from air pollution alone.

            Go ahead, show me the math demonstrating coal plants are better.

            c) if that were true, then why did Germany replace their nuclear with coal instead of wind/solar? I'm all for accelerating renewable rollout, but I see no reason not to do both renewable and nuclear to get rid of coal ASAP, then spin down nuclear if you can get renewables up near 100%

            d) compared to the threat of climate change? Not even close. compared to the waste, toxicity, and death from fossil fuels? Not even close.

            e) compared to the thread of climate change? Not even close. compared to the waste, toxicity, and death from fossil fuels? Not even close.

            f) I never said nukes were better than renewables, I'm all for renewables. However, the #1 priority is getting rid of coal, the #2 priority is getting rid of all other fossil fuels, then and only then do you start spinning down nuclear for renewables.

            ? Of course we can say with some amount of certainty what excess deaths are from radiation. We have to be able to say that otherwise you can't attribute ANY to nuclear. The same statistics are used to attribute excess deaths to coal and fossil fuels. That's how this works.

            I don't understand your argument, are you saying that we can't characterize nuclear deaths, therefore they must be worse than coal?

            If you have the peer-reviewed studies linking increased mortality to living near nuclear, go ahead and provide it. I already linked in a previously diary to a British study showing otherwise.

            http://www.nhs.uk/...

            Or, is any study that finds no link automatically suspect in your mind?

            •  "I'm all for accelerating renewable rollout" (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Joieau, ozsea1

              Oh really?  Well solar and wind generation can get built a whole lot faster than 5+ years for nuclear.  If we put our minds to it as a society that 2 x Nellis AFB footprint could be solarized very quickly.  

              Versus

              In the UK and the US cost overruns on nuclear plants contributed to the bankruptcies of several utility companies. ... When the UK began privatizing utilities, its nuclear reactors "were so unprofitable they could not be sold." Eventually in 1996, the government gave them away. But the company that took them over, British Energy, had to be bailed out in 2004 to the extent of 3.4 billion pounds.[41]
              In Eastern Europe, a number of long-established projects are struggling to find finance, notably Belene in Bulgaria and the additional reactors at Cernavoda in Romania, and some potential backers have pulled out.
              Why are you pushing something that is not even economic, is dangerous, and takes long time to build, when solar and wind are now competitive?
              •  Yes, really. (0+ / 0-)

                I have a 6kW solar installation on the roof of my house. Do you?

                Though frankly, I support wind much more than solar given it's lower cost and lack of toxic manufacturing that is presently associated with solar.

                As far as the rest of your argument, I'm a bit confused.

                Are you saying that when it comes to the dangers of climate change, and deaths of millions from pollution, we should be going with whatever is cheaper?

                This argument confounds me every time I see it at DKos. It's about the only time people here turn into raving economic libertarians. Yes, nuclear is expensive, primarily due to the upfront capital investment and need for accident insurance.

                That's because coal doesn't get charged for the people it kills, nor the effects from global warming.

                And, if wind and solar can be built so quickly, WHY DIDN'T GERMANY DO IT instead of turning to coal plants?

                Here's a country that already has a pretty sizable renewable portfolio. And they chose coal over nuclear.

                Justify that to me, please.

                •  nukes have limited liability (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  oldpotsmuggler, wilderness voice

                  That's part of the massive government welfare the industry depends upon.

                  If nukes had to pay ALL their actual costs, they'd be even less economical than they already are.

                  But this entire argument is irrelevant anyway. The electric companies don't want nukes because they can't make money with them.  

                  Game over.  (shrug)

                  In the end, reality always wins.

                  by Lenny Flank on Wed Jan 01, 2014 at 05:35:05 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                •  You said: (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Joieau
                  Though frankly, I support wind much more than solar given it's lower cost and lack of toxic manufacturing that is presently associated with solar.
                  We have solar manufacturing at Dow Chemical in Midland, MI.   Democrats who are members of the United Steelworkers of America make solar shingles in our state.

                  I've reviewed Dow's entire NPDES wastewater permit for the Alliance for Great Lakes in the past.   The effect of adding those solar production units on water pollution did not have much impact on Dow's wastewater discharge environmental footprint.

                  This is not to say that Dow does not have other issues, but solar manufacturing environmental and toxic impacts are not any kind of a problem here when Democrat USWA International Union members try to rejuvenate sustainable manufacturing in our state.

                •  reply (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Joieau
                  Are you saying that when it comes to the dangers of climate change, and deaths of millions from pollution, we should be going with whatever is cheaper?
                  No, I am sayiung nukes aren't getting built because they are uneconomic. Are you saying they should be subsidized even more?
                  That's because coal doesn't get charged for the people it kills, nor the effects from global warming.
                  So why aren't you pushing for a carbon tax?
          •  You said: (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Joieau
            Plus, you, and nobody on the fucking earth can say exactly what percentage of death, illness, birth defects, etc stem for the yearly-rising 'normal background radiation' levels; from local and constant emissions of 'safe' nuclear plants.
            Where to begin...?

            First, you make a claim of "yearly-rising normal background radiation levels" and expect us to swallow that as reality with no demonstration at all.   There isn't any pattern of  "yearly-rising normal background radiation levels" that is a valid assessment of community radiation exposure in the United States.

            Next, any intimation that coal plants are somehow serious radionuclide emission sources must recognize that any such emissions of radioactive isotopes of uranium, thorium and lead contained in coal plant emissions are readily controlled to very emission control efficiencies with conventional air pollution controls.   In practice and especially with fabric filter spray dryer emission controls....any such radionuclide emissions are insignificant because any risk assessment that would be done on a well controlled unit would show increased cancer risks far less than a one in one million level of exposure.

            Coal fired power plants are generally not very large sources of carcinogenic metal emissions that would spike an airborne carcinogen risk assessment for adjacent community risk exposure.  Note that this discussion does not address mercury and mercury compounds which are not considered airborne carcinogens, and that coal fired power plants are large and very important sources of mercury emissions.

          •  no, he does NOT understand; the blasting jelly in (0+ / 0-)

            his/her/its skull impedes the processing of unauthorized thoughts.

            Ozy is the perfect example of Churchill's "fanatic" - can't change his mind, and won't change the subject...or shut up, it seems, like bikers in the bingo parlor, THEY WILL CARRY ON REGARDLESS.

            For which, NO THANK TO HIM.  AND his ilk.

            trying to stay alive 'til I reach 65!

            by chmood on Thu Jan 02, 2014 at 07:47:14 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  Good Morning, Mr. LaRouche - busy again, I see... (0+ / 0-)

      What a jolly world it would be if you & your cohort used facts as something other than political billy-clubs.

      I will not even try to answer your hysterical spew.
      Good day to you - and lose our address, thanks.

      trying to stay alive 'til I reach 65!

      by chmood on Thu Jan 02, 2014 at 07:35:10 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site