Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 85

Thread: The Real Reason They Hate Nuclear Is Because It Means We Don't Need Renewables

  1. #16 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Posts
    249
    Thanks
    19
    Thanked 115 Times in 85 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 11 Times in 11 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LV426 View Post
    • Three Mile Island
    • Chernobyl
    • Fukushima


    Three reasons we don't need nuclear.

    Even Germany is closing all its nuclear plants because they're too dangerous and renewables are cheaper and safer.
    I was going to say that same thing also too in addition. Plastics and radiation aren't forever but they might as well be.

  2. The Following User Groans At Troll For This Awful Post:

    cancel2 2022 (02-15-2019)

  3. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Troll For This Post:

    LV426 (02-15-2019), ThatOwlWoman (02-15-2019)

  4. #17 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    26,550
    Thanks
    9,556
    Thanked 11,905 Times in 7,965 Posts
    Groans
    2,333
    Groaned 1,669 Times in 1,547 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Micawber View Post
    Just a right wing tard popping off trying to be like a Grandpa Simpson.

    Frankly, that's most of what populist Repukes sound like.

    People have many reasons for disliking nuclear energy. Accidents, spent fuel half-life
    and the inevitable NIMBY battles to bury the shit safely for centuries. The initial costs
    are massive. And last I checked terrorists couldn't weaponize a solar panel.
    If it was so fucking safe they wouldn't have to be built like fortresses surrounded by
    a god damned army.

    Plenty of upside as it cheap and reliable once built and clean as far as ecology so long as no accidents.
    But a nuclear accident is devastating, as we all know from the events cited above. They have to be constantly
    cooled 24 /7 365/ to infinity with no miscues or everyone and all fauna will be killed or have birth defects for 100 miles.


    The rightard hand waving dismissal of a thoughtful sane liberal position on preferable energy choices
    going forwar is extremely annoying, and the OP goofball knows that.

    That's why I hate Republicans now. They have all become Rush Limbaughs.
    https://i.postimg.cc/PqVCnGks/gojoe1.jpg
    C'MON MAN!!!!

  5. The Following User Groans At Nomad For This Awful Post:

    cancel2 2022 (02-15-2019)

  6. #18 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    108,120
    Thanks
    60,501
    Thanked 35,051 Times in 26,519 Posts
    Groans
    47,393
    Groaned 4,742 Times in 4,521 Posts
    Blog Entries
    61

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LV426 View Post
    There was no earthquake at Three Mile Island or Chernobyl.

    You support nuclear power because Russia is the chief supplier of nuclear fuel for US reactors, and since you're pro-Russia, you're pro-nuclear power.

    Frankly, nuclear power is too dangerous for us to use.

    Also, what do you do with the waste?




    You only support nuclear power because Russia is the chief exporter of nuclear fuel to US reactors, and you're pro-Russia.

    I support nuclear power because I am British and need a reliable baseload, renewables don't cut the mustard sonny. If you were au fait with the European energy scene, then you'd know that the Energiewende has been an unmitigated disaster for Germany. Sadly you're just another dopey fucker with little knowledge or common sense.

    http://notrickszone.com/2017/03/08/d...costs-explode/

  7. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to cancel2 2022 For This Post:

    dukkha (02-15-2019), Truth Detector (03-06-2019)

  8. #19 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    In my house
    Posts
    21,174
    Thanks
    3,418
    Thanked 7,931 Times in 5,908 Posts
    Groans
    9
    Groaned 444 Times in 424 Posts
    Blog Entries
    4

    Default

    Well duh.... of course. And wexwill not take to living in tepees either.
    "Those who vote decide nothing. Those who count the vote decide everything." Joseph Stalin
    The USA has lost WWIV to China with no other weapons but China Virus and some cash to buy democrats.

  9. The Following User Says Thank You to Celticguy For This Post:

    Truth Detector (03-06-2019)

  10. #20 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    108,120
    Thanks
    60,501
    Thanked 35,051 Times in 26,519 Posts
    Groans
    47,393
    Groaned 4,742 Times in 4,521 Posts
    Blog Entries
    61

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cawacko View Post
    For those of you well versed in this space what do you think?




    The Real Reason They Hate Nuclear Is Because It Means We Don't Need Renewables


    Why is it that, from the U.S. and Canada to Spain and France, it is progressives and socialists who say they care deeply about the climate, not conservative climate skeptics, who are seeking to shut down nuclear plants?

    After all, the two greatest successes when it comes to nuclear energy are Sweden and France, two nations held up by democratic socialists for decades as models of the kind of societies they want.

    It is only nuclear energy, not solar and wind, that has radically and rapidly decarbonized energy supplies while increasing wages and growing societal wealth.


    And it is only nuclear that has, by powering high-speed trains everywhere from France to Japan to China, decarbonized transportation, which is the source of about one-third of the emissions humankind creates.

    For many people the answer is obvious: ignorance. Few people know that nuclear is the safest source of electricity. Or that low levels of radiation are harmless. Or that nuclear waste is the best kind of waste.

    To a large extent, I agree with this view. In order to address widespread fear and ignorance, my colleagues and I have created The Complete Case for nuclear, which summarizes the best-available science.

    But ignorance can’t be the whole story. After all, the leaders of the anti-nuclear movement are public intellectuals — Al Gore, Bill McKibben, Naomi Klein. They are highly-educated, do extensive research, and publish in fact-checked publications like The New Yorker, The Nation, The New York Times.

    Is the problem that progressives unconsciously associate nuclear energy with nuclear bombs? Without a doubt that’s a big part of it. Psychologists have since the seventies documented how people displace anxieties about the bomb onto nuclear plants.

    But anti-nuclear Millennials like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, 29, grew up more in fear of climate change than the bomb.

    And few things have proven worse for the climate than shutting down nuclear plants.

    The Unconscious Appeal of Renewables

    Ordinary people tell pollsters they want renewables for the same reason they buy products labeled “natural”: they are in the grip of an unconscious appeal-to-nature fallacy.

    The appeal-to-nature fallacy is the mistaken belief that the world can be divided into “natural” and “unnatural” things, and that the former are better, safer, or cleaner than the latter.

    In reality, solar farms require hundreds of times more land, an order of magnitude more mining for materials, and create hundreds of times more waste, than do nuclear plants.

    And wind farms kill hundreds of thousands of threatened and endangered birds, may make the hoary bat go extinct, and kill more people than nuclear plants.

    But because of our positive feelings toward sunlight, water and wind, which we view as more natural than uranium, many people unconsciously assume renewables are better for the environment.

    By contrast, renewable energy advocates and investors like Gore, McKibben, Klein and the heads of Sierra Club and NRDC know perfectly well that solar and wind farms have huge environmental impacts. They have to deal with the public backlash every day.

    Google for a few minutes and you'll find widespread grassroots resistance to solar and wind farms around the world. It's the kind of resistance championed by Gore, McKibben, and Klein — but only when it's against nuclear and fossil fuel plants

    Consider the environmental resistance to this solar farm proposed for Virginia:

    Residents still have raised concerns that severe weather could damage the panels and allow the cadmium telluride to leach into the soil or water.

    The company said the panels are designed to withstand severe weather and that "our real-time monitoring systems will allow us to identify and replace damaged panels instantly.”

    The solar and wind industries respond as marketers often do when faced with environmental problems: they insist there really isn’t a problem.

    Specifically, solar promoters suggest panels can and will be profitably recycled, while wind promoters note that ordinary house cats kill more birds than wind turbines.

    Such claims are misleading. House cats kill small, common birds like robins and sparrows, not large, endangered and threatened birds like eagles. And experts agree it’s not profitable to recycle solar panels. Buying fresh materials is cheaper.

    True — many renewable energy promoters are in it for the money, and show no reticence in their alliance with natural gas interests. Even Amory Lovins grew wealthy working for big corporations.

    But most renewable energy advocates, and progressive and socialist leaders, are motivated by deep beliefs, not just money. What is it?

    How Nuclear Threatens Renewables

    After World War II, the working class in developed nations become materially rich, undermining the case that only a radical, socialist transformation of society could end poverty.

    In response, radical critics of capitalism shifted their focus. The problem was no longer that capitalism was causing material poverty but rather that it was destroying the environment.

    "The needs of industrial plants are being placed before man's need for clean air,” wrote socialist-turned-environmentalist Murray Bookchin in his 1962 book, Our Synthetic Environment.

    Capitalism was creating contradictions between humans and nature, not just between humans. The “pernicious laws of the marketplace are given precedence,” wrote Bookchin, “over the most compelling laws of biology"

    But they had a problem: nuclear power. Everyone had known since the 1940s that it could power industrial civilization while slashing pollution and shrinking humankind’s environmental footprint.

    In the 1970s and 1980s, France and Sweden proved they could decouple air and water pollution from electricity production simply by building nuclear plants, which replaced their coal and oil-burning ones.

    The problem posed by the existence of nuclear energy was that it proved we didn’t need to radically reorganize society to solve environmental problems. We just needed to build nuclear plants instead of coal-burning ones.

    And so the New Left environmentalists attacked nuclear energy as somehow bad for the environment. They didn’t have a lot to draw on, but they worked with what they had.

    They made a fuss about the slightly warm — and clean — water that comes out of nuclear plants. They led the public to believe nuclear waste was liquid, green and dangerous, when in reality it is solid, metallic, and never hurts anyone.

    Most of all they tapped the latent desire among Baby Boomers traumatized by duck-and-cover drills and endless nuclear weapons testing in the fifties and sixties to get their revenge on weapons by killing power plants.

    In the pages of respected liberal publications like The New Yorker and Foreign Affairs, they made the case for renewables as better for society, not just the environment, using identical arguments to those advanced for the Green New Deal.

    “Even if nuclear power were clean, safe, economic, assured of ample fuel, and socially benign,” said the god head of renewables, Amory Lovins, in 1977, “it would still be unattractive because of the political implications of the kind of energy economy it would lock us into."

    What kind of an energy economy would that be, exactly? A prosperous, clean, and high-energy one. “If you ask me, it'd be little short of disastrous for us to discover a source of clean, cheap, abundant energy because of what we would do with it,” explained Lovins.

    Eight years ago, the socialist-turned-environmentalist writer, Naomi Klein, made the identical arguments as Bookchin and Lovins in a long piece for The Nation called “Capitalism vs. the Climate.”

    "Real climate solutions," she insisted, "are ones that steer... power and control to the community level, whether through community-controlled renewable energy, local organic agriculture, or transit systems genuinely accountable to their users…"

    Klein expanded her argument into a book. To underscore the totalizing nature of her agenda, she titled the book, This Changes Everything.

    "In short," explained Klein, "climate change supercharges the pre-existing case for virtually every progressive demand on the books, binding them into a coherent agenda based on a clear scientific imperative."

    Little wonder, then, that the Green New Deal includes every progressive demand on the books: retrofitting buildings and power grids; subsidizing sustainable agriculture by family farmers; public transit; restoring ecosystems; cleaning up hazardous waste; international aid; worker training. This list goes on and on.

    “It is in no context a ‘program,’” observes Charlie Cook in National Review. “It is, rather, an all-compassing wish list — an untrammeled Dear Santa letter without form, purpose, borders, or basis in reality.”

    True — and one that is simply unnecessary for reducing greenhouse gas emissions if you have nuclear power.

    Just contrast Germany and France. Germany has done much of what the Green New Deal calls for. By 2025 it will have spent $580 billion on renewables and related accoutrement, while shutting down its nuclear plants.

    All that German will have gotten for its "energy transition" is a 50% increase in electricity prices, flat emissions, and an electricity supply that is 10 times more carbon-intensive than France’s.

    France, by contrast, just built nuclear plants.

    But then, over the last decade, as it tried to copy Germany, France spent $30 billion on renewables and saw the carbon intensity of its electricity supply, and electricity prices, rise.

    France and Germany and every other real world situation prove that nuclear power is the only way to significantly, deeply, and cheaply decarbonize energy supplies, and thus address climate change.

    The problem with nuclear is that it doesn’t demand the radical re-making of society, like renewables do, and it doesn’t require grand fantasies of humankind harmonizing with nature.

    Nor does nuclear provide cover for funnelling billions to progressive interest groups in the name of "community-controlled renewable energy, local organic agriculture, or transit systems."

    All nuclear does is grow societal wealth, increase wages, and decouple the economy from pollution and environmental destruction.

    No wonder they hate it so much.


    https://www.forbes.com/sites/michael.../#704db03a128f
    Very same and sober analysis, no wonder arseholes like McSquawker and Nonads hate it.

  11. The Following User Says Thank You to cancel2 2022 For This Post:

    Truth Detector (03-06-2019)

  12. #21 | Top
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    Dirty South
    Posts
    63,304
    Thanks
    6,234
    Thanked 13,410 Times in 10,039 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 2,947 Times in 2,728 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Havana Moon View Post
    I support nuclear power because I am British and need a reliable baseload, renewables don't cut the mustard sonny
    Sure they do.

    Germany can do it. So can Holland. So there's no excuse for Britain or the US either.


    If you were au fait with the European energy scene, then you'd know that the Energiewende has been an unmitigated disaster for Germany. Sadly you're just another dopey fucker with little knowledge or common sense.
    No it hasn't been and your weirdo link doesn't actually support your claim.

    Renewables cover about 100% of German power use for first time ever
    Germany has crossed a symbolic milestone in its energy transition by briefly covering around 100 percent of electricity use with renewables for the first time ever on 1 January.
    https://www.cleanenergywire.org/news...irst-time-ever
    When I die, turn me into a brick and use me to cave in the skull of a fascist


  13. #22 | Top
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Location
    Ravenhenge in the Northwoods
    Posts
    88,303
    Thanks
    145,721
    Thanked 82,529 Times in 52,746 Posts
    Groans
    1
    Groaned 4,657 Times in 4,376 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LV426 View Post
    Also, what do you do with the waste?
    Bingo. They have yet to solve that problem. Almost all U.S. nuclear plants store theirs on-site. My oldest son is a nuclear plant engineer; his facility is in Baton Rouge LA. After Fukushima he was assigned a project that took him and his team well over a year to complete. They studied what went wrong at Fukushima, and designed ways to prevent similar disasters at their plant. As you might guess he's a pretty ardent supporter of nuclear energy but even he has seen the writing on the wall as far as cost-effectiveness of this type of power vs other options. He thinks it's unlikely that the U.S. will ever build another nuclear plant, and that as older ones become obsolete and decommissioned we'll switch to other forms of power generation.

    As for "green" energy, there ain't no such thing as a free lunch. (Thanks, Heinlein, for that phrase.) Every way we can think of to create power has a price tag. As a species we need to decide what we're willing to pay.

  14. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to ThatOwlWoman For This Post:

    LV426 (02-15-2019), Phantasmal (03-06-2019)

  15. #23 | Top
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Location
    Ravenhenge in the Northwoods
    Posts
    88,303
    Thanks
    145,721
    Thanked 82,529 Times in 52,746 Posts
    Groans
    1
    Groaned 4,657 Times in 4,376 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Troll View Post
    I was going to say that same thing also too in addition. Plastics and radiation aren't forever but they might as well be.
    I see you've earned a groan from Havana Moron, our Most-Triggered-by-Facts member. Well done.

    Our human lifespans are apparently too short to allow most of us to ponder the future and how what we're doing now is going to affect it.

  16. The Following User Says Thank You to ThatOwlWoman For This Post:

    Phantasmal (03-06-2019)

  17. #24 | Top
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    Dirty South
    Posts
    63,304
    Thanks
    6,234
    Thanked 13,410 Times in 10,039 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 2,947 Times in 2,728 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ThatOwlWoman View Post
    Bingo. They have yet to solve that problem. Almost all U.S. nuclear plants store theirs on-site. My oldest son is a nuclear plant engineer; his facility is in Baton Rouge LA. After Fukushima he was assigned a project that took him and his team well over a year to complete. They studied what went wrong at Fukushima, and designed ways to prevent similar disasters at their plant. As you might guess he's a pretty ardent supporter of nuclear energy but even he has seen the writing on the wall as far as cost-effectiveness of this type of power vs other options. He thinks it's unlikely that the U.S. will ever build another nuclear plant, and that as older ones become obsolete and decommissioned we'll switch to other forms of power generation.

    As for "green" energy, there ain't no such thing as a free lunch. (Thanks, Heinlein, for that phrase.) Every way we can think of to create power has a price tag. As a species we need to decide what we're willing to pay.
    They've been trying to build the Vogel plant here in Georgia for as long as I've been here (5+ years), and every day I hear on NPR that the cost overruns keep piling up.

    Nuclear power is stupid and dangerous, and relies on foreign imports for the fuel.
    When I die, turn me into a brick and use me to cave in the skull of a fascist


  18. The Following User Says Thank You to LV426 For This Post:

    ThatOwlWoman (02-15-2019)

  19. #25 | Top
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Location
    Ravenhenge in the Northwoods
    Posts
    88,303
    Thanks
    145,721
    Thanked 82,529 Times in 52,746 Posts
    Groans
    1
    Groaned 4,657 Times in 4,376 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LV426 View Post
    They've been trying to build the Vogel plant here in Georgia for as long as I've been here (5+ years), and every day I hear on NPR that the cost overruns keep piling up.

    Nuclear power is stupid and dangerous, and relies on foreign imports for the fuel.
    You all would have been much better off building a couple of natural gas generators, and probably for the same price as what they've spent so far for that monstrosity of a nuke plant. We live near Marquette (MI). One of our coal-burning plants has been shut down in favor of the new natural gas plant. The 2nd one is due to be shut down this spring. This is a very good thing for us and for the environment. The first summer we were here, on a bright clear calm summer day, I noticed a yellowish haze hanging over the horizon across the Lake. Took a photo of it and sent it to the meteorologist at the NBC affiliate. Had a sick idea of what it was, having grown up seeing the same shit in the sky when looking East towards St. Louis. Sure enough, he confirmed that it was emissions from the coal-burning plant.

    It will be good for all of us when that is gone.

  20. The Following User Says Thank You to ThatOwlWoman For This Post:

    LV426 (02-15-2019)

  21. #26 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    14,506
    Thanks
    2,892
    Thanked 9,834 Times in 6,110 Posts
    Groans
    422
    Groaned 710 Times in 658 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    The OP is as stupid as most of the jibber jabber, from the forums turd polishers.

  22. The Following User Says Thank You to Jade Dragon For This Post:

    Phantasmal (03-06-2019)

  23. #27 | Top
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Vinland
    Posts
    39,851
    Thanks
    41,529
    Thanked 10,833 Times in 8,248 Posts
    Groans
    11,150
    Groaned 5,899 Times in 5,299 Posts
    Blog Entries
    17

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LV426 View Post
    • Three Mile Island
    • Chernobyl
    • Fukushima


    Three reasons we don't need nuclear.

    Even Germany is closing all its nuclear plants because they're too dangerous and renewables are cheaper and safer.
    This
    It is the responsibility of every American citizen to own a modern military rifle.

  24. The Following User Says Thank You to Rune For This Post:

    LV426 (02-15-2019)

  25. #28 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    14,506
    Thanks
    2,892
    Thanked 9,834 Times in 6,110 Posts
    Groans
    422
    Groaned 710 Times in 658 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    Oh, look who it is groaning posts again.:tombushes:

  26. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Jade Dragon For This Post:

    Phantasmal (03-06-2019), Rune (02-15-2019)

  27. #29 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Delray Beach FL
    Posts
    114,996
    Thanks
    124,828
    Thanked 27,335 Times in 22,664 Posts
    Groans
    3,768
    Groaned 3,239 Times in 2,979 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cawacko View Post
    For those of you well versed in this space what do you think?

    The Real Reason They Hate Nuclear Is Because It Means We Don't Need Renewables
    The article misses the mark. The reason liberal progressives hate nuclear so much is their massive fear of an accident and what to do with the highly toxic waste byproduct from nuclear fission.

    The irony is that their desire to go back to ancient technologies like wind and solar will not make us independent from other sources; it will only make it impossible to grow economies.
    "When government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny."


    A lie doesn't become the truth, wrong doesn't become right, and evil doesn't become good just because it is accepted by a majority.
    Author: Booker T. Washington



    Quote Originally Posted by Nomad View Post
    Unless you just can't stand the idea of "ni**ers" teaching white kids.


    Quote Originally Posted by AProudLefty View Post
    Address the topic, not other posters.

  28. #30 | Top
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Vinland
    Posts
    39,851
    Thanks
    41,529
    Thanked 10,833 Times in 8,248 Posts
    Groans
    11,150
    Groaned 5,899 Times in 5,299 Posts
    Blog Entries
    17

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Havana Moon View Post
    Bullshit on steroids, when was the last magnitude 9.0 earthquake followed by a 12 metre tsunami in Germany? There have never been any accidents there but sadly the Greens were voted in by ignorant twats like you.
    The only way it is "bullshit on steroids" is if those three incidents didn't occur, but they did, along with many other less known incidents.
    It is the responsibility of every American citizen to own a modern military rifle.

  29. The Following User Says Thank You to Rune For This Post:

    iolo (02-16-2019)

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 113
    Last Post: 10-01-2018, 09:31 AM
  2. Replies: 25
    Last Post: 11-14-2017, 12:19 PM
  3. Germany's REAL reason to cut Nuclear power?
    By wiseones2cents in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 12-11-2013, 02:25 PM
  4. One more reason I hate LA....
    By Cancel 2016.2 in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 06-23-2010, 12:34 PM
  5. The real reason
    By Cancel4 in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 09-16-2009, 10:44 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •