What anti-nuclear power groups in the US have any political power?

[XT]

Not sure if anyone posted this already, but here is a list of anti-nuclear groups that have operated in the US:

More than 80 anti-nuclear groups are operating, or have operated, in the United States.[1] These include Abalone Alliance, Clamshell Alliance, Greenpeace USA, Institute for Energy and Environmental Research, Musicians United for Safe Energy, Nevada Desert Experience, Nuclear Control Institute, Nuclear Information and Resource Service, Public Citizen Energy Program, Shad Alliance, and the Sierra Club. These are direct action, environmental, health, and public interest organizations who oppose nuclear weapons and/or nuclear power. In 1992, the chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission said that “his agency had been pushed in the right direction on safety issues because of the pleas and protests of nuclear watchdog groups”.[2]

Some of the most influential groups in the anti-nuclear movement have had members who included Nobel Laureates (e.g., Linus Pauling and Hermann Joseph Muller). These scientists have belonged primarily to two groups: the Federation of American Scientists, and the Committee for Nuclear Responsibility.[3]

Specific groups
Groups include:

Abalone Alliance[4]
Alliance for Nuclear Accountability[5]
Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility[6][7][8]
Arms Control Association.[9][10]
Beyond Nuclear
Cactus Alliance (Utah)[11]
Catfish Alliance (Alabama)[11]
Citizen’s Committee for Protection of the Environment[12]
Citizens Energy Council
Clamshell Alliance[13]
Coalition Against Nukes[14]
Coalition for Nuclear Power Postponement
Committee for a Nuclear Free Island
Committee for a Nuclear Overkill Moratorium[15]
Committee for Nuclear Responsibility[16][17]
Concerned Citizens Against the Bailly Nuclear Site
Corporate Accountability International[18]
Council for a Livable World[19]
Crabshell Alliance (Seattle)[11]
Critical Mass[20][21][22]
Don’t Make a Wave Committee
Economists for Peace and Security[23][24][25]
Environmental Coalition on Nuclear Power[12]
Federation of American Scientists[18]
Friends of the Earth[26][27]
Greenpeace[28]
Heart of America Northwest[18]
Institute for Energy and Environmental Research[29][30]
Lawyers’ Committee on Nuclear Policy
Maryland Public Interest Research Group[31]
Mothers for Peace[32][33][34]
Musicians United for Safe Energy[35][36][37]
Nevada Desert Experience[38]
New England Coalition[39][40][41][42][43]
North Anna Environmental Coalition[12]
Nuclear Age Peace Foundation[44]
Nuclear Control Institute[45]
Nuclear Disarmament Partnership[18]
Nuclear Energy Information Service[46]
Nuclear Energy Information Service of Chicago (NEIS)
Nuclear Information and Resource Service[47]
Nuclear Policy Research Institute[18]
Nuclear Threat Initiative[18]
Nuclear Watch of New Mexico[18]
Nuclear Watch South[18]
Oystershell Alliance (New Orleans)[11]
Palmetto Alliance (South Carolina)[11]
Peace Action[48]
People’s Alliance for Clean Energy
Physicians for Social Responsibility[49][50]
Pilgrim Watch[51]
Plowshares Movement[52]
Proposition One Campaign for a Nuclear-Free Future[53]
Public Citizen[54][55]
Red Clover Alliance (Vermont)[11]
Riverkeeper[56]
Rocky Flats Truth Force[57]
Seneca Women’s Encampment for a Future of Peace and Justice[18]
Shad Alliance[58][59]
Shundahai Network[18]
Sierra Club[60][61][62]
Southern Alliance for Clean Energy[63][64]
Tri-Valley CARE[18]
Two Futures Project[65]
Western States Legal Foundation[66]
White House Peace Vigil[67]
Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control[68]
Women Strike for Peace[69][70]
Women’s International League for Peace & Freedom, US Section[71]

As for whether they have political power or not in the US, I’m going to go with the plain fact that our nuclear industry is dying and has been so for decades now, that it’s practically impossible to build new nuclear plants today and that this doesn’t look to be changing anytime soon and that in the aggregate, the above groups have pretty much been able to achieve their goals of no new nuclear plants an, in many cases, getting rid of older plants before their time. In addition, they have been able to block any sort of consolidated nuclear waste storage facility. I’d say that, given those things, that demonstrates some level of political power within the US. [Alliance for Nuclear Accountability[5] Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility[6][7][8] Arms Control Association.[9][10] Beyond Nuclear Cactus Alliance (Utah)[11] Catfish Alliance (Alabama)[11] Citizen’s Committee for Protection of the Environment[12] Citizens Energy Council Clamshell Alliance[13] Coalition Against Nukes[14] Coalition for Nuclear Power Postponement Committee for a Nuclear Free Island Committee for a Nuclear Overkill Moratorium[15] Committee for Nuclear Responsibility[16][17] Concerned Citizens Against the Bailly Nuclear Site Corporate Accountability International[18] Council for a Livable World[19] Crabshell Alliance (Seattle)[11] Critical Mass[20][21][22] Don’t Make a Wave Committee Economists for Peace and Security[23][24][25] Environmental Coalition on Nuclear Power[12] Federation of American Scientists[18] Friends of the Earth[26][27] Greenpeace[28] Heart of America Northwest[18] Institute for Energy and Environmental Research[29][30] Lawyers’ Committee on Nuclear Policy Maryland Public Interest Research Group[31] Mothers for Peace[32][33][34] Musicians United for Safe Energy[35][36][37] Nevada Desert Experience[38] New England Coalition[39][40][41][42][43] North Anna Environmental Coalition[12] Nuclear Age Peace Foundation[44] Nuclear Control Institute[45] Nuclear Disarmament Partnership[18] Nuclear Energy Information Service[46] Nuclear Energy Information Service of Chicago (NEIS) Nuclear Information and Resource Service[47] Nuclear Policy Research Institute[18] Nuclear Threat Initiative[18] Nuclear Watch of New Mexico[18] Nuclear Watch South[18] Oystershell Alliance (New Orleans)[11] Palmetto Alliance (South Carolina)[11] Peace Action[48] People’s Alliance for Clean Energy Physicians for Social Responsibility[49][50] Pilgrim Watch[51] Plowshares Movement[52] Proposition One Campaign for a Nuclear-Free Future[53] Public Citizen[54][55] Red Clover Alliance (Vermont)[11] Riverkeeper[56] Rocky Flats Truth Force[57] Seneca Women’s Encampment for a Future of Peace and Justice[18] Shad Alliance[58][59] Shundahai Network[18] Sierra Club[60][61][62] Southern Alliance for Clean Energy[63][64] Tri-Valley CARE[18] Two Futures Project[65] Western States Legal Foundation[66] White House Peace Vigil[67] Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control[68] Women Strike for Peace[69][70] Women’s International League for Peace & Freedom, US Section[71]"]Here](Specific groups Groups include: Abalone Alliance[4) is another Wiki on anti-nuclear organizations, though this one includes groups outside of the US.

[XT]

I’m sure Forbes is not considered a reasonable source, but I’m going to link to this article as well. While this isn’t indicative of all Progressives, it does show that quite a number of Progressives (not just in the US) are opposed to nuclear energy. My guess is that some non-zero number of them belong to one or more of the groups listed on Wiki:

If Progressive Democrats Care So Much About The Climate, Why Are They Trying to Kill Nuclear Power?

Since taking office earlier this month, Congressperson Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-New York) has captured the public imagination with her proposal for a “Green New Deal” to create millions of good jobs while accelerating the transition to clean energy.

Now, a debate has broken out among environmentalists and Democrats over whether a Green New Deal will include or exclude nuclear energy.

Ocasio-Cortez, 29, says “It’s not something that we’ve just ruled out” while her colleague and Green New Deal supporter, Chellie Pingree, 63, (D-Maine), says “I think on nuclear energy, we all have a general resistance to it,” and pointed to the 2011 accident in Fukushima, Japan, and nuclear waste.
Pingree is not alone. Progressive heavyweights like Sen. Bernie Sanders, 77, (I-VT) and Sen. Ed Markey, 72, (D-MA), are vehemently anti-nuclear and have supported closing nuclear plants in their home states.

They are backed by Democratic mega-donors like Tom Steyer, 61, who made his fortune investing in coal, natural gas, and renewables, and financed a failed effort to close a large nuclear plant in Arizona.

Indeed, from Illinois and New York to South Korea and Taiwan to France and Germany, progressive politicians ostensibly committed to aggressive action on climate change have sought to shut down nuclear plants, which would be replaced almost entirely by fossil fuels.

Why, then, are Democratic members of Congress like Rep. Pingree, who support a Green New Deal, squeamish about nuclear energy? And why does it seem like Baby Boomers are so much more anxious than Millennials like Ocasio-Cortez?

Was it the 1979 accident at Three Mile Island that turned liberal Baby Boomers against nuclear energy? That’s the oft-repeated story — and it’s wrong. The New Left, environmentalists, and Baby Boom liberals started turning against nuclear energy in the early 1960s.

Various reasons were given but the underlying fear was the association with nuclear weapons.

Frustrated by their inability to ban the bomb, progressives displaced their anxieties onto nuclear power plants, and sought to halt their construction in the 1970s and 1980s.

In the 1970s, Amory Lovins and other environmentalists called for a “soft energy path” focused on radical reductions in energy consumption, renewable energies, and the decentralized use of fossil fuels, particularly coal, in order to move away from nuclear energy.

Lovins in 1976 claimed that the “unilateral adoption of a soft energy path by the United States can go a long way to control nuclear proliferation-perhaps to eliminate it entirely… the genie is not wholly out of the bottle yet — thousands of [nuclear] reactors are planned for a few decades hence, tens of thousands thereafter-and the cork sits unnoticed in our hands.”

The anti-nuclear movement was hugely successful. It managed to kill or get cancelled half of the nuclear plants that utilities had planned to build. In their place, utilities built coal plants.

The anxiety created by nuclear weapons didn’t go away but died down with the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991. What emerged in its place was fear of climate change — a problem for which progressives already had an answer: radical reductions in energy consumption, renewables and the decentralized use of fossil fuels, particularly natural gas.

Over the next two decades, progressive love for renewables grew as strong as progressive hatred of nuclear. The goal for Baby Boomers traumatized by the Bomb was nothing less than healing humankind’s relationship with Nature.

In the same way that grocery shoppers believed products marketed as “natural” were healthier than other products, progressive Democrats came to believe that products marketed as “renewable” were better for the environment.

That turned out to be horrifyingly wrong. Solar farms require 450 times more land and nine times more materials (and thus mining and waste) as nuclear plants. Wind turbines may make a bat species go extinct and are a grave threat to migratory and raptor bird species.

But, backed by fossil-renewable energy investors like Tom Steyer, and Wall Street tycoons that stand to profit from complex carbon trading schemes, environmental groups like NRDC and EDF work with Democratic politicians like Bernie Sanders to a fossil-renewables fuel mix to replace nuclear plants.

Given who’s paying for those efforts, it’s not surprising that the spread of solar and wind is locking-in fossil fuels and raising electricity prices, which has made dealing with climate change harder, not easier.

Just quoting the parts related to (some) Progressives, as the majority of the article goes into why it’s so stupid for us to not be pushing for nuclear energy. But you have to understand WHY many Progressives are opposed to nuclear energy, IMHO, and why their fear is probably driving them to do the things they have and will continue to do…just like other fears drive Conservatives to do some of the stuff they do.

[GIGObuster]

@Shodan

As mentioned, this is why we aren’t going to do much about AGW. The poster quoted above claims to oppose Bernie Sanders’ position on nuclear energy, but replacing a nuclear power plant that emits no GHG with a natural gas plant that does, emissions go up, and :crickets:
And it’s all the Republicans’ fault.

Regards,
Shodan

News to me that energy producers that prefer fossil fuels and closes nuclear plants are likely to be democrats…

[Shodan]

@XT

Not sure if anyone posted this already, but here is a list of anti-nuclear groups that have operated in the US:

As for whether they have political power or not in the US, I’m going to go with the plain fact that our nuclear industry is dying and has been so for decades now, that it’s practically impossible to build new nuclear plants today and that this doesn’t look to be changing anytime soon and that in the aggregate, the above groups have pretty much been able to achieve their goals of no new nuclear plants an, in many cases, getting rid of older plants before their time. In addition, they have been able to block any sort of consolidated nuclear waste storage facility. I’d say that, given those things, that demonstrates some level of political power within the US. [Alliance for Nuclear Accountability[5] Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility[6][7][8] Arms Control Association.[9][10] Beyond Nuclear Cactus Alliance (Utah)[11] Catfish Alliance (Alabama)[11] Citizen’s Committee for Protection of the Environment[12] Citizens Energy Council Clamshell Alliance[13] Coalition Against Nukes[14] Coalition for Nuclear Power Postponement Committee for a Nuclear Free Island Committee for a Nuclear Overkill Moratorium[15] Committee for Nuclear Responsibility[16][17] Concerned Citizens Against the Bailly Nuclear Site Corporate Accountability International[18] Council for a Livable World[19] Crabshell Alliance (Seattle)[11] Critical Mass[20][21][22] Don’t Make a Wave Committee Economists for Peace and Security[23][24][25] Environmental Coalition on Nuclear Power[12] Federation of American Scientists[18] Friends of the Earth[26][27] Greenpeace[28] Heart of America Northwest[18] Institute for Energy and Environmental Research[29][30] Lawyers’ Committee on Nuclear Policy Maryland Public Interest Research Group[31] Mothers for Peace[32][33][34] Musicians United for Safe Energy[35][36][37] Nevada Desert Experience[38] New England Coalition[39][40][41][42][43] North Anna Environmental Coalition[12] Nuclear Age Peace Foundation[44] Nuclear Control Institute[45] Nuclear Disarmament Partnership[18] Nuclear Energy Information Service[46] Nuclear Energy Information Service of Chicago (NEIS) Nuclear Information and Resource Service[47] Nuclear Policy Research Institute[18] Nuclear Threat Initiative[18] Nuclear Watch of New Mexico[18] Nuclear Watch South[18] Oystershell Alliance (New Orleans)[11] Palmetto Alliance (South Carolina)[11] Peace Action[48] People’s Alliance for Clean Energy Physicians for Social Responsibility[49][50] Pilgrim Watch[51] Plowshares Movement[52] Proposition One Campaign for a Nuclear-Free Future[53] Public Citizen[54][55] Red Clover Alliance (Vermont)[11] Riverkeeper[56] Rocky Flats Truth Force[57] Seneca Women’s Encampment for a Future of Peace and Justice[18] Shad Alliance[58][59] Shundahai Network[18] Sierra Club[60][61][62] Southern Alliance for Clean Energy[63][64] Tri-Valley CARE[18] Two Futures Project[65] Western States Legal Foundation[66] White House Peace Vigil[67] Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control[68] Women Strike for Peace[69][70] Women’s International League for Peace & Freedom, US Section[71]"]Here](Specific groups Groups include: Abalone Alliance[4) is another Wiki on anti-nuclear organizations, though this one includes groups outside of the US.

The idea that anti-nuclear groups don’t have any power strikes me as a “give me a cite that the sky is blue” kind of argument. For heaven’s sake, Bernie Sanders is the current front-runner for the Democratic nomination. See also AOC/GND, Harry Reid, the Sierra Club, etc., etc. Come on now.

@RitterSport

Resistance by politicians (mostly Republicans, I think) to properly pricing the effect of CO2 on the environment. For years (and continuing), they have denied or minimized the existence and dangers of climate change, so nuclear power seems less competitive that it should compared to CO2 emitting energy like natural gas. Some of this is due to the powerful coal and petroleum lobbies. The unintended consequence of climate change denial is that nuclear power may end up unable to compete with “cheaper” carbon-intensive energy.

Bit of a stretch, ISTM. You aren’t saying Republicans are to blame, but it’'s mostly them. Hm.

Which are the groups who oppose nuclear energy, who would support it if there were a carbon tax?

Regards,
Shodan

[RitterSport]

@Shodan

The idea that anti-nuclear groups don’t have any power strikes me as a “give me a cite that the sky is blue” kind of argument. For heaven’s sake, Bernie Sanders is the current front-runner for the Democratic nomination. See also AOC/GND, Harry Reid, the Sierra Club, etc., etc. Come on now. Bit of a stretch, ISTM. You aren’t saying Republicans are to blame, but it’'s mostly them. Hm.

Which are the groups who oppose nuclear energy, who would support it if there were a carbon tax?

Regards,
Shodan

This will be the last time I engage with you in this thread, first because I specifically said it wasn’t mainly the Republicans and, second because you have yet to provide any cites. I’m not interested in a cite-free rant fest.

President Obama was the actual president of the United States and issued a statement specifically in favor of nuclear power. I think that’s more relevant than Sanders, AOC (a freshman representative vs. the president…hmmm), and the Sierra Club. As I mentioned, all of these supposedly powerful environmental groups have been unsuccessful in stopping all kinds of negative environmental regulations and executive orders. I’ve provided examples, you’ve provided “give me a break”. Even if they did have power here, they obviously don’t in China or Russia.

My point was not saying that anti-nuke groups would support it if there were a carbon tax, and I have no idea how you would get that from my post. I said that anti-carbon tax groups are making nuclear power less competitive compared to carbon intensive energy sources. You’re reading what you want to believe I’ve said, which is another reason I’m done engaging with you here.

XT, I agree that some progressive Democrats are being idiotic here. I’ve mentioned a few that are pro-nuclear as well – Obama, Pinker, Krugman. I can find more if you’d like. The bill that passed the House and Senate was co-sponsored by Cory Booker and Dick Durbin, for example.

Your list is useless unless you can show that they really have some political pull. Which of these is most powerful: Catfish Alliance, Clamshell Alliance, Abalone Alliance or Musicians United for Safe Energy (MUSE, get it?). The ones you mention that have Nobel Laureates – so what? How much money do they give to politicians? (Genuine question)

Not being able to build new plants does not explain why the Vermont one closed. That one was presumably compliant already, but couldn’t compete with natural gas.

Couldn’t it simply be the case that, since there is no monetary cost to dumping carbon, nuclear power simply can’t compete with these cheaper alternatives?

[XT]

@RitterSport

This will be the last time I engage with you in this thread, first because I specifically said it wasn’t mainly the Republicans and, second because you have yet to provide any cites. I’m not interested in a cite-free rant fest.

President Obama was the actual president of the United States and issued a statement specifically in favor of nuclear power. I think that’s more relevant than Sanders, AOC (a freshman representative vs. the president…hmmm), and the Sierra Club. As I mentioned, all of these supposedly powerful environmental groups have been unsuccessful in stopping all kinds of negative environmental regulations and executive orders. I’ve provided examples, you’ve provided “give me a break”. Even if they did have power here, they obviously don’t in China or Russia.

My point was not saying that anti-nuke groups would support it if there were a carbon tax, and I have no idea how you would get that from my post. I said that anti-carbon tax groups are making nuclear power less competitive compared to carbon intensive energy sources. You’re reading what you want to believe I’ve said, which is another reason I’m done engaging with you here.

XT, I agree that some progressive Democrats are being idiotic here. I’ve mentioned a few that are pro-nuclear as well – Obama, Pinker, Krugman. I can find more if you’d like. The bill that passed the House and Senate was co-sponsored by Cory Booker and Dick Durbin, for example.

Your list is useless unless you can show that they really have some political pull. Which of these is most powerful: Catfish Alliance, Clamshell Alliance, Abalone Alliance or Musicians United for Safe Energy (MUSE, get it?). The ones you mention that have Nobel Laureates – so what? How much money do they give to politicians? (Genuine question)

Not being able to build new plants does not explain why the Vermont one closed. That one was presumably compliant already, but couldn’t compete with natural gas.

Couldn’t it simply be the case that, since there is no monetary cost to dumping carbon, nuclear power simply can’t compete with these cheaper alternatives?

I don’t know which are the most powerful…or even if any of them, in isolation, are powerful. In the aggregate I’d say that it’s pretty much a fact that they ARE powerful, as any lobby or group that can achieve what they have together would be envious. The fact that some percentage of Democrats, who are powerful, subscribe to similar thinking is probably WHY the aggregate of the groups lists has power in the US…that and the fact that, obviously, a large percentage of the population also subscribes to those beliefs.

[D_Anconia]

@OldGuy

That’s why the Republicans who controlled Congress for the past nine years (until this past January) put in laws help establish Nuclear power plants.

The Republicans have not controlled Congress for the past nine years. They held the House from 2011-2019 (8 years) and the Senate from 2015-present (4+ years).

So four years when they controlled Congress, not nine.

[RitterSport]

@XT

I don’t know which are the most powerful…or even if any of them, in isolation, are powerful. In the aggregate I’d say that it’s pretty much a fact that they ARE powerful, as any lobby or group that can achieve what they have together would be envious. The fact that some percentage of Democrats, who are powerful, subscribe to similar thinking is probably WHY the aggregate of the groups lists has power in the US…that and the fact that, obviously, a large percentage of the population also subscribes to those beliefs.

I disagree that a lot of names on a list means anything. It doesn’t take anything to become a group with a web page and e-mail address.

Are any powerful Democrats anti-nuke? Someone mentioned Harry Reid, but all I can see is that he was against the Yucca Mountain dump, which is really a NIMBY problem, not specifically anti-nuke. Sanders is not a Democrat, although he pretends to be one every four years. I see that Chuck Schumer is worried about cyber attacks on nuclear plants, but I can’t find anything that says he’s against it.

In other words, when come back, please bring cites. Also, explain the slow uptake of nuclear power in Russia and China while you’re at it.

[Shodan]

@GIGObuster

News to me that energy producers that prefer fossil fuels and closes nuclear plants are likely to be democrats…

Bernie Sanders and the greens aren’t energy producers. Unfortunately, the anti-nukes have the same effect as the climate change deniers do, and we wind up with GHG emissions going up.

Regards,
Shodan

[XT]

@RitterSport

I disagree that a lot of names on a list means anything. It doesn’t take anything to become a group with a web page and e-mail address.

Are any powerful Democrats anti-nuke? Someone mentioned Harry Reid, but all I can see is that he was against the Yucca Mountain dump, which is really a NIMBY problem, not specifically anti-nuke. Sanders is not a Democrat, although he pretends to be one every four years. I see that Chuck Schumer is worried about cyber attacks on nuclear plants, but I can’t find anything that says he’s against it.

In other words, when come back, please bring cites. Also, explain the slow uptake of nuclear power in Russia and China while you’re at it.

Naw, that seems silly to me. I think I’ll pass. Just as a point of clarification, since you didn’t seem to track what I was actually saying, a lot of names on a list means nothing…but the AGGREGATE effect is real and measurable. One has but to look around…any new nuclear power plants being built? Are old ones being decommissioned even before their are EOL? Why? Magic? The Market? Maybe a bit on the latter, but the reality is that in the aggregate those groups have had a substantial impact on slowing and halting nuclear power production in the US. Which ones have the most power? Who cares? The reality is the ones that matter are the ones who are players at some level in one of the big parties. The fact that there is a list of Democrats at all levels who support an anti-nuclear stance and probably many Republicans at all levels who support things like expansion of coal is pretty much the real answer as to ‘anti-nuclear groups in the US’ that have political power. Those two groups ARE the power in the US, and if a substantial number in either party support an anti-nuclear stance (or a pro-something else stance to shifts the market to make nuclear untenable) then you get the result we see.

I know you are looking for a gotcha in this. It’s pretty clear you’ve set up your OP to demonstrate that no anti-nuclear group has power or something, even though one has but to look around to see that, yeah, the movement as a whole has substantial power both today and in the past. They have the power to shift public perception to the point where our nuclear power generation percentage is slowly moving downward, and to keep that trend going. Now it’s so expensive and difficult to make a new nuclear power plant, and it’s not a high probability that even jumping through the hoops and paying the price means you will even end up GETTING a working power plant (or keeping it through it’s entire lifecycle to get your ROI) that you can’t build them. THAT is power.

[XT]

ETA: As for China and Russia, well…that’s really a stupid question. Easy answer…neither of those countries give a flying fuck about the West’s anti-nuclear groups and in neither do any of those groups either singly or in the aggregate have any power at all.

[RitterSport]

I looked up the two you listed. The Committee for Nuclear Responsibility has a half page in Wikipedia and I can’t find anything about any contributions.

The other one, Federation of American Scientists seems to be anti-nuclear weapons (more about keeping the public informed about them and keeping everything as transparent as possible), but I can’t find anywhere that they are anti-nuclear power. Can you provide a cite that they are?

You’re missing my point about China and Russia – if green groups have zero influence and nuclear power is such a no-brainer, especially in a low regulatory environment, why did China go so big for coal? Why are they mostly pursuing other greener tech (with, granted, some new nuke plants supposedly coming)? Russia as well – you’d think they’d have no reliance on coal and such if nuclear power, free from regulation and resistance, is such a no-brainer.

[XT]

@RitterSport

I looked up the two you listed. The Committee for Nuclear Responsibility has a half page in Wikipedia and I can’t find anything about any contributions.

The other one, Federation of American Scientists seems to be anti-nuclear weapons (more about keeping the public informed about them and keeping everything as transparent as possible), but I can’t find anywhere that they are anti-nuclear power. Can you provide a cite that they are?

You’re missing my point about China and Russia – if green groups have zero influence and nuclear power is such a no-brainer, especially in a low regulatory environment, why did China go so big for coal? Why are they mostly pursuing other greener tech (with, granted, some new nuke plants supposedly coming)? Russia as well – you’d think they’d have no reliance on coal and such if nuclear power, free from regulation and resistance, is such a no-brainer.

China went big for EVERYTHING. Including Nuclear. They are building more plants in the next 5 years than every other country. Combined. While the US is building one (maybe) new plant. Assuming it ever gets built. And shutting down over 10 in that same time period. So, again, it’s a silly question when you dig in. China is building more of everything because they need more power. So, more coal, more nuclear, more wind and solar, more hydro…more everything.

Russia, on the other hand, is actually shrinking. Their population is shrinking, their needs are shrinking, and, well, they have access to a lot of fossil fuels that they are having a hard time selling since the price point is low. Russia COULD build a ton of nuclear power plants if they wanted too…but they don’t need to, frankly. China IS building a bunch of new ones. So…what else? Most other countries aren’t building the things for specific reasons, many of which are similar to why the US isn’t…because a lot of those organizations are not just in the US, and a lot of that anti-nuclear thinking isn’t either. But some countries are looking into it.

Nuclear isn’t a silver bullet, able to fix everything all the time in every situation. For some countries, they don’t need it. So they don’t build it. For others, politically it isn’t worth the effort if there are alternatives. Frankly, the main alternative is natural gas, which is cheaper and also less risky…you pretty much know if you build one you will get your ROI back, as the plant will be finished and will run for it’s life cycle and your investment will be good. You don’t know that with nuclear.

[GIGObuster]

@XT

Just quoting the parts related to (some) Progressives, as the majority of the article goes into why it’s so stupid for us to not be pushing for nuclear energy. But you have to understand WHY many Progressives are opposed to nuclear energy, IMHO, and why their fear is probably driving them to do the things they have and will continue to do…just like other fears drive Conservatives to do some of the stuff they do.

As pointed before, while it is true that there are groups that are leftist in nature opposed to nuclear power, their influence is not as big as conservatives want to paint them, what it was clear in previous discussions is that there are enough conservatives that do oppose nuclear power, enough that it does sink a lot of progress in this area. If Republican support was as big for nuclear as how much they support the current ignoramus in the white house, then whatever that leftist opposition was would not had mattered. I am ok on telling a lot of progressives that they are wrong on this one, but it is really damming IMHO that the Republicans had control of the House, senate and presidency and very little nuclear results came out of that.

The biggest issue now IMHO is closure of nuclear facilities taking place due to basic economics, economics that thanks to Republican designs are not telling power companies to keep going with nuclear power. And leftists had very little to do with that.

So, one should look then to support the progressives that do see nuclear as an option.

Here's where the 2020 Democratic candidates stand on climate

Like it or not, nuclear energy will likely have to play a role in weaning the United States off of its oil and gas addiction. Any candidate who supports the Green New Deal (five senators and counting) will have a hard time achieving net-zero emissions by 2050 without leaning on nuclear, at least in the short-term.

Regardless of that inconvenient truth, the question on nuclear energy was the most divisive in the survey, according to the Times. Seven out of the 18 were in favor of new nuclear development, including Booker, Inslee, John Hickenlooper, and Amy Klobuchar. Bernie Sanders, one of the earlier proponents of the Green New Deal and the emissions target it centers around, is not in favor of new nuclear. Eight of the candidates either didn’t respond or had “strong reservations.”

“Nuclear energy is not ideal, by any stretch,” said Marianne Williamson, the spiritual healer who famously counseled Oprah Winfrey and is one of those with reservations. “But it is still head and shoulders above coal and natural gas.”

[bobot]

@D_Anconia

The Republicans have not controlled Congress for the past nine years. They held the House from 2011-2019 (8 years) and the Senate from 2015-present (4+ years).

So four years when they controlled Congress, not nine.

And they spent all of that time repealing and replacing Obamacare!

[XT]

@GIGObuster

As pointed before, while it is true that there are groups that are leftist in nature opposed to nuclear power, their influence is not as big as conservatives want to paint them, what it was clear in previous discussions is that there are enough conservatives that do oppose nuclear power, enough that it does sink a lot of progress in this area. If Republican support was as big for nuclear as how much they support the current ignoramus in the white house, then that leftist opposition would not had mattered. I am ok on telling a lot of progressives that they are wrong on this one, but it is really damming IMHO that the Republicans had control of the House, senate and presidency and very little nuclear results came out of that.

The biggest issue now IMHO is closure of nuclear facilities taking place due to basic economics, economics that thanks to Republican designs are not telling power companies to keep going with nuclear power. And leftists had very little to do with that.

So, one should look then to support the progressives that do see nuclear as an option.

Here’s Where the 2020 Democratic Candidates Stand on Climate – Mother Jones

Not sure the point of this post. Do you deny that some Progressives support anti-nuclear agendas? If so, your cite doesn’t demonstrate that. If not, then that’s pretty much what I said. As for Republicans saying…well, anything…I don’t really care. I don’t care if they try and paint Progressives as all being anti-nuclear or paint them all chartreuse, that has nothing to do with my own point and seems a strawman aimed at someone else.

The biggest problem is we aren’t building the things, full stop. The reasons we aren’t building them are complex, but the left wing and Progressives (some of them) have and have had in the past a non-zero impact on why that is, unless you want to demonstrate this isn’t true. Economically, yeah…they aren’t as cost effective. But, again, the reasons for that are complex. Partly, nuclear is just more expensive, especially the initial capital costs. And those capital costs are front loaded. But those capital costs have increased partially due to delays, lawsuits, extra environmental impact studies, protests and a huge amount of red tape and regulation. So, on top of those large front loaded costs, enough of the projects have been stopped (meaning loss of all of that capital) or delays (meaning you have to leverage those costs even longer before you can even start working on your ROI) that nuclear has become unattractive. Certainly, Republicans have also had a non-zero impact on all of this, just from a different perspective.

My post wasn’t to say this is all the Progressives or Democrats or even left wing anti-nuclear groups faults. Many groups are to blame for this. And we have allowed this to spin out of control to the point where nuclear is basically off the table. New designs aren’t feasible…you can’t get them through he process. New plants aren’t feasible either. Economically, politically and from every other perspective, it’s not happening and not going to happen. A big part of the reason for that IS that in the aggregate, anti-nuclear groups, influencing directly or indirectly the big parties, have been wildly successful in their aims of stopping nuclear energy in the US. THAT is power.

[GIGObuster]

@Shodan

Bernie Sanders and the greens aren’t energy producers. Unfortunately, the anti-nukes have the same effect as the climate change deniers do, and we wind up with GHG emissions going up.

Again, you are only avoiding the fact that free enterprise is not delivering the goods on this one. You are also ignoring again that greens or liberals did not close nuclear plants recently, cheaper Natural gas did.

And once again, closures due to private energy companies that did not see government act to add the real price to carbon emissions as it should had been done yesterday.

[GIGObuster]

@XT

Not sure the point of this post. Do you deny that some Progressives support anti-nuclear agendas?

Well, in this case I would have to say that: no, I did not deny it, read it again. So nothing much needs to be replied to.

[XT]

@GIGObuster

Well, in this case I would have to say that: no, I did not deny it, read it again. So nothing much needs to be replied to.

Glad we cleared that up then.

[DrDeth]

@RitterSport

Cite, please?

My point is that the Greens, etc., don’t have any real political power. Coal is being deregulated, federal lands are being opened up for exploration - are the Greens and other environmentalist wackos not opposed to that?

The Sierra club fights tooth and nail vs any Nuke plant. currently the greens dont have a lot of legislative power, they can torpedo or slow down any plant in the *courts. *

Nuclear Free Future

Here’s a list of the anti-nuke orgs in the USA:

Anti-nuclear groups in the United States

Environmental groups, attorneys general again sue to block nuclear plant...

https://atlanta.cbslocal.com/2012/02/17/environmental-groups-sue-to-stop-construction-of-nuclear-power-plants-at-vogtle/