5797

As long as part of that decision includes fixing the broken regulatory system so it’s not captured by the money-above-safety private owners, I agree.

5798

It’s not split down the middle like that, not down party lines anyway.

49% of Americans favor use of nuclear energy; 49% oppose
47% of Americans believe nuclear power plants are safe
65% of Republicans, 42% of Democrats favor use of nuclear energy

It might be helpful if we stopped trying treat it like a completely partisan issue to begin with.

5799

True. But it is an idiot versus non idiot issue.

Nimbyism and ignorance will be the death of us all.

5800

I was not happy that every response to questions about nuclear in the Democratic climate change town halls was basically “there are too many issues around nuclear waste so it’s not part of my plan”. There are legitimate issues with moving nuclear forward(price and waste chief among them) but those likely aren’t unsolvable issues. You can’t talk about how climate change is an existential crisis and then completely ignore a huge source of energy because it currently has issues. The waste issue is pretty much just political as far as I’m aware. The cost of new plants is a bigger problem, but one you either accept because, you know, existential crisis or it’s one that you work on solving.

5801

I agree that it absolutely should not be partisan at all.

5802

Then maybe you should stop claiming the left is attacking nuclear power and just acknowledge that about half the country, Republicans and Democrats and everyone in between, is concerned, and address those concerns. We’re in a period of deregulation, and trusting the Trump government to make sure new plants are built with safety in mind and not enrichment of one of his gold ring kissing favorites…

5803

One thing I hope to convey is that “pro-nuclear” and “anti-nuclear” are not considered policy positions. They are identities , ways of signaling membership in a tribe. You sign up for one team and then scold the other team on social media (you will have lots of company).

If you approach nuclear power as a policy question, on the merits, you will find that, like most things, it’s complicated; there are multiple, overlapping issues involved, and the answers cannot be captured in a single binary

5804

Eh… based on your own numbers, there’s a 20% difference. Democrats are more likely to oppose nuclear power.

5805

It’s not 70 / 30 and the 50 / 50 split is not just Democrats on one-side and Republicans on the other which is what your statement seems to imply. Hell the republicans don’t even reach 70/30.

And I like this statement a lot from above:

Guess what? You don’t have to be “pro-nuclear” or “anti-nuclear.”

Even though so many people who want to talk about it pose it as a either you are against or or for it type discussion.

5806

70/30 would be a 40% difference.
You presented numbers of 65/42. That’s a greater than 20% difference.

5807

Yeah, keep making it a partisan issue instead about policy… totally working out for everyone. Don’t forget the Independents when you insist it’s just an US vs THEM scenario the next time.

5808

If there were a clear military application for fusion, we’d have it already.

5809

Again, I stated quite clearly that I don’t believe this should be a partisan issue at all. No one should be opposing nuclear power.

5810

And again, it’s not an either you’re for or against it type of issue to begin with. Maybe check out the Vox article posted above. This doesn’t have to be tribal, and you’re playing right into that.

5811

We could do a T test to see if they are statistical significant in difference.

5812

Nonsense. In the past few years we’ve had 2 major nuclear incidents (Fukushimi Daichi and Russian sub/misslie/whatever it was). Yes, Nuclear plants are safer than they’ve ever been, but we’re also facing far more natural disasters due to climate change which dramatically expand the safety requirements for all of the above, and those disasters are going to get more frequent and severe. Fukushima Daichi is an outlier now, odds are it may be closer to the norm in the coming decades.

Not to mention that our solutions for nuclear waste aren’t very good ones.

There are plenty of reasons to be very wary of the risks of nuclear power via fission down the road.

the other thing I’ll add is that climate change is also currently driving civil unrest and refugees in a lot of areas. That kind of human threat will also grow as the problems get worse.

5813

By all means, be wary of risks down the road. Plan for them. But we have an immediate alternative to fossil fuels right now that doesn’t require future technological breakthroughs.

5814

The people that I have issue with are specifically the people who are anti-nuclear-power.

I agree that you don’t have to have such a simplistic view… but many people do. There are numerous actual activist groups who are simply anti-nuclear. They have a largely irrational fear, or at least an inability to grasp the fact that nuclear power cannot possibly cause the same level of problem that continued increases in carbon are going to cause.

And this was the primary cause of my original statement linking the left to anti-nuclear power. While certainly there are some (apparently 37%) of folks on the right that don’t support expansion of nuclear power, I cannot off the top of my head think of any right leaning activist groups who actively fight against nuclear, while there are absolutely left leaning groups that do.

The biggest difference though, is that the right wing doesn’t actually CARE about climate change and carbon release into the atmosphere. The left wing DOES. The political left in America has decided that AGW is one of the greatest threats in the history of our species… and nuclear power provides a solution to that problem.

Nothing that could come out from using nuclear power in its modern, western form, could possibly pose a threat on the scale of what they suggest AGW is. Even a catastrophic failure of a modern reactor like an AP1000 (which is essentially impossible anyway) could not possibly create harm on a level that is even within the same order of magnitude as what AGW could cause. So supporting nuclear power should be the standard position at this point.

  1. Fukushima was an old plant that was hit by one of the largest tsunamis recorded. This is not something which is even possible in most cases.
  2. Even so, the environmental impact of that event is effectively trivial compared to the suggested impact of AGW.
  3. The Russians were actually making nuclear weapons. I mean… yeah, don’t put nuclear reactors into missiles? I’m ok with that.

There are lots of places we could build a reactor which wouldn’t be at risk of being hit by giant tsunamis.

WHO GIVES A SHIT?

This is always brought up, as though nuclear waste is some giant global threat. It’s not. You know how much nuclear waste is produced by a modern reactor? Basically none. An entire year’s waste is like the size of a small car. And most of that, you can reprocess and use again, which is how some large portion of France’s nuclear industry is powered now.

Seriously, this is the kind of stuff that’s going to kill you. Because while you waste time worrying about that tiny amount of nuclear waste, and let it paralyze you, each coal plant is pumping literally hundreds of thousands as much waste into the atmosphere.

The time for half measures is done, dude. You’re not gonna find some magic bullet that solves your problem without any cost. Nuclear power is as close to that magic bullet as you are gonna get, in the immediate future.

And if you want to act in the immediate future, then that’s your answer.

5815

America’s nuclear plants are struggling to compete in wholesale power markets against cheaper natural gas and renewables. And they are shutting down: five have retired in the past five years and 12 reactors at nine plants have announced plans to retire ahead of schedule. If current trends in the power sector continue, more will shut down, either because their licenses are up or for economic reasons, in coming years.

5816

You’re wrong about “right” anti-nuclear lobbying: