Skip to main content

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

Comment Preferences

  •  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 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 ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (125)
  • Community (63)
  • Elections (24)
  • Media (23)
  • Environment (23)
  • Culture (22)
  • Civil Rights (22)
  • Science (21)
  • Law (21)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (21)
  • Josh Duggar (20)
  • Labor (18)
  • Economy (17)
  • Ireland (16)
  • Bernie Sanders (16)
  • Marriage Equality (16)
  • 2016 (15)
  • Hillary Clinton (15)
  • Climate Change (15)
  • Health Care (14)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site