I was reading this GD thread a few days ago about whether nuclear power is economical and I was a bit annoyed by the first line of the OP:
I consider myself a centrist but I am sure many people would feel that the term leftist could fairly apply to me (especially in the current partisan political climate). Yet with my political leanings, I have supported nuclear power since the early 90s (the first time I thought about it). Reading the comments in that thread, it seemed to me that a lot of other self identified leftists also supported nuclear power. So to clear this up once and for all, I thought I would make a poll to see if boffking’s stereotype is true, are leftists against nuclear power.
There is (or will soon be) a poll attached to the OP that uses the words “well regulated nuclear power”. For those of us who flinch at the word regulated (you know who you are), please assume that well regulated means “minimally but sufficiently regulated to protect the populace and workers from danger, but not overly regulated”. I really would rather avoid discussions or consideration of all the nimbyism and outdated regulations that surround the nuclear industry; this poll is meant to gauge peoples opinions in an ideal world.
I definitely consider myself a supporter, and said so in a GQ thread just this morning.
It does make some sense to me that the cost of nuclear power should include some money for a “care trust fund” intended to make sure that the byproducts can be well taken care of in the future, so that we’re not entirely dumping the trash on our descendants, as it were. The same idea should probably apply to all energy sources with CO2 emissions…
Left-leaning centrist here. I strongly support well-regulated nuclear power as well as research to make it safer, cleaner, and cheaper. In light of the climate change threat, we need to replace all fossil fuels with nuclear right now.
After doing that we have some space to start replacing nuclear with the cleanest, safest, renewables. But the priority right now should be to halt all carbon emissions post-haste. Nuclear is the quickest and most effective way to reach that goal.
Mostly liberal. I don’t have a problem with nuclear power on safety/moral/environmental grounds. However I have a problem with it on economic grounds. Despite having been around for decades costs escalate out of control. Conversely wind and solar prices are steadily declining. So right now I believe the best approach for the next couple decades or so is to continue research on nuclear, but for the big power generation investments do solar and wind. [Some investments may be needed in natural gas, but nothing in coal.]
I don’t but the premise that this is a left/right issue. I haven’t seen a lot of nuclear power starting up in solid red states. NIMBY is a huge political factor that runs it’s own course independent of other political ideologies.
For the purpose of this thread I’ll call myself a left-leaning centrist and say I’m opposed to nuclear power expansion with the current regulatory and operational infrastructure.
Right-leaning centrist. I think the cost, safety, and waste disposal issues of nuclear are significant. There is a nuclear plant near me and no waste from it has ever left the site, it’s stored in big casks for future generations to deal with. Solar and wind power are at this point cleaner, cheaper, and safer.
I can’t vote, you provided a nice selection of options but none fit me.
I support US Navy Nuclear Power. They have a great if not perfect record.
I support the idea of Nuclear Power but don’t trust the average power company to do a safe job.
I’m in the center but lean left on many issues and right on several.
I would like to see increased Nuclear power in use but with the caveats of not civilian controlled and that proper waste disposal procedures not only be in place but be used.
I doubt that this poll will mean much, because this board is both much more liberal and more technophilic than the population as a whole. So it’s no surprise that the two left/pro options are in the lead, but it doesn’t mean anything for the bulk of liberals or pro-nuclears.
Left-leaning centrist, former Navy Nuke and former commercial nuclear power plant Systems Engineer. I think the cost and safety of nuclear are very significant, but can be managed/regulated. I do not, however, support commercial nuclear power due to the waste issue. As control-z stated “There is a nuclear plant near me and no waste from it has ever left the site, it’s stored in big casks for future generations to deal with.” I would expand on that statement to: There are many nuclear plants (>100) in the USA and no waste has EVER left ANY these sites (that I am aware of). Commercial nuclear power has been going for 50-60 years and we still don’t have a plan where to put the high level waste.
I don’t think that full-scale switching to nuclear power to save the environment is a good idea either. I’m not certain it would actually work and, once we move to nuclear, I believe it would be a tough sell to shift to other technologies.
Lefty here, used to support nuclear power before the Chernobyl and Japan disasters. Now I think other alternatives, and especially solar, are a far better investment.
By the time a single nuke plant could be proposed, designed, licensed and built you could build many times the output using safer methods and probably for less cost.
It’s largely moot in the US at this point without assuming big changes in policy. One of two projects for new nuke plants just cancelled for massive cost overruns and bankruptcy of the designer (Toshiba/Westinghouse), other project is even money to follow suit.
The practical question would be whether people favor the much larger subsidies it would require for nuclear to compete in the environment otherwise. Or whether it’s taken for granted the US should have much stricter anti-carbon policies which would give nuclear any chance without much bigger direct subsidies. But without that and given a) the fracking revolution and b) the long hiatus on nuclear development and production, and corresponding skills deficit which is a big part of the Toshiba/Westinghour fiasco, nuclear plants make no sense economically compared to gas fired gas turbine combined cycle plants for the main base load
There could be a side debate about gas plants v solar/wind, where it’s one thing when solar and wind are some small % of generating capacity, another kettle of fish to try to boost that beyond about 1/4* or something. That requires lots more investment in energy storage or long rang transmission which isn’t free. Happy talk about solar/wind getting close to nat gas in cost is without counting the extra costs required for the renewables had to support the base load all the time. Nuclear and gas are more interchangeable as full time baseload sources. But it’s gas no contest right now without big new subsidies for nuclear.
*on average all the time. Another happy talk theme is how certain weather conditioned have resulted in some European countries recently getting almost all their electricity from windmills, for a few days while those conditions hold, but a lot of the rest of the time a lot of fossil generation is still required, and especially when certain weather conditions (stable fronts, cloudy not windy) pretty much sideline the renewables. And if the fossil plants are sometimes required, they have to replaced eventually, which isn’t free, neither is a big new super grid to always get power from where weather conditions are favorable. It’s not anti renewable, just anti renewaable-unrealism.
The fact that political NIMBYs handcuff the transportation and longterm storage of the waste does not mean that it is undoable. The risks from existing storage methods are (IMO) grossly exaggerated.
Waste could be hugely reduced with recycling, which only makes economic sense with centralized facilities - which requires transportation.
Very liberal. I’d love for nuclear power to be safer. Were I president, I would offer a billion dollars to anyone who could solve the spent fuel disposal problem.