Nuclear energy is like commercial aviation. Most people are more afraid of flying in an airliner than riding in a car, even though, statistically, flying is far safer.
Restricting it to global warming is a red herring. Besides, liberals make up for it by being pro-science on other climate changing technologies. Wind & solar power, less drilling and burning of fossil fuels all create a net benefit to liberal beliefs.
On the other hand, the whole “intelligent design” thing is a symptom of a much larger, anti-science contingent within conservatism that has stymied progress on global warming for decades.
So to answer the question, specifically the anti-nukes have a greater affect on global warming than the ID people, but overall, the anti-nuke people are doing much more to stop global warming than the ID people.
Liberals and conservatives both enjoy fearmongering; albeit different kinds.
Liberals: “Abortion is going to be banned. Gays won’t be allowed to marry. The 1% will become even richer at everyone else’s expense. Nuclear reactors will melt down and poison the land. The ecosystem will be ruined. Etc., etc.”
Conservatives:* “Gun ownership will be banned. Illegal immigrants will overrun America. Taxes will go sky-high. America will become Communist. Etc., etc”*
I’m unaware of the ‘legitimate’ science-based anti-nuclear arguments.
Where to bury nuclear waste may well be part of anti-science, but it’s more of a classic NIMBY problem. That’s why your examples are politicians from Nevada, and not the other dozens of Democratic leaders, quite unlike global warming. If the only climate change skeptics were from coal states, that would be one thing–anti-science rhetoric used to cover legitimate concerns about local economic impact. But that’s not the case.
Also worth noting that development of Yucca doesn’t really affect nuclear power adoption in the US. It just means the HLW is kept on-site most places. It’s not much more expensive.
And incorrect to label Al Gore as anti-nuclear. He likes nuclear just fine, but thinks the economics mean that it won’t be a big part of the solution.
No, but it’s far riskier in both the natural and man-made disaster senses (the latter referring some kind of terrorist act.) And sure, it’s just NIMBYism, but the anti-Yucca Democrats are trying to refute the science the same way Republicans try to refute climate science. If you’re willing to ignore the scientific consensus, your intentions are kind of irrelevant.
Having said all that, I’m slightly sympathetic to Nevadans when it comes to nuclear NIMBYism. I mean, it wasn’t that long ago we were testing warheads in their backyards.
My point was rebutting the notion that anti-Yucca sentiment is affecting US adoption of nuclear power. It isn’t.
Yucca is a good solution to long-term storage of waste. But that problem isn’t holding back nuclear power.
I’m also not entirely persuaded that anti-Yucca rhetoric has tried to refute science in the way that the Republicans have Inhofe blaming God for climate change.
Anti-nuclear sentiment from Democrats like Reid is affecting US adoption of nuclear power. The abandonment of Yucca Mountain is a symptom of this.
I don’t see how one can reasonably deny that forcing the abandonment of a good, long-term solution to one of the issues with nuclear power is affecting US adoption of nuclear power. It clearly is, and is meant to.
Regards,
Shodan
Well, then I’m glad to educate you.
The waste issue is a long-term problem for the industry, but it isn’t what has held back development for the last 30 years, nor is it an important factor in the short-term. Not many reactors were built for decades, a dry spell starting well before Yucca was ever considered. And notwithstanding Yucca being obviously moribund for a decade, there are now over a dozen new reactors in development for the first time in decades. The reason development has been disconnected from Yucca is that nuclear is all about the economics of new facilities, and whether waste is stored on-site or shipped to Yucca is a very small part of that analysis.
Gas prices and subsidies to other renewables are the principal factors in the amount of nuclear that gets deployed. Nobody in the industry talks about waste as holding back development in the near-term. To the extent they talk about government policy being a problem, it is on the site development side having to do with ensuring high levels of plant safety. That’s arguably more of a PR problem, owing partly to the Left, but it’s not exactly anti-science. Chernobyl and TMI (not to mention Fukushima) were real things, even if rational people would be more concerned about deaths from coal pollution and climate change than the meltdown of a US plant.
IWMU that the reason we hadn’t been building new reactors partly because no builder could show the EPA that they had a long term storage solution.
News to me. And if that were true, it is hard to see how dozens of plants have been approved in the last couple of years, since the storage picture has only gotten worse in that time.
Not to engage in namecalling. But why is it that more and more “thinking like a conservative” seems like “thinking like a stupid asshole”?
By “stupid” I mean specifically:
- Willful denial of overwhelming scientific evidence
- General anti-intellectualism
- Intractability (although I suppose both sides are guilty of that)
- Over-emphasis on religion
- Lack of knowledge of or sensitivity to other cultures
- General lack of nuanced thought
…and by “asshole” I means specifically:
- Lack of empathy for the less fortunately or those who are different.
- Propensity to go to war at the drop of a hat
- General hostility and xenophobia (if not outright racism)
- Defensiveness (everything is an “attack” or “war” on their way of life)
- Just angry. All the time. Like why are they constantly yelling and screaming on Fox News?
Then again, when I think of Liberals, I think of smelly, bongo-banging Occupy Wall Street types. So really I can’t decide which “America” I hate more.
I thought IWMU was “I will miss you” – that doesn’t fit.
It can also mean Integrated Water Management Unit, so maybe that was it. 
The PR problem, as you refer to it, is purely and absolutely a Left wing issue and it is absolutely anti-science. Yes, TMI*, Chernobyl and Fukushima happened. Yet if you look at straightforward numbers on safety, nuclear is still safer than WIND per kilowatt hour. Including those three accidents. Given that the new reactor designs make accidents like TMI*, Chernobyl and Fukushima impossible. It is insanely stupid not to be using nuclear power, especially if you buy the 'were all gonna die ‘cause of AGW’ bit.
Note, in 2012 the first new license for a nuclear plant in the U.S. was issued. After 30 years. This wasn’t just because of investment issues.
Link.
To get a license, the company must go to the NRC. The initial COL (Combined Construction and Operating License) takes two years or so. The review by the NRC takes another three. During the review period, the NRC opens up the process to public hearings on COL related issues. This is where things generally go south. The anti-nuc folks use the review period and lawsuits to stop the plants from being built. This drives up costs by a large amount. The companies know that getting a new plant ok’ed is at a minimum 7 years of paper work and a lot of investment for a result that isn’t clear.
And the Yucca Mountain issue is pure politics**.
It also insures that the oldest, least safe and most expensive to run, plants keep on running.
Had the U.S. taken a rational approach to nuclear 30 years ago, we’d have a heck of a lot more new, safer plants in place. But instead of that, nuclear was basically halted, old plants were allowed keep on running (because we can’t replace the capacity and therefore need the plants) and new technology has been sitting idle.
Slee
- There may be two or three people alive who know as much about the TMI accident as my father does. He ran a nuclear reactor safety division for ~25 years and the V.P. called my house asking for him when TMI occurred. (yes, Mondale called my house, I answered the phone)
** I grew up around the guys who designed the Yucca Mountain repository.
I don’t think any of that contradicts what I said.
There are different kinds of anti-science. Fearing shark attacks so much that you don’t go for a swim is anti-science in some sense, but it is fundamentally different from believing the sharks can reach you wherever you go! Nuke opposition very often falls into the “fear of swimming” category and more rarely into the “air sharks” category. By contrast, the guy the Republicans picked to represent them in the foremost legislative position on science is firmly in the air sharks camp.
Are there any actual people who you don’t hate? Because if you do, and if they live in America, there’s a good chance (although not a certainty) that they’re either “conservative” or “liberal”. If you reduce both sides to caricatures, the fault may lay with you.
Anyhow, with regards to this thread overall, I agree that the OP is pretty dumb. There may be some differences between how modern conservatives and liberals think. That’s a legitimately interesting topic. But “I’m certain that the things I think are correct and I’m pretty sure everyone really agrees” certainly shows up on both sides.
Bongo-banging? They’re, like, beatnik caricatures from an old Mad magazine?
It Was My Understanding. Sorry for any confusion.
I wish they were unrelated but there is so much overlapping with Creationists and Climate Change deniers that the guys fighting the good fight at The National Center for Science Education (NCSE), that started just defending academia against creationists, had to add also Climate Change denialism to their case load.
This is because they noticed that the climate change deniers use the same tactics, use many of the same scientists that broke bad for creationism before, use the same politicians that try to undermine education and did also notice that the climate change deniers have many of the same sources of funding as the creationists have.