View Single Post
  #115  
Old 10-25-2018, 07:39 PM
XT's Avatar
XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 35,449
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfpup View Post
You don't have to "pretend" that I'm correct, just look at the party platforms. The only parties that don't support nuclear are fringe parties that no one votes for anyway. You do have some valid points, though, and the problem isn't so much that the major parties support nuclear but "not strongly enough", the problem is that there's a lot of NIMBYism. People may support nuclear in principle but by golly they don't want something that's gonna asplode in a mushroom cloud right beside their house, or make them grow two extra heads out of their earholes -- disregarding the fact that you actually get more radiation out of a typical coal plant mostly due to concentrations of thorium in the fly ash, not to mention all the deadly cardiopulmonary diseases and other ailments from the smoke and pollution.

And if being "leftist" or liberal is somehow inherently tied to being majority anti-nuclear, how do you explain this, and this? The latter, BTW, is a private nuclear facility not owned or operated by Ontario Power Generation but which integrates with the public power grid, showing that both public and private forms of nuclear power generation work, and have been working successfully for a long time.
Hell, look at France. They are leftist, at least wrt to the US. They get over 70% of their energy from nuclear. The US? Not so much...it's 20% and dropping as old plants are shut down and new ones aren't being made. Thing is, I'm talking about the American left (which you aren't, so not sure why you are copping to any of this in any case).

I totally agree that NIMBY-ism is the issue, but the root of NIMBY wrt nuclear power is...yep, the left wing in the US, especially the green eco left in the past. And it was the Dems who gave those guys a home. It's going to take incredible effort and sacrifice to even keep us below 2 degrees C at this point...and it ain't happening. Nuclear is only one thing, but it could have been a big one if the Dems had really pushed, oh, say 10 or 15 years ago. We could have new plants coming on stream now, replacing coal fired plants with nuclear, maybe a mix of nuclear and natural gas decommissioning those old plants at an accelerated rate. We could, equally, have a central repository for the waste, which wouldn't fix the global climate change issue but would help in other ways. Instead, we don't. Part of that was the unicorn dream that we didn't/don't need nuclear because solar and wind will do it all, instead of be a niche resource we could use to augment better, more scalable technologies that COULD really take a bite out of our CO2 footprint. Maybe if the US had gone all in on nuclear 10-20 years ago, China would have as well...instead of building a staggering number of coal fired plants. Maybe not. But we would be way ahead of where we are, had we done it that way. But we didn't. And the Dems and the left can take credit for that part. Is it as much as what the Republicans have wrt blame? Nope. But it's not nothing, either...it's actually pretty big, IMHO, though the Republicans and the deniers get the lions share.
__________________
-XT

That's what happens when you let rednecks play with anti-matter!