CDZ Climate Change vs. Nuclear Power

[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.

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

The waste isn't confined to the water. It is also the radioactive waste from pipes, insulation etc. Like I said, however, I really don't have a grudge with the nuclear side of things, but I recognize that fair weather operations are one thing. The Fukashimas, TMI's, Chernobyls show that when things go wrong, they can really go wrong. I expect compact nuclear will eventually be the waive of the future. Nobody alive today will likely ever see it deployed in any meaningful way though.

 

[Crepitus]

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

I've never been against nuclear power, and I am very concerned about climate change.

 

[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

The waste isn't confined to the water. It is also the radioactive waste from pipes, insulation etc. Like I said, however, I really don't have a grudge with the nuclear side of things, but I recognize that fair weather operations are one thing. The Fukashimas, TMI's, Chernobyls show that when things go wrong, they can really go wrong. I expect compact nuclear will eventually be the waive of the future. Nobody alive today will likely ever see it deployed in any meaningful way though.

Chernobyl was a one off design that was know to be flawed

And again Fukushima is an old style light water that needs access to huge volumes of water to operate. Newer designs are not dependent on water for cooling.

We don't have the foresight or the will to lead the world in nuclear energy so I agree with your conclusion

 

[Likkmee]

Lemme see here
3 mile island
Chernobyl
Fuckyoushima.
Open one on Long Island and one on San Andrea's. Let's get this party started ! Oh Don't leave out Seattle ! Can you imagine Rainier blowing a Giant nuke plant off the map near Tacoma ? I bet Steven King can !

 

[Blues Man]

Lemme see here
3 mile island
Chernobyl
Fuckyoushima.
Open one on Long Island and one on San Andrea's. Let's get this party started ! Oh Don't leave out Seattle ! Can you imagine Rainier blowing a Giant nuke plant off the map near Tacoma ? I bet Steven King can !

3 mile Island?

You mean where no one was injured?

Chernobyl

A flawed design that was only built in one time in the USSR

Fukishima

Built in earthquake country with no reliable back ups for cooling

New reactors do not need to be placed adjacent to large bodies of water, can be buried underground and encased in concrete so they are more secure, will use the nuclear waste from our older reactors as fuel, can go 20 years between refueling and will pump out emission free electricity 24/7/365.

 

[jwoodie]

I've never been against nuclear power, and I am very concerned about climate change.

But are you FOR nuclear power? Isn't it the obvious non-carbon solution? And why aren't the "greenies" for it?

 

[Pilot1]

Building, and operating, safe, clean, efficient, modern nuclear power plants does not accomplish the objective of the Man Made Climate Change advocates, and politicians that push it. Their goal is more, and bigger government, more taxes, and fees, and control of the populace through income and wealth redistribution.

 

[Crepitus]

I've never been against nuclear power, and I am very concerned about climate change.

But are you FOR nuclear power? Isn't it the obvious non-carbon solution? And why aren't the "greenies" for it?

I am for it, not with our current light water reactors though. Helium pebble bed reactors are essentially meltdown proof and helium doesn't turn radioactive with exposure so coolant leaks are not catastrophic.

And that's just one of several better designs.

 

[blackhawk]

I know there are those who are sincerly concerned about climate change but in my opinion a lot of those who talk it about really don't care about the issue it's self they just see it as a way for the government to grab more power and control. I don't buy into all the world is going to end in 10-12 years stuff if we don't address climate change but if we can find ways to create cleaner safer energy without tearing the econmy apart in the process I'm in.

 

[2aguy]

Liberal opposition to nuke power is puzzling in general

No, it isn't. They don't want easy and cheap power.....cheap power allows people more freedom and wealth, and those are two things the left does not want for normal people......

 

[2aguy]

I know there are those who are sincerly concerned about climate change but in my opinion a lot of those who talk it about really don't care about the issue it's self they just see it as a way for the government to grab more power and control. I don't buy into all the world is going to end in 10-12 years stuff if we don't address climate change but if we can find ways to create cleaner safer energy without tearing the econmy apart in the process I'm in.

Everyone is in on that. I know I am and I don't believe in man made global warming. More energy, available cheap, is the way you make poor people rich, and poor people more comfortable......but the environmental movement isn't about a clean environment...it is about having a hammer to use against your political enemies and a hammer to use to control other human beings......

 

[Blues Man]

 

[flacaltenn]

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..."

Surprisingly --- only the science ignorant part of the left. The GodFather of GWarming himself, James Hansen and a dozen other GW scientists and major Environmentalists signed a statement about nuclear being the ONLY rational way to work out the CO2 emissions reductions.

The quote from Hansen (paraphrased a bit) was..

"If you believe we will achieve sufficient reductions to end the GW threat with JUST wind and solar -- you probably also believe in the Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny..."

 

[flacaltenn]

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

You gonna start a moral SMALL energy company anytime soon?? Great sound bite.. No Beef content..

We now have BIG Wind and BIG Solar companies on Federal/State life support sucking much more REAL budget dollars than the "nasty old ones" get for the SAME DEDUCTIONS and CREDITS that EVERY company gets..

 

[flacaltenn]

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

The waste isn't confined to the water. It is also the radioactive waste from pipes, insulation etc. Like I said, however, I really don't have a grudge with the nuclear side of things, but I recognize that fair weather operations are one thing. The Fukashimas, TMI's, Chernobyls show that when things go wrong, they can really go wrong. I expect compact nuclear will eventually be the waive of the future. Nobody alive today will likely ever see it deployed in any meaningful way though.

The fact that you power a large house for a year on an amount of nuclear fuel smaller than a AA battery is UNBEATABLE for enviro consequences. If we can handle toxic material in BULK with INFINITE half-lives, like the heavy metals from all those battery cars and buses, then SURELY --- we can handle a AA battery size chunk of nuclear waste for each home..

It's only because the Govt reneged on their ONE SOLID contribution to building a waste dispository, that this clean-up issue is a problem.. And with new gen nuclear plants that are compact and even modular and buried (as you said) -- you'll no longer have to deal with multi-ton fuel rods and disposal pools.

Govt should commission an EXPEDITED "run-off" between competing NEW designs in like 3 or 4 year time frame and PRE-APPROVE the winners for installation..

Because if you're worried about nuclear disasters, we're on borrowed time with about 20% of grid nuclear generation being 50 or more years old and not having replacement parts. I know.. One of my clients had me design a new display device for the control room, because nobody could MAKE the old ones anymore...

 

[oldsoul]

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!

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!

I do hope you realize just how very similar your argument is to a particular "environmentalist" from the '30's and '40s. That "environmentalist" was.....

Yup, Adolf Hitler. He was all for "reducing population" too. He was also a strong proponent of eugenics. Isn't it interesting how the less we REMEMBER about history, the more we REPEAT it. Even using the very same arguments in many cases, just slightly disguised.

 

[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!

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!

I do hope you realize just how very similar your argument is to a particular "environmentalist" from the '30's and '40s. That "environmentalist" was.....

Yup, Adolf Hitler. He was all for "reducing population" too. He was also a strong proponent of eugenics. Isn't it interesting how the less we REMEMBER about history, the more we REPEAT it. Even using the very same arguments in many cases, just slightly disguised.

Can't help it if two people come to similar conclusions for two very different reasons. But whereas Adolf wanted to exterminate people other than Germans because he thought them inferior, I merely recognize the scientifically indisputable fact that virtually every negative environmental and societal problem mankind faces today is a function of his massively increasing numbers on the planet. Name me one problem we face today that wouldn't be helped if not solved by cutting world population down to half? And I don't mean by extermination but simply by regulating birth rates to bring things back around eventually to a manageable number over the next 50 years.

Because, if mankind cannot find a way of doing it, believe me, sooner or later, nature is going to do it for us in the form of famine, war or disease. Which do YOU prefer?

 

[flacaltenn]

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!

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!

I do hope you realize just how very similar your argument is to a particular "environmentalist" from the '30's and '40s. That "environmentalist" was.....

Yup, Adolf Hitler. He was all for "reducing population" too. He was also a strong proponent of eugenics. Isn't it interesting how the less we REMEMBER about history, the more we REPEAT it. Even using the very same arguments in many cases, just slightly disguised.

Can't help it if two people come to similar conclusions for two very different reasons. But whereas Adolf wanted to exterminate people other than Germans because he thought them inferior, I merely recognize the scientifically indisputable fact that virtually every negative environmental and societal problem mankind faces today is a function of his massively increasing numbers on the planet. Name me one problem we face today that wouldn't be helped if not solved by cutting world population down to half? And I don't mean by extermination but simply by regulating birth rates to bring things back around eventually to a manageable number over the next 50 years.

Because, if mankind cannot find a way of doing it, believe me, sooner or later, nature is going to do it for us in the form of famine, war or disease. Which do YOU prefer?

I don't think you had bad intentions at all for bringing up population control.. But it depends on how force and coercion is required. Really don't like forcing population control on emerging countries that NEED a large family to survive for instance. Or loading them up with wind and solar so they will never get past a subsistence, agrarian lifestyle.. That's almost as bad as eugenics and selfish..

But in reality, what HELPS the environment is NOT lower population density, it's INCREASED standard of living and education. You can clearly see the family sizes DECREASING naturally as incomes and skills increase...

There's a fantastic TED talk (maybe 2 or 3) by Hans Rowling that uses data visualization from UN and World Bank records looking at all the variables as societies emerge from poverty.. I'll link it in a post below if I can find one.. You MUST see it.. It clearly demonstrates that no coercion is necessary. Only a govt that works towards modernization in smart ways..

 

[flacaltenn]

Watch this twice to get it all.. I guarantee you'll learn a lot about world sociology and the relationship to family size...

The best stats you've ever seen

 

[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!

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!

I do hope you realize just how very similar your argument is to a particular "environmentalist" from the '30's and '40s. That "environmentalist" was.....

Yup, Adolf Hitler. He was all for "reducing population" too. He was also a strong proponent of eugenics. Isn't it interesting how the less we REMEMBER about history, the more we REPEAT it. Even using the very same arguments in many cases, just slightly disguised.

Can't help it if two people come to similar conclusions for two very different reasons. But whereas Adolf wanted to exterminate people other than Germans because he thought them inferior, I merely recognize the scientifically indisputable fact that virtually every negative environmental and societal problem mankind faces today is a function of his massively increasing numbers on the planet. Name me one problem we face today that wouldn't be helped if not solved by cutting world population down to half? And I don't mean by extermination but simply by regulating birth rates to bring things back around eventually to a manageable number over the next 50 years.

Because, if mankind cannot find a way of doing it, believe me, sooner or later, nature is going to do it for us in the form of famine, war or disease. Which do YOU prefer?

I don't think you had bad intentions at all for bringing up population control..

Of course not, I don't know why anyone would think that. I didn't say I had a good solution in how to IMPLEMENT that, but the inescapable fact is that in most places of the world, cities are being strained to the limit, their infrastructure, utilities, electrical grid, sewerage, water supply, waste disposal are all being strained to the limit.

We are running out of places to bury our waste, food production is being pushed to the limit. Hospitals and educational facilities are being overrun. Minerals and resources are being depleted. Oceans are being scooped dry of fish. Our forests destroyed, countless species run to extinction. Whole ecosystems of coral reefs and other things wiped out.

Our problem is that we are barely keeping up, we have no headroom left. All it will take now is a severe drought, a major power outage from a CME or some disease blight and a LOT of people are going to be in trouble.

The collective smog and pollution beginning to take a toll on the planet. Cities thick with smog and haze. Light pollution from artificial illumination has wiped out our night skies. We nearly destroyed our ozone with CFCs then went almost as bad with the HFCs which replaced them which turned out to be a terrible greenhouse gas. And we don't know if there is some other yet unseen toxin we've released as yet undetected. As it is, pieces of plastic now turn up in EVERY air sample, every fish sample we test. We ourselves are certainly full of plastics. And I feel certain there is a DIRECT LINK between over-population and urban life, noise and pressure and the crimes we are seeing today. Whatever the long-term technological solution to all of this, all I know is that the immediate short term solution to a cleaner, healthier, better planet is to bring our population back down to maybe half it is today. That alone would cut our impact on the environment by 75%.