Anti-nuclear power idiots

[alphareign]

@SenorBeef

If aliens landed tomorrow and told us: “We bring you a new way to generate power. It will not release pollution into your atmosphere, it will not generate greenhouse gasses, you have enough fuel for it to last hundreds of years, and even longer if you recycle that fuel, it’s not significantly more expensive than the way you currently generate energy, and it can be made to be perfectly safe.”

We’d say “Wow! Thank you for this nearly magical source of energy you’re giving to us! This will help us tremendously!”

And then they’d say “yes, it’s harnessing the power of splitting the atom, and…”

“Oh! NUCLEAR??? LIKE… RADIATION AND STUFF? FUCK YOUR ANAL PROBING WAYS YOU LITTLE GREEN ASSHOLES”

I’ve been working myself into a rage over the last few weeks since this thread got me thinking about nuclear power again.

It seems that all that stands between us and a vastly superior way to generate power is essentially hysterical idiots that think “nuclear…radiation… doesn’t that mean like giant 50 foot ants and 3 headed babies!!! Chernobyl!!!”

The lawsuits these idiots file keep plants from being built on a reasonable schedule, raise the costs both due to delay of construction and needing an army of lawyers to work for years, an onerous approval process, etc. Then they point to the hassle they’ve caused and say “see! nuclear really isn’t affordable anyway!” - yeah, well maybe if someone cut your brake lines they could stand over your burning wreck of a car and say “see! I told you car travel wasn’t safe!”

The main downside in the public mind seems to be nuclear waste. MY GOD, A METHOD OF POWER GENERATION PRODUCES WASTE. A point I made in that thread was that coal plants generate a massive amount of waste - some of it radioactive due to radioactive isotopes in the coal - and just dumps it into the atmosphere. People don’t care about that because apparently waste is only a concern if you have to do something with it - if you just dump it into the public air or water then you can forget about it.

They actually view the fact that nuclear waste can be collected in its entirety and stored as a DISADVANTAGE, beacuse you have to worry about how you deal with it. And hence, coal dumping pollution into the atmosphere is an advantage, because then you don’t have to think about what you’re doing with it anymore. My facetious solution? Just take the nuclear waste and dump it into the atmosphere. Problem solved. But that’s actually logical when working within the logical constraints of these idiots.

And a lot of it is simple NIMBYism. Sure, I want to benefit from what a society has to offer as long as I don’t have to contribute in any way! Give me nuclear power but let someone else deal with the waste! This is just selfish assholery. But not even really enlightened selfish assholery. Personally, I would be fine have them take a drum of nuclear waste, and store it in my back yard, so long as they stored it properly. Why? It doesn’t hurt me at all to be somewhere near properly stored nuclear waste. What does hurt me is that every time I take a breath some remnant of the billions of tons of coal we’ve burnt enters my lungs. Even if the damn nuclear waste was buried in my back yard, I still suffer more from coal than nuclear. So not only are they selfish assholes, they’re idiots who don’t even know how to be intelligently selfish.

They’ll point to Chernobyl and Three Mile Island. Valid concerns on the surface. But the reality is that Chernobyl had to do about 9 things wrong, none of which would ever happen in a US commercial plant. Three Mile Island didn’t kill anyone. No one died and no radiation was released and no one will suffer for it in the future - so even our worst case scenario wasn’t even a disaster. And nuclear plant design has advanced since then - we can build reactors that are inherently free of meltdowns because the reaction stops if the conditions for criticality aren’t just right.

And with every attempt at criticism of nuclear, there seems to be essentially the argument “well it’s not perfect, so let’s not do it” which ignores that our current solution is far less perfect. One day stuff like solar energy will be a bigger deal - but we’re probably decades away from solar being able to do the heavy lifting. The reality is that for now, we have to go with nuclear or coal and nuclear is so clearly the winner it’s absurd.

Now that plug-in hybrids are becoming practical, we could essentially solve our energy problems and become energy independent. Nuclear power is nearly magical in what it offers versus what it costs. It’s such a no brainer that if the same technology somehow came in a form that the public wasn’t hysterically stupid about, we’d all be thinking it was one of the greatest things ever to happen to civilization. But instead, because of idiots who really haven’t thought it through, we actually shun and fail to utilize this nearly magical technology.

The people who can’t think beyond superficial reactions ruin it for us again.

Fuck.

I love this post. It’s brilliant. Speaking on nuclear waste, France recycles 96% of theirs.

[Smeghead]

Yet another Pit zombie today.

However, I saw a bumper sticker the other day that I tried to photograph because it was so eye-rolley: “Nuclear = radiation = cancer”.

I mean, yes, OK, nuclear power carries with it legitimate risks and concerns, but to so ludicrously oversimplify a complex issue to such a ridiculously fearmongering blurb is idiotic.

[XT]

@Smeghead

Yet another Pit zombie today.

However, I saw a bumper sticker the other day that I tried to photograph because it was so eye-rolley: “Nuclear = radiation = cancer”.

I mean, yes, OK, nuclear power carries with it legitimate risks and concerns, but to so ludicrously oversimplify a complex issue to such a ridiculously fearmongering blurb is idiotic.

You should go up to those nice people and tell them they are absolutely right…then hand them some sun screen.

[Claverhouse]

@THespos

Just to be clear, I’m not against nukes in general. I was against the Shoreham Plant. And before anyone gets suspicious that I might be a NIMBYist, check out the Wikipedia entry: Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant - Wikipedia

Who says Nuclear Power can’t be profitable ?

Commission date August 1, 1986
Decommission date May 1, 1989

On May 19, 1989, LILCO agreed not to operate the plant in a deal with the state under which most of the $6 billion cost of the unused plant was passed on to Long Island residents

[XT]

@Claverhouse

Who says Nuclear Power can’t be profitable ?

What an unbelievably waste due to stupid fear:

The plant was built between 1973 and 1984 by the Long Island Lighting Company (LILCO). The plant faced considerable public opposition after the 1979 Three Mile Island accident and the 1986 Chernobyl disaster. There were large protests and two dozen local groups opposed the plant.

In 1983, the Suffolk County determined that the county could not be safely evacuated in the event of a serious nuclear accident at the plant. Governor Mario Cuomo ordered state officials not to approve any LILCO-sponsored evacuation plan–effectively preventing the plant from operating at full capacity. The plant was completed in 1984 and in 1985 LILCO received federal permission for low-power 5 percent power tests.

By 1989, it became apparent that not enough local communities would sign on to the evacuation plan for the plant to be able to open. On May 19, 1989, LILCO agreed not to operate the plant in a deal with the state under which most of the $6 billion cost of the unused plant was passed on to Long Island residents. In 1992, the Long Island Power Authority bought the plant from LILCO. The plant was fully decommissioned in 1994.

Victory for the anti-nukes!

[ralph124c]

Yucca mountain is secure and safe. We cannot use it because of a stupid lawsuit. As for reactors in general…we now have designs that are 100 foolproof. They shut down by themselves when an overheat situation arises. Not to mention, we can burn up existying waste in new design reactors, while providing power.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

Nothing is “100% foolproof,” least of all a nuclear reactor.

[Smeghead]

And focusing on 100% this or 0% that is a waste of time and a distraction. What we should be comparing are the alternatives. X% for nuclear vs Y% for coal; that sort of thing.

[Gedd]

@ralph124c

Yucca mountain is secure and safe. We cannot use it because of a stupid lawsuit. As for reactors in general…we now have designs that are 100 foolproof. They shut down by themselves when an overheat situation arises. Not to mention, we can burn up existying waste in new design reactors, while providing power.

Only a Sith deals in absolutes.

Safer, sure. 100% foolproof? No.

[Typo_Negative]

We have some very impressive fools.

[Little_Pig]

@glee

4. Solar power is supplied free and will last longer than nuclear waste. There is zero pollution. All we have to do is figure out how to collect it at a reasonable price.

Oh really…

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@THespos

Exactly. Problem is, you can’t remove human error from the equation.

I grew up a couple miles from the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station in Shoreham, NY. Thank Og that place never opened under full power. The shoddy workmanship alone would have caused that place to melt down in a jiffy.

Then isn’t the answer to build better nuclear power plants? ISTM we can design and build nuclear power plants that could be run by the Homer Simpsons of the world for long periods of time with low risk of catastrophe.

[Measure_for_Measure]

@Damuri_Ajashi

Then isn’t the answer to build better nuclear power plants? ISTM we can design and build nuclear power plants that could be run by the Homer Simpsons of the world for long periods of time with low risk of catastrophe.

ISTM that we can design and build solar power plants that work 24/7. So we don’t need nuclear. Cite.

[XT]

@Measure_for_Measure

ISTM that we can design and build solar power plants that work 24/7. So we don’t need nuclear. Cite.

ISTM there are other power sources we haven’t thought deeply enough about yet.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@Smeghead

And focusing on 100% this or 0% that is a waste of time and a distraction. What we should be comparing are the alternatives. X% for nuclear vs Y% for coal; that sort of thing.

Certainly. I am correcting an error. I am not implying that 100% is necessary.

[Deeg]

I’m on board with this pitting. It was true 6 years ago and it’s true today.

[Smeghead]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

Certainly. I am correcting an error. I am not implying that 100% is necessary.

Right. I was aiming at ralph through you.

[Measure_for_Measure]

FTR, I support the status quo in the US, which involves modest nuclear power plant construction.

@ralph124c

Yucca mountain is secure and safe. We cannot use it because of a stupid lawsuit. As for reactors in general…we now have designs that are 100 foolproof. They shut down by themselves when an overheat situation arises. Not to mention, we can burn up existying waste in new design reactors, while providing power.

No, Yucca is not secure and safe. There are better sites in the country, but Congress decided the waste had to go at Yucca. Detailed study has shown that it has interesting porosity, creating a risk of water migrating to the waste.
Cites:
http://www.environmentalreview.org/archives/vol07/vol7no5.pdf
http://eandt.theiet.org/magazine/2010/06/yucca-frishman-interview.cfm

Those allegedly perfect nuclear reactors (pebble bed) are often designed without strong containment vessels, making them susceptible to terror attacks. And the design was adopted then abandoned by South Africa: it’s not as great as its initial billing.

In general, nuclear power is oversold by its advocates, many of whom face eroded credibility.

@Damuri_Ajashi

Then isn’t the answer to build better nuclear power plants? ISTM we can design and build nuclear power plants that could be run by the Homer Simpsons of the world for long periods of time with low risk of catastrophe.

The real problem with nuclear power is that it’s expensive: there are cheaper ways to reduce CO2 emissions, most notably natural gas provided it is regulated to monitor and repress methane leakage. I dream of a terrific reactor design too: the problem is that mockups cost millions or billions, in contrast with, say, electronic components. So progress is more plodding. And large engineering projects tend to have cost overruns.
[QUOTE=XT]
ISTM there are other power sources we haven’t thought deeply enough about yet.
[/QUOTE]
That’s the problem with this country: nobody is willing to think out of the box. XT for President!

[Deeg]

Why Nuclear Power is Our Best Option.

A quote from the beginning:

It would cost over $29 Trillion to generate America’s baseload electric power with a 50 / 50 mix of wind and solar farms, on parcels of land totaling the area of Indiana.

Or: It would cost over $18 Trillion with Concentrated Solar Power (CSP) farms in the southwest deserts, on parcels of land totaling the area of West Virginia.

Or: We could do it for less than $3 Trillion with AP-1000 Light Water Reactors, on parcels totaling a few square miles.

Or: We could do it for $1 Trillion with liquid-fueled Molten Salt Reactors, on the same amount of land, but with no water cooling, no risk of meltdowns, and the ability to use our stockpiles of nuclear “waste” as a secondary fuel.

and

In fact, more Americans have died from installing rooftop solar than have ever died from the construction or use of American nuclear power plants.

[kidchameleon]

Well, if wind and solar help us get rid of Indiana, the expense might be worth it.