Skip to main content

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

Comment Preferences

  •  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:

      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.


      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:

          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.

  • Recommended (143)
  • Community (70)
  • Memorial Day (29)
  • Elections (26)
  • Environment (26)
  • Culture (26)
  • Civil Rights (26)
  • Media (25)
  • Science (24)
  • Law (24)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (22)
  • Labor (21)
  • Josh Duggar (20)
  • Rescued (20)
  • Economy (20)
  • Marriage Equality (18)
  • Republicans (17)
  • Climate Change (17)
  • Education (17)
  • Ireland (17)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site