Bernie being anti Nuke is somewhat unfortunate but his base is somewhat fanatical and irrational on this issue. I’ve tried educating environmental activists that new generation nuclear power is a good solution to global warming, you get shouted down and accused of being a shill, they don’t want to listen.
I’d like to think that Bernie is pragmatic enough that once he was in power he would be more open to exploring the idea. He’s gotta say he’s against it to get the environmentalists support.
Saying that Sanders is against nuclear power sure makes him sound rigid and out of touch. I can see why those who oppose him would say it that way.
Show me someone who opposes nuclear energy because it is scary, and I’ll show you someone who doesn’t belong in a position of authority. Show me someone who would move cautiously with regard to nuclear energy because there are alternatives, and because meltdowns obviously happen, and because- hey what about that waste anyway, and I’ll show you an open minded, pragmatic thinker.
Who in this race is for nuclear power, anyway? Is any Dem or Pub running on a “let’s build more plants” platform? I don’t recall hearing the issue come up once.
I agree with you, but I’d also like to point out the username/post combo. 
I think Hillary will probably be like Obama on nuclear power–he has come out in favor of more nuclear plants, but then done nothing really substantive to make that happen. I think most of the Republican candidates will fall in the same behavior patterns. If Bernie is genuinely ideologically anti-nuclear he could easily prevent any new plants from coming online through regulatory powers. But if it’s just a vague talking point he isn’t too invested in he may take an essentially neutral stance–he won’t promote it as President, but if plants are being built he won’t outright block them either through the regulatory bodies. But nuclear is so expensive and problematic to get online that without strong political support it’s just not likely that many new nuclear plants will come online.
Bolding mine.
Yeah. As hard as it is to type using two thumbs, imagine how hard it is to type with a beak.
It’s in the OP. He wants a moratorium on licence renewal (which will eventually shut down existing plants). His site says NP is “not worth the risks of the technology’s benefit”. Outside of foaming at the mouth how much more anti-nuke could he be?
Well he may have a point. Solar is already cheaper than Nuclear, the main problem is storage. Battery tech is making huge progress and if we can solve the storage problem in the next 20 years (by each house buying their own battery system like the one Tesla is selling already) then we can replace coal with Wind, Solar, Geothermal and Hydro.
Also India and China are both forging ahead with new generation nuclear plants, and France shows no sign of closing theirs and is building new ones. The US shutting down some of its Nuke plants won’t slow the advance of the tech elsewhere.
There are very few scientists and people in the industry who believe that solar and wind power can scale to meet the energy demands now, let alone the future. As I understand it, Germany has increased its carbon footprint despite going full-bore into wind/solar. If we really care about AGW then the only current solution that can cut carbon emissions to near zero must include nuclear power.
For all the hot air we blow out on how much conservatives don’t do squat for the environment (myself included) I’m surprised that so many Dopers support Sanders despite his antipathy towards NP.
Yes sure, but China is going full bore ahead with a ton of new nuclear reactors and they’ll be exporting them once its proven. The US falling behind on this won’t change the global position by much.
So if a Republican says not to worry about AGW because China is going full-bore on nuclear power you’ll be ok with that?
I’m sorry, I just don’t agree. If we think AGW is important we can’t let the politicians slide on this.
Sanders is not an AGW denier, which all the republicans are. Hillary Clinton supported Nuclear power in 2008 but it seems as though she’s back pedalled from that and is now emphasising renewables.
Given a choice between a pro-nuclear AGW denier and an anti-nuclear politician who thinks climate change is a real problem I’ll take the second option anytime.
I feel like Sanders is receptive enough towards evidence-based policy that he’d soften his position on nuclear over time. On the other hand, it certainly wouldn’t be a bad thing to make sure there’s sufficient oversight of the nuclear industry.
I’m in favor of nuclear energy, very strongly in favor of nuclear energy-Donald Trump
“I think nuclear power has to be part of our energy solution… We get about 20% of our energy from nuclear power in our country… other countries like France get much much more, so we do have to look at it because it doesn’t put greenhouse gas emissions into the air.” Hillary Clinton (she becomes “agnostic” on nuke power during Dem debates, though, focusing on risks)
Safe and continuously reliable sources of food and energy are essential to maintaining and increasing the quality of life of people. If people have democracy, they will vote for electricity. Bernie appears to be the only one pandering to the anti-science, conspiracy-memedriven anti-nuclear and anti-GMO movements, which are among the biggest factors slowing and stalling the progression of technological improvements to people’s lives.
True, but he’s a nuclear power “denier” which leads to the same problem: too much CO2.
I am wholly pragmatic on this issue. I’d rather have an anti-science Republican who pushes for more nuclear power plants than an anti-science Democrat who shuts them down. In the long term the Republican will do more for the environment than the Democrat.
Sanders’ anti-nuke stance will lead to more CO2. That is non-debatable. The only question is whether a pro-nuke Republican can push hard enough to get more plants on-line to overcome his denial of AGW.
I think you’re overestimating their influence. The evolution-deniers have got to be a bigger factor because of their numbers and zeal; likewise the AGW-deniers, because of their money and connections.
Nuclear power requires a lot of public investment, and is more expensive in dollar terms than gas or coal. That doesn’t sound like something the GOP I know are going to push for.
Sanders not relicensing existing plants does worry me a little. But the GOP giving up on nukes and deciding that we just need more coal is going to be worse.
I’m generally in favour of nuclear power but there is two very real problems with it. First, even supporters of Nuclear power don’t want a nuclear plant anywhere near their home. Second, NO ONE wants a nuclear waste dump anywhere at all. Yucca mountain got canned for this reason, local opposition. Currently spent nuclear fuel rods sit onsite in containment pools because there is no where to take them to. That solution doesn’t work long term.
Also, decommissioning costs are HUGE for nuclear plants and that cost is not usually figured into price comparisons when comparing the cost of nuclear to other options.
The US is not an authoritarian country (yet) which can just decree that plants and waste dumps will be built where ever they want. Local opposition (even if its ignorant) is going to make it very hard to open new plants no matter who wins in November.
I don’t want a coal-fired power plant anywhere near my home. We still have those. I’d rather live in the general vicinity of nuclear plant than a coal plant.
No, YM was scrapped due to pressure on Obama by the left. GWB, for all his faults, was moving YM forward which is a perfectly reasonable, well-studied location for nuclear waste. It certainly better than our current solution of dumping waste (like CO2) into the air that we breathe.
Pardon me for saying it, but this sounds a lot like Republican excuses for why we can’t do anything about AGW. We’re not an authoritarian country but we have no problem electing a president who wants to tax some people at 90% of their income. How is that any less authoritarian than Yucca Mountain? (YM is Federally owned).
You’re willing to acquiesce to local, ignorant opposition to nuclear power but you’re willing to fight for AGW. Why not fight ignorance in both cases? Especially since nuclear ignorance hurts us just as much, if not more, than ignorance of AGW.
It’s frustrating: conservatives are stupid about AGW and liberals are stupid about nuclear power. This makes it much less likely that we’ll ever have a viable solution.
Yes but do a poll on this and I bet 90 percent of people would choose the coal plant rather than the nuke plant. Fukushima really did mess up the chances for the nuclear industry for the next 10 years or so. The Japanese are incredibly anal and its a modern very safe and very well organised country, their trains are renowned for being ontime to within 30 seconds. The narrative is that if even the Japanese can’t do nuclear safely then what hope do the rest of us have?
Yes the reality is that Fukushima No 4 was an incredibly bad design with emergency generators placed where they were vulnerable to flooding. But thats the reality, contractors cut corners and do dumb things and the costs of a failure of nuclear are much much much higher than the costs of failure of any other source (except a hydro dam I guess).
The estimated cost for cleaning up Fukushima is over $105 billion and they still have no idea on how they are actually going to decommission No 4.
https://www.rt.com/news/183052-japan-fukushima-costs-study/
“According to the researchers, the figure (11.08 trillion yen) does not include costs for the final disposal of radioactive substances, compensation and plant decommissioning.” So in other words they have no idea how much it will cost in total!