Skip to main content

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

Comment Preferences

  •  wow, that first link of yours could have been (6+ / 0-)

    written in response to this diary! Some statements that particularly jumped out at me after reading the diary and the diarists comments:

    They argue that no alternative energy will succeed because they are all too unreliable, too underdeveloped, and too irregular to meet even a fraction of our energy needs. Their argument boils down, pretty literally, to: embrace nukes or die.

    they consistently downplayed the problem of nuke waste. Their solution is to burn it in other reactors. This is a "solution" of sorts, but it does not eliminate the problem, merely reduce it. Their arguement that all you have to do is build more and more reactors is unconvincing... The nuke advocates completely failed to address this issue except to say that MORE reactors can solve it.

    They claim no other technology can wean us off fossil fuels. ... For at least a decade we have had the technology to wean us from fossil fuels, but have failed to implement it. And they fail to consider the range of alternative sources

    And these are really nice counter arguments to the entire diary:

    they do not include the cost to build the plant or the cost of dealing with the waste. Both are considerable and make the industry completely dependent on taxpayer subsidies.

    Solar, wind, small scale hydroelectric, methane from waste, etc...all can start providing energy within months. Geothermal, tidal of various forms, and some more innovative technologies can be up and running in somewhat longer times...say a year or two. All can be a part of the solution NOW, at a lower cost with little waste except some production waste, which does have to be taken into account.

    It takes 10 years to build a nuke plant, on average.

    Yep...a decade and $4 billion of taxpayer money to build a single plant.

    Let me remind you how long scientists think we have to deal with Global Warming: LESS than 10 years...possibly as little as 5 years. There is no way that new nuke plants can be online fast enough to make a difference. Period. End of story. Nukes are NOT the solution.

    Nice article, it really makes it clear that the diarist is just spewing tired old nuke-industry talking points.  Thanks for the link!

    "My greatest strength, I guess it would be my humility. Greatest weakness, it's possible that I'm a little too awesome." -Barack Obama 10/16/08

    by Hopeful Skeptic on Mon Mar 30, 2009 at 04:17:19 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Re: Nuclear is not the solution. (0+ / 0-)

      They argue that no alternative energy will succeed because they are all too unreliable, too underdeveloped, and too irregular to meet even a fraction of our energy needs. Their argument boils down, pretty literally, to: embrace nukes or die.

      Not even fucking close. It's a matter of physics. 65 million wind turbines - not going to fucking happen. 6,000 nuclear reactors - definitely far viable.

      Way too many people on the left do precisely the same with this as what the right does on most issues: take an ideological position, and assume everyone else is similarly ideological or otherwise reality-detached on the matter.

      they consistently downplayed the problem of nuke waste. Their solution is to burn it in other reactors. This is a "solution" of sorts, but it does not eliminate the problem, merely reduce it. Their arguement that all you have to do is build more and more reactors is unconvincing... The nuke advocates completely failed to address this issue except to say that MORE reactors can solve it.

      Except it's actually true. Do you think the breeder reactors that have been built are actually a sinister nuke-industry conspiracy?

      They claim no other technology can wean us off fossil fuels. ... For at least a decade we have had the technology to wean us from fossil fuels, but have failed to implement it. And they fail to consider the range of alternative sources

      Once again, it is a matter of simple physics. It has nothing to do with any sort of ideological proclivity to nuclear power. I have absolutely no direct personal stake in the success or failure of the nuclear power industry. I am merely stating the reality of our energy needs. 65 TW in 50 years. 6000 1.1 GW nuclear reactors, or 65,000,000 wind turbines, or the equivalent from any number of sources? Barring altogether new laws of physics, nuclear power is the only source physically capable of supplying that demand! THIS IS NOT UP FOR DEBATE, UNLESS YOU HAVE NEW LAWS OF PHYSICS TO INTRODUCE, OR YOU WANT TO COOK THE PLANET.

      they do not include the cost to build the plant or the cost of dealing with the waste. Both are considerable and make the industry completely dependent on taxpayer subsidies.

      Because it's idiotic for the government to try to make infrastructure investment decisions solely based on the profitability of any given asset. THAT'S NOT WHY IT'S BUILT.

      Let me remind you how long scientists think we have to deal with Global Warming: LESS than 10 years...possibly as little as 5 years. There is no way that new nuke plants can be online fast enough to make a difference. Period. End of story. Nukes are NOT the solution.

      An entire post completely detached from reality and completely devoid of material fact. Stunning.

      - Nuclear plants can be built in less than five years. We built and completed the entire Manhattan project in 4 - I think we can build a single nuclear plant in under 5.

      - What are you going to do in 5 years that will make any significant difference? Just how much solar or wind capacity do you suppose can be built out a year anyways? There's only so fast any given industry can grow. This total BS. I guaran-damn-tee, if we had a Nuclear New Deal, we could easily deploy 50 new nuclear plants in 5 years, 200 in 10 years, and however many needed in 15-20 years. It's certainly physically possible, and you could take a lot of nuclear weapons off the pad to charge them up.

      •  Typical (0+ / 0-)

        Of course few people actually agree with you on these points.

        As usual, you are ignoring the most effective and cheapest way of addressing energy needs: increased efficiency. Our system wastes approximately 50% of all energy produced. Obviously nothing achieves 100%, but using ONLY energy efficiency Texas Instruments made a factory in Texas so cheap that it paid to not outsource that factory to India. All nuke shills ignore this.

        Second, nuke shills seldom take into account all possible sources of alternative energy and always underestimate the output of those energy sources. Of course wind alone and solar alone won't do it. But wind, solar, hydroelectric (already a major energy source for California), geothermal and biomass together can, with energy efficiency, meet most of our needs. And that is assuming no new technologies, and new technologies are up and coming. I read very promising things about tidal, though honestly I am so far as skeptical of those claims as I am of the claims of nuke shills like you. Read the sources I cite in the articles I reference above and what the Union of Concerned Scientists puts out.

        Third, nuke shills always underestimate the costs of nuke energy. Read the second article I cite above. The cost per kwh for nuke energy is prohibitive if all costs to the taxpayer are included. Far higher than wind, energy efficiency, etc. Union of Concerned Scientists discusses many of the problems with nuke energy (and why your arguements are mostly wrong).

        Fourth, your attitude is your worst enemy. It is that very fanaticism that you show in your title, your diary and your responses that turn most people off. I know many people who include nuke energy in their solutions for our energy needs, but as an integrated approach and with far less shrillness than you do. And far more facts. See for existance Scientists and Engineers for America. They take a far more integrated approach. They are friendlier to nuke energy than I am, but also would look at your arguements as fatuous and needlessly antagonistic.

        As to physics, all I can say is that I pay attention to what the scientists say on the subject. I read the scientific literature (for example here I discuss the Feb 9, 2007 issue of Science) on it and pay attention to  the scientific organizations that discuss this.

    •  Exactly (0+ / 0-)

      More reasonable versions of this diary did convince me to take a second look at nuclear energy. But the disconnect between what the nuke shills were saying and what others were saying made me skeptical, and reading the same kind of marketing scheme that tobacco companies use to sell their product made me doubly skeptical.

      And the bad news for nuke power keeps coming. It isn't even cost effective compared with other energy sources.

      There are reasonable advocates for nuclear energy. But they don't put it at the forefront of policy, merely as one piece in a much larger picture. Our new energy secretary is of this sort: interested in a wide variety of alternatives, with nuclear just one part.

      •  So...mole333 et al are then fossil shills? Or (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        TylerFromNE

        shills for the big wind and solar companies? (GE, Westinghouse, Vestas????).

        The "shill" argument detracts from a serious discussion. You either are paid by someone to shill for them, or not.

        Nuclear is highly cost effective persicely because of it's real (and not imagined) capacity factors. The plants pay themselves off quickly and producing power is very cheap.

        Alternaives, so called, are more expsensive if talking about base load (which so called wind advocates don't seem to undestand, at all).

        There simply is no competition between alternatives and nuclear as carbon-free sources of power. They appeal to different parts of the grid. If you actually REAL Jerome of Paris' diary, you'd see this. This is why HE is not anti-nuclear.

        David

        Dr. Isaac Asimov: "The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny ...'"

        by davidwalters on Mon Mar 30, 2009 at 01:25:26 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  No, not really, but... (0+ / 0-)

          Actually, the costs of nuclear are not cost-effective and there are other ways to address that aspect of the grid, as I always point out. There are indeed energy sources that cover the same aspects of the grid as nuke, like biomass, hydroelectric, geothermal, and more that are under development. So the base load arguement is a straw man because it doesn't address the full range of what alternative energy advocates talk about...including energy efficiency.

          And no, nuke plants don't pay themselves off, certainly not if you take management of waste (usually paid for by taxpayer money) into account. And no it is not cheap. Taxpayer money is needed at many, if not all phases. Fine. That is not a fatal flaw. But it is left out of the equation by many advocating for it. When the full costs are revealed it no longer looks so perfect.

          All that said, I never said there was no role for nuke power. It is NOT "the solution" the way some claim. It may well be PART of the solution, particularly in terms of the existing plants in operation. I never said otherwise. But the diarist is the one who shaped the discussion as a hostile one.

          •  Hmm ... now now (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            VelvetElvis

            stick to demonstrable facts please. This is a reality based community.

            nuke plants don't pay themselves off, certainly not if you take management of waste (usually paid for by taxpayer money) into account ...

            Please tell me where taxpayer money has gone to pay for the "waste" from the commercial nuclear industry in the US? Please ... pretty please ... with sugar on top.

            I guess that you've never heard of the Nuclear Waste Fund.

            Right now, the taxpayer is in debt to the industry for roughly 14 billion dollars (or more), as Congress has used the money that has been collected from the nuclear operators, not to take and dispose of the "waste," but as a private checking account to fund all sorts of projects.

            The nuclear industry has paid for its waste. It has since 1982. The government has mismanaged this money, however. I recommend that you read the Wikipedia article and learn how this is all financed, because it is clear that you do not know now. You just make claims out of ignorance.

            An idealist is one who, on noticing that a rose smells better than a cabbage, concludes that it will also make better soup.
            -- H. L. Mencken

            by bryfry on Mon Mar 30, 2009 at 03:49:36 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Well (0+ / 0-)

              First, insults are, of course, typical of the nuke advocate's tactics.

              Second, what you fail to note is that the very breakdown in that 1982 system is what will cost taxpayer's money. Billions of dollars of taxpayer money. Of course a similar breakdown of a similar deal is what led to taxpayers shouldering the bill in the UK. Just because a plan was set up more that 20 years ago doesn't change the fact that ultimately taxpayers are going to have to pay.

              And there are other costs surrounding waste that you are ignoring, like the costs of clean-ups.

              The shiny happy claims made by nuke advocates leave out these aspects. And when they are brought up nuke advocates just accuse you of being ignorant. Sorry, all you do is erode public confidence by failing to address legitimate problems and by adopting a "don't worry your pretty head, let us deal with it" attitude. Anytime an industry takes that approach it winds up being disastrous.

              •  Huh? (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Joffan, TylerFromNE

                How can you blame the nuclear industry for the government's failure?! The solution is not to dump nuclear power. The way to save taxpayer money is to vote out the idiots who are responsible for reneging on their promises.

                The government has been sued because it took money from the utilities and didn't deliver on its promises. The nuclear industry has been paying for something that it didn't receive. It has paid for the management of its waste. That is a fact; it is something that you obviously didn't know; thus, I called you ignorant.

                And you are ignorant. This is not an insult. It's a simple fact. There is no shame in being ignorant; we are all ignorant of something. I am ignorant of many things, most of which I have no interest in learning. The difference between me and you is that I don't go around talking about subjects that I'm ignorant of. The only shame is refusing to admit that you didn't know something, which is something that you are now guilty of, so now I feel justified in calling you an idiot.

                So, there, now I've insulted you, but let me tell you something, buddy. I don't care whether you are offended. I'm not here to be your friend; I'm here to correct your mistakes, lest somebody believes your crap. Personally, I doubt that we would ever be friends, because I tend to prefer people who are a little more open-minded than you. I like to be around people who are willing to research and learn about the world, not just shoot their ignorant mouths off, repeat stale and false talking points taken from dubious sources, and then get huffy when someone calls them for it.

                I don't want to be a friend with someone who is stupid enough to conflate old US military sites with commercial nuclear power and is dishonest enough to imply that this is somehow the responsibility of the nuclear industry or is somehow relevant to the cost of commercial nuclear power.

                I don't make "shiny happy claims," I make honest claims. What I have said here is simply true. I'm sorry that you can't deal with that.

                An idealist is one who, on noticing that a rose smells better than a cabbage, concludes that it will also make better soup.
                -- H. L. Mencken

                by bryfry on Tue Mar 31, 2009 at 05:40:24 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  FU (0+ / 0-)

                  Sorry dude. If all you can do is insult, then go take a running jump at yourself. You are precisely the reason people don't trust the nuke industry. Rather than deal with legit concerns you insult and dismiss. That is precisely the way Republicans work. That is precisely the way the tobacco companies work. By now people don't buy that approach.

                  So honestly, if you don't want to discuss genuine issues, why the hell do you come around here. If all you want to do is insult, go elsewhere. Your honesty is highly suspect when you refuse to deal with real issues surrounding nuke energy.

                  You know what, if your goal is to advocate you fail miserably when you do this kind of crap. I have probably followed these issues since you were in diapers and have heard every line from every advocate of every energy industry. You don't even come close to being reasonable. Step aside and let other genuine advocates take the lead. You are doing nothing for anyone by being the same kind of rude parrot that the diarist was.

                  •  Another reason (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Joffan, TylerFromNE

                    not to be your friend.

                    Listen, I don't owe you a damn thing. OK? Got it?

                    If you want to "discuss genuine issues," then please bring up genuine issues.

                    That means that you get your damn facts straight (which you have not). That means that you don't bring up irrelevant BS, such as old cold-war weapon sites, which have nothing to do with the nuclear industry or the cost of nuclear energy today.

                    Unless you are willing to do your homework, why should I believe that you are interested in any serious discussion? Why should I believe that you are interested in anything other than an affirmation of your own erroneous preconceived notions?

                    Answer me that one, why don't you? Please explain how you have even tried to meet me at least half way. I started simply by correcting you where you were obviously, demonstrably wrong. The way I see it, you have not even tried.

                    You say I give nuclear advocates a bad name? Perhaps I do.

                    You, however, are the archetype of the anti-nuclear dipshit. You are not looking for an honest discussion. Instead, you want to be coddled and kissed up to and told that you are right. You don't want to learn. You just want to repeat what you've been told, which you ironically refer to as "real issues."

                    Nevertheless, you are welcome to surprise me, or at least explain how I am wrong.

                    An idealist is one who, on noticing that a rose smells better than a cabbage, concludes that it will also make better soup.
                    -- H. L. Mencken

                    by bryfry on Tue Mar 31, 2009 at 07:30:43 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Look (0+ / 0-)

                      Once you jumped to insults you lost me. Honestly at this point I only read the first few lines of you response then figured, why bother arguing with an asshole? I have had some good discussions with nuke advocates in the past. But usually I find they are just like you and the diarist: insulting and overbearing and using the same tactics as the tobacco company to denegrate criticism of their industry. I have no respect for such people.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site