Safety is for extremists 10

Comments View as Flat

1. 

   Biodiversivist Posted 7:30 am
   16 Oct 2008

   I've seen that "extreme"argument used several times, in particular by food-based biofuel proponents. It is an attempt to drive a wedge; label anyone critical of your favorite scheme as an extremist. Probably works pretty well in a world of sound bites. Backfires in a real debate on a blog.
   
   In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world

   Permalink

2. 

   wesrolley Posted 7:52 am
   16 Oct 2008

   Fact CheckingIn all of the fact checking by the ubiquitous talking heads of television, not a single one has thought to challenge McCain on his proposal for 45 new nuclear plants.  There are a number of holes in the number, not the least of which is that they do not replace foreign oil in any significant way, since most of the power plants in use are powered by either coal or natural gas.
   Even if the nuclear solution were safe, which it isn't, there is no way that it becomes the solution for the problem of our dependency on foreign oil.
   
   Wes Rolley
   
   
   
   CoChair - EcoAction Committee
   
   Green Party US

   Permalink

3. 

   Biodiversivist Posted 8:30 am
   16 Oct 2008

   wesrolley, I saw an MSNBCfact check did cover this, pointing out the time line, expense, and the fact that nuclear power plants have little to do with energy independence since we make electricity with coal, not gasoline.
   
   In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world

   Permalink

4. 

   GRLCowan Posted 11:32 am
   16 Oct 2008

   I think I can make that coherentRequiring nuclear power to be safe is not extreme. Pretending that it isn't shows an extreme commitment -- a commitment at the cost of dignity -- to environmentalism, as McCain sees environmentalism.
   --- G.R.L. Cowan, author of How fire can be tamed

   Permalink

5. 

   KenG Posted 2:40 pm
   16 Oct 2008

   Nuclear vs Oil"Building nuclear plants doesn't replace oil" only if you believe that in 10 years we will have no signficant switch to electric powered transportation. I can't understand why "progressives" can't look that far into the future when it doesn't fit their mindset.

   Permalink

6. 

   Pathos Posted 4:28 pm
   16 Oct 2008

   re: KenGExcellent choice of screenname; the first person to make that name famous holds the world record for the single longest-held note on a saxophone.
   That, and it's probably also your name, but that has nothing to do with anything, right? :)
   The thing about "looking that far into the future" is, we don't know what's going to happen that far into the future. Six or seven years ago, everyone thought that in ten years, we'd be well on our way toward a hydrogen economy. Obviously, that's not happening. Four years ago, it was biofuels. Now, the overwhelming consensus is that they do more harm than good, and the kind that might not--cellulosic ethanol--still isn't viable, and may or may not become so. Sure, we'd all love to bank on a fully electric transportation system--preferably powered by the sun, the wind, and the heat of the earth. But we can't depend on that until it's very clear that it's happening.
   That said, the real reason progressives decry nukes isn't ten years into the future. We're looking farther than that. Nuclear waste is lethal for thousands of years--possibly longer; there are no hard statistics. We have more piled up than we can store--and no matter what they tell you, there's no safe way to store it. And no way to guarantee anyone will know to stay away from it.
   You bury thousands of tons of radioactive waste inside a mountain, how do you know that five thousand years from now, you're not condemning a team of archeologists to an excruciating death from radiation poisoning?
   How do you know there won't be a city built on top of it?
   And even if humans aren't around, or know to stay the hell away... Thousands or tens of thousands of years from now, whatever facilities we store the waste in are going to break down. And if there happens to be an ecosystem of whatever type sitting on top of any of those facilities... Well, shortly after the radiation starts leaking, there might not be.
   Yeah. If all our vehicles go electric, we'll need a way to make more electricity, and nuclear power is technically an option. That doesn't make it a good option.

   Permalink

7. 

   GRLCowan Posted 1:44 am
   17 Oct 2008

   Progressives are pronuclearthe real reason progressives decry nukes isn't ten years into the future. We're looking farther than that. Nuclear waste is lethal ...
   ... although there are no cases on record of anyone's actually being harmed ...
   for thousands of years--possibly longer; there are no hard statistics.
   No hard statistics? The diminution of the radiation from a cache of radioactive material is more predictable than the paths of the planets. (In theory all other planets and stars in theory affect these paths, but the relevant kinds of radioactive decay are entirely unaffected by anything outside the nuclei they occur in.)
   Maybe 'Pathos' should find out how the manmade radioactivity in a half-mile-deep buried cache of thousand-years-retired reactor fuel, or even just 100-years-retired fuel, actually compares to the natural radioactivity buried between zero feet and 2640 feet, i.e. not as deep.
   Nuclear power plants aren't taking business and tax revenue from any groups that have a lot of it, are they? Because if they aren't, then there's no reason for anyone to make a mountain of this particular molehill.
   --- G.R.L. Cowan, author of How fire can be tamed

   Permalink

8. 

   anyone Posted 3:10 am
   17 Oct 2008

   Public funding in energy researchSignificantly more public funding has gone into nuclear energy research than hydro, tidal, wind, biomass, solar and geothermal energy research combined.
   
   Eventhough the potential of all these renewable options is significantly higher than nuclear.
   Nuclear proponents are repetively and falsely claiming that renewables are not enough, thus justifying enormous public funding for nuclear energy research alone, which should be invested more wisely and diversified in many options.

   Permalink

9. 

   Beccane Posted 12:41 am
   21 Oct 2008

   national security and economic sense = no nukesI'm not entirely decided yet but definitely lean against nuclear, especially after a conference given by the NY Society of Security Analysts--with a prior head of the US Nuclear Regulatory Committee speaking-- on the economic viability of nuclear. Whatever you think about safety, nuclear plants are outrageously expensive to build and run and never once have broken even. They've been subsidized to the tune of billions of dollars, NOT including R&D --just for building and operating costs. And economic risk assessments DO take safety into account with not very positive results. The risks are high enough to make investors uneasy. Finally, while I feel for the poor archeologists of the future, I'm much more worried about nuclear fuel getting into the wrong hands now. There is dangerous nuclear black market and until we figure out how to safely store nuclear materials they pose a risk not only to health but to security in the short run.

   Permalink

10. 

    mwildfire Posted 10:52 am
    21 Oct 2008

    nukes have only hurt people who don't countlike the guys who were speared by a fuel rod in one of the first pre-commercial reactors, and had to have their hands and heads buried separately as radioactive waste---or thousands of people downwind of Chernobyl. Then there are the native American uranium miners who died of cancers, and likely quite a few others who've gotten cancers from carious exposures but could never prove (or never even suspected) the cause.
    
    Then there's the terrorism issue, and the expense issue, and the latter is a critical safety issue because we have to get moving on real solutions to climate change NOW--we've screwed around doing nothing for so long we can't waste any more time on dead ends like ethanol, liquefied coal or nukes. We need to be spending our precious cash and the last of our oil producing the solutions that have a future--various solar and wind applications, perhaps tidal plants and geothermal applications.

    Permalink