CDZ Climate Change vs. Nuclear Power

[jwoodie]

How can one be sincerely concerned about man-made Climate Change but opposed to the most obvious remedy, nuclear power? Please explain.

 

[william the wie]

Got to agree with you

 

[JGalt]

How can one be sincerely concerned about man-made Climate Change but opposed to the most obvious remedy, nuclear power? Please explain.

The pacifist left's aversion to nuclear power evolved from their guilt over the loss of lives from the Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic bombs. The whole "antinuclear" movement started back in the 50's when America was at it's height in nuclear testing. The fact that the left protested against it had its roots in Russian and Chinese propaganda, as the American left was a very willing tool in the Communist's plan to weaken this county.

The Three Mile Island and Chernobyl meltdowns gave the left even more ammunition in their fight to eliminate anything nuclear.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

How can one be sincerely concerned about man-made Climate Change but opposed to the most obvious remedy, nuclear power? Please explain.

Don't expect logic from Greens.

 

[JGalt]

How can one be sincerely concerned about man-made Climate Change but opposed to the most obvious remedy, nuclear power? Please explain.

Don't expect logic from Greens.

The left is bereft of any logic or reason. It's all about the "feeellz..."

 

[Weatherman2020]

Because their only agenda is the destruction of Western Civilization.

 

[gipper]

It may be more about our corrupt government running a lucrative protection racket for the old big energy corporations.

 

[Weatherman2020]

It may be more about our corrupt government running a lucrative protection racket for the old big energy corporations.

Cheapest power is not coming from a monopoly.

 

[gipper]

It may be more about our corrupt government running a lucrative protection racket for the old big energy corporations.

Cheapest power is not coming from a monopoly.

Agreed. Monopoly has nothing to do with my post

 

[sartre play]

The reasons right or wrong cost, safety, & a extreme long time line to build one.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

The reasons right or wrong cost, safety, & a extreme long time line to build one.

Which outweigh climate change then?

 

[Hale]

How can one be sincerely concerned about man-made Climate Change but opposed to the most obvious remedy, nuclear power? Please explain.

The key word here is "sincerely". The Left is NOT sincerely concerned with the planet, they are concerned only with power over the people and their personal wealth.

France has been successfully using nuclear power since the 70s, and currently produce over 75% of their electricity this way. They are also the world's largest exporter of electricity.

So the solution is obvious, as is the insincerity of the Leftist Greenies.

 

[DustyInfinity]

I'm not a climate wacko, but have they ever figured out what do do with nuclear waste? Isn't that stuff still very real bad news? I say stick to clean coal if possible.

 

[Pilot1]

Remember, the entire Man Made Climate Change issue is about more government control, and more wealth and income redistribution. It is NOT about providing what people think is "clean" energy. Carbon is not the problem. The Communists are who now call themselves Progressives.

France has gone largely Nuclear. They say it is for the environment but its not. It is so they can reduce their dependency on Russian oil and natural gas.

We have so much fossil fuel in the U.S. and finding more every day. It is cheap, and available. Use that.

 

[Blues Man]

The reasons right or wrong cost, safety, & a extreme long time line to build one.

We have stopped all research into new nuclear power plant designs when we shut down our nuclear program.

There are several designs for reactors that do not need the extensive facilities that our current light water reactors need.

We dropped the ball on this. France generates almost 3/4 of their electricity via nuclear power and their electric rates are almost half of Germany who went all in on wind power only to realize that it wasn't feasible

 

[Blues Man]

I'm not a climate wacko, but have they ever figured out what do do with nuclear waste? Isn't that stuff still very real bad news? I say stick to clean coal if possible.

It's not as big of a deal as you think it is

Radioactive Wastes - Myths and Realities : World Nuclear Association - World Nuclear Association

There are reactor designs that will actually use the waste from light water reactors

 

[candycorn]

Liberal opposition to nuke power is puzzling in general

 

[Dekster]

How can one be sincerely concerned about man-made Climate Change but opposed to the most obvious remedy, nuclear power? Please explain.

Depends on what else you believe in. Nuclear waste is an issue, radiation dangers etc. To believe in man-made climate change and ignore the nuclear option really would require that you also support drawdown strategies intended to fundamentally shift how humans live their lives. I have yet to encounter a mainstream democrat who supports radical reductions in consumption, including energy consumption. They have a techno optimism that if you throw money at it, people will magically invent new technologies out of thin air while they ignore that most of the low hanging fruit has been picked already in terms of technology. I do support such draw down strategies, but I don't particularly care about nuclear energy nor is it because of AGW (about which I am skeptical). It is because 1) it reduces pollution and degradation of natural habits; 2) it reduces people's dependence on others for absolutely all aspects of their lives; and 3) People will be a lot less crazy and stressed out all the time chasing dollars to buy whatever they are indoctrinated to believe they must have next.

 

[Blues Man]

How can one be sincerely concerned about man-made Climate Change but opposed to the most obvious remedy, nuclear power? Please explain.

Depends on what else you believe in. Nuclear waste is an issue, radiation dangers etc. To believe in man-made climate change and ignore the nuclear option really would require that you also support drawdown strategies intended to fundamentally shift how humans live their lives. I have yet to encounter a mainstream democrat who supports radical reductions in consumption, including energy consumption. They have a techno optimism that if you throw money at it, people will magically invent new technologies out of thin air while they ignore that most of the low hanging fruit has been picked already in terms of technology. I do support such draw down strategies, but I don't particularly care about nuclear energy nor is it because of AGW (about which I am skeptical). It is because 1) it reduces pollution and degradation of natural habits; 2) it reduces people's dependence on others for absolutely all aspects of their lives; and 3) People will be a lot less crazy and stressed out all the time chasing dollars to buy whatever they are indoctrinated to believe they must have next.

It's really not

You get exposed to more radiation on a cross country flight than the people who work at a nuclear plant

The waste is not an issue and much of the waste we have can be used as fuel for other reactors and we can also use our nuclear waste to produce valuable medical isotopes but we have made that illegal in this country and are missing out on a very lucrative industry

 

[toobfreak]

How can one be sincerely concerned about man-made Climate Change but opposed to the most obvious remedy, nuclear power? Please explain.

Yep. The two are definitely tied together. If you want to guarantee REAL climate change, there is no better way than a runaway nuclear reactor! It's GUARANTEED to change your climate!

Until we outgrow the need for fossil fuels, the only real solution to greenhouse gas is for humanity to get control of itself and start bringing down population. It isn't the fossil fuels that are so bad as it is the NUMBER of people all burning them!