Skip to main content

View Diary: Anti-Nuclear Power = Pro-Genocide. (352 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Serious boos for BS... (9+ / 0-)

    Nuclear power is:

    1. Very expensive,
    1. Slow to install,
    1. Dangerous in ways that no renewable forms of energy are.

    The overall danger is immense as is, say uncontrolled global warming or a full out nuclear war, but it's real and must be recognized.

    Nuclear could be our answer to reducing carbon outputs and curbing global warming but it would take 2-3 decades to bring a significant number of new nuclear plants on line.  And that 2-3 decades that we can't afford to waste.

    Additionally, we have somewhat limited funds that we can spend to work our way off fossil fuels.  We need to spend that money wisely in order to get the most power from our money and get results as fast as possible.

    --

    All you guys who work for the nuclear industry, would like to work for the nuclear industry, do us a favor.

    Please retool yourselves into something more useful and quit beating this tired old horse.

    We've got a big problem facing us and we don't need to be fighting tanks with calvary.

    15 to 6. Pulled ahead as soon as the gate opened and never looked back....

    by BobTrips on Sun Mar 29, 2009 at 11:55:41 PM PDT

    •  Seriously wrong. (0+ / 0-)

        1.  Very expensive,

      Wrong. It's expensive only due to red tape, compliance, and arbitrary barriers thrown up by the Luddites. If the industry were nationalized, it would be almost certainly the cheapest source of power going forward. I live near two nuclear plants, and I have very reasonable electricity costs. And of course, everyone knows about the French, who produce so much cheap electricity from nuclear power that they export it all over Europe. Sorry, but your claim is demolished by experience.

      But market price is sooo not the point. We're dealing with physics here, not prices. We MUST have energy for our economy to function, period. If the accounting cost is higher than, say, coal, it's not necessarily the case that the overall social cost is as well.

        2. Slow to install,

      True enough, though NRC red tape comprises about half of the time from blueprint to production.

        3. Dangerous in ways that no renewable forms of energy are.

      No again. It's objectively the safest form of power. Moreover, what risks there are, are inconsequential when compared to what will certainly happen if energy scarcity is imposed on an energy-strapped, food- and water-insecure world.

      Nuclear could be our answer to reducing carbon outputs and curbing global warming but it would take 2-3 decades to bring a significant number of new nuclear plants on line.  And that 2-3 decades that we can't afford to waste.

      It's the only answer. And only if we cut the bullshit, the needless delays, and the Luddite obstructionism, and implement standardized reactor designs and a crash program of construction.

      Additionally, we have somewhat limited funds that we can spend to work our way off fossil fuels.  We need to spend that money wisely in order to get the most power from our money and get results as fast as possible.

      First off, it's not about the money! It's a matter of PHYSICS, NOT GREENBACKS! The cost of nuclear is hugely distorted for many reasons, and even if it weren't it wouldn't matter. Since when do liberals place so much faith in the inerrant correctness of market forces anyways?

      And, as I've PROVEN CONCLUSIVELY, there's no better or larger source of power than nuclear. If you think wind or solar is, go ahead and post your evidence - REAL EVIDENCE of PHYSICAL VIABILITY - not a bunch of massaged stats on manipulated, subsidized prices. I'll be waiting.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site