Why is the Left so afraid of nuclear power?

[billfish678]

@Brown_Eyed_Girl

As previously cited, the DOE disagrees with you. And there are numerous types of hydroelectric on the horizon to be further developed. The ecological impact can be mitigated, doesn’t last thousands to millions of years, and the resource is renewable. Hydroelectric dams create reservoirs for drinking water and are used to control water flow for irrigation of crop lands.

.

They CONTINUE to have a significant environmental impact as long as they are flooded upstream (and downstream for that matter). And a dam that ISNT flooded upstream doesnt really produce much power ya know. I’v seen more than one study that claims that dams are sometimes a net economic loss, because the value of the power they produce is less than the value of the land they flood.

If America could DOUBLE its hydro production, which I think is a pipe dream, it would get up to about 10 percent of total electrical production.

Dams silt up. Random stuff on the net seems to indicate most dams silt up faster than nuclear reactors wear out. What do you do once its silted up and no longer providing power?

And safety? Oh baby, hows THIS for a death toll?

"According to China Newsweek reports, among the 85,000 plus reservoirs in China, over 30,000 (35 percent) have problems but continue to be operational, constituting a major hidden danger in water resource facilities.

Now, in China, not one province, city, or district is free of dangerous reservoirs. In the provinces of Hunan, Guangdong, Sichuan, Shandong, Yunnan, Hubei, and Jiangxi, each province has more than 1,600 dangerous reservoirs. In Guangdong Province, there are 3,685 dangerous reservoirs—a total of 55 percent of all reservoirs in the province…

…In the world’s record of disasters due to human technical failures, the 1975 collapse of China’s Banqiao reservoir dam in Henan province ranked first, which is higher than the Chernobyl disaster in the former Soviet Union. In a matter of days, 26 dams collapsed one after another, which resulted in massive flooding in nine counties and one town. More than 100,000 corpses were retrieved when the flooding receded. Deaths due to the repercussions of grain shortages and infectious diseases amounted to 140,000; while the total number of deaths recorded was 240,000. This death toll was comparable to the China’s Tangshan earthquake in the following year, and the damage dealt was worse than the collapse of Egypt’s Aswan reservoir dam."
And there are plenty of other big assed dams in the US and the world that could let go and kill bunches of people.

If you think nuclear engineers will frack up and kill many (which they really havent yet), why do you not think dam engineers won’t do the same at some point?

[Deeg]

Every new hydroelectric dam is likely to be up against the same amount of resistance as nuclear power. The Sierra Club is behind a movement to disable the Glen Canyon Dam which, according to wiki, is a 450MW power generator.

[E-Sabbath]

Of course, there is great potential for solar power. It could supply all the world’s needs ten times over. Reliably. Rain or shine. Dark or light.

All you have to do is move the panels… up a bit.

Space-based solar power

Cleaning 'em’s a bear, though.

[Cyberhwk]

@E-Sabbath

All you have to do is move the panels… up a bit.

Space-based solar power - Wikipedia

Your cite: “a means of transmitting power to earth, for example via microwave or laser”

Someone never played Sim City 2000.

[bengangmo]

@Sam_Stone

You’re not serious, are you? Do you have any idea what that would do to the complexity of the system? Or what would happen when you have a STORM and you raise a bunch of flat panels vertically into it?

Let’s forget the telescopic extenders.

The problem isn’t just snow anyway. It’s snow, dust, rain causing dust to turn into dried dirt… Have you ever left your car outside for more than a week or two? Try it, then turn on your windshield wipers, and see how much dust and dirt is removed. It’s a LOT.

The dust/dirt/snow problem is not trivial. It’s one of the bigger issues facing large solar farms and household panels alike.

Falls from roofs is one of the largest categories of occupational fatalities in the United States. The number is not small - from 1980 to 1985, 3,491 commercial workers were killed from falls. Now, these are professionals, who tend to use safety gear and know what they are doing.

Now imagine a city full of solar power panels, and the aftermath of a storm which leaves most of them covered. Imagine all those homeowners getting out their rickety ladders and trying to get their power back. Tens of thousands of them. Multiple times per year.

If we got our power by covering the roofs of homes with solar panels, I would not be surprised if 5,000 people a year were killed as a result.

Windmills by their very nature require service work to be carried out at a high altitude, and require large construction equipment and cranes to put them into place. There will be fatalities from that as well.

This is not to argue against solar and wind. It’s to point out, once again, that there are no truly ‘safe’ energy sources. It’s not a choice between nuclear and riskless power - it’s a choice between nuclear and other risks. And to date, nuclear has the safest track record, and has killed fewer people, than any other major source of energy we have. And it’s not even a close comparison.

I’d also like to point out that one of the biggest areas for saving for the future will be higher density living, as in high rise living instead of urban sprawl - which I wouldn’t think does too many favours to personal solar energy cells.

[Una_Persson]

Perhaps I’m just even more bitter this morning than usual, but really the power and GHG emissions crises are just echoes of the core crisis, which is overpopulation. If the world population is brought down to something sensible, like no more than 2 billion or so, an awful lot of these problems become reduced.

[Brown_Eyed_Girl]

@Una_Persson

Perhaps I’m just even more bitter this morning than usual, but really the power and GHG emissions crises are just echoes of the core crisis, which is overpopulation. If the world population is brought down to something sensible, like no more than 2 billion or so, an awful lot of these problems become reduced.

This is something I unequivocally agree with.

[Chimera]

Except that, barring a HUGE plague, that ain’t going to happen.

So let’s not bank on that as a solution.

[Grey]

@E-Sabbath

Of course, there is great potential for solar power. It could supply all the world’s needs ten times over. Reliably. Rain or shine. Dark or light.

All you have to do is move the panels… up a bit.

Space-based solar power - Wikipedia

Cleaning 'em’s a bear, though.

Whenever I read these I’m always amazed. It costs about $5k to get 1 lb into space. The ISS panels weigh 2400 lb each and produce 32kW DC. That’s 12 million dollars to get 32kW of DC power. The pay back period is going to just be horrific. Even if you drop that by a factor of 10 it’s a cool million just to park the damn thing in space.

[billfish678]

@Grey

Whenever I read these I’m always amazed. It costs about $5k to get 1 lb into space. The ISS panels weigh 2400 lb each and produce 32kW DC. That’s 12 million dollars to get 32kW of DC power. The pay back period is going to just be horrific. Even if you drop that by a factor of 10 it’s a cool million just to park the damn thing in space.

AND think how much energy it takes to PUT a pound of something into orbit. How long would it take to recover the energy you used to put it up there in the first place even if all the rockets and labor to do it were free? Hell, years ago, it was sometimes claimed that for solar cells on the GROUND it took more energy to make them than you would ever get out of them.

[ralph124c]

One big reason that the Left hates nuclear power-the extreme left is in love with the environment. They see human life as “pollution” on Mother Earth/Gaia…so anything that limits human life is a good thing. Nuclear power is bad becuase it permits two very bad things:

1. allows humans to live easier lives
2. limits the power of government to control people
   Both these things arr anathema to the looney left.

[Quartz]

@Una_Persson

Perhaps I’m just even more bitter this morning than usual, but really the power and GHG emissions crises are just echoes of the core crisis, which is overpopulation.

I hear this a lot, but I’m not so sure it’s true. There are lots of places which could be made productively fertile to support billions of people. South America. Siberia. Much of Africa. In Africa’s case, the big problem is endemic corruption. Rhodesia was the bread-basket of Africa; now Zimbabwe’s a basket-case.

[Una_Persson]

@Quartz

I hear this a lot, but I’m not so sure it’s true. There are lots of places which could be made productively fertile to support billions of people. South America. Siberia. Much of Africa. In Africa’s case, the big problem is endemic corruption. Rhodesia was the bread-basket of Africa; now Zimbabwe’s a basket-case.

But we’re not talking about feeding people, which I believe can probably carry on until maybe 20 billion or so. We’re talking about the ratio of carbon fixing via the flora versus the carbon production of humans. Reducing and condensing humanity, reducing net CO2 output, and increasing CO2 fixing via reforesting and less foresting has the potential to not only reduce CO2 emissions, but to reverse the trend. Examine if you will one theory on the cool temperatures of the 1400’s and so forth being due to less human activity (a theory true, but the calculations which go into it may be possible to apply to other theories).

It’s a long-term solution to reduce pollution, but then again all other practical solutions appear to be also long term. And this country could “lead the world”, as some so frequently claim we ought to, starting by holding our own population growth flat and working to help other countries do the same. For example, we could start by no longer subsidizing large families by eliminating tax deductions for any more than 2 children, having free (subsidized) contraceptives, etc. But I’ll wager no one on the Left would support the first, and no one on the Right would support the second.

[Chimera]

But look what that kind of large scale deforestation and farming does to the environment.

(Was response to the post before Una)

[gonzomax]

@Una_Persson

But we’re not talking about feeding people, which I believe can probably carry on until maybe 20 billion or so. We’re talking about the ratio of carbon fixing via the flora versus the carbon production of humans. Reducing and condensing humanity, reducing net CO2 output, and increasing CO2 fixing via reforesting and less foresting has the potential to not only reduce CO2 emissions, but to reverse the trend. Examine if you will one theory on the cool temperatures of the 1400’s and so forth being due to less human activity (a theory true, but the calculations which go into it may be possible to apply to other theories).

It’s a long-term solution to reduce pollution, but then again all other practical solutions appear to be also long term. And this country could “lead the world”, as some so frequently claim we ought to, starting by holding our own population growth flat and working to help other countries do the same. For example, we could start by no longer subsidizing large families by eliminating tax deductions for any more than 2 children, having free (subsidized) contraceptives, etc. But I’ll wager no one on the Left would support the first, and no one on the Right would support the second.

That is a bet you would lose. I have thought for many years rewarding people for having kids was stupid.

[Trepa_Mayfield]

@Una_Persson

It’s a long-term solution to reduce pollution, but then again all other practical solutions appear to be also long term. And this country could “lead the world”, as some so frequently claim we ought to, starting by holding our own population growth flat and working to help other countries do the same. For example, we could start by no longer subsidizing large families by eliminating tax deductions for any more than 2 children, having free (subsidized) contraceptives, etc. But I’ll wager no one on the Left would support the first, and no one on the Right would support the second.

The primary problem with this is capitalism. The economic system of capitalism requires growth. Without growth, money slows its circulation, and the middle class shrinks. Growth comes from new customers (or new industries, but those are much harder to come by). New customers, by and large, come from an increasing population. This is why certain areas of Europe are having economic problems.

The upshot of that is, as long as the global economic system is primarily capitalist, negative population growth would cause problems.

[XT]

Population levels have already started to flatten out, from what I understand, and in direct proportion to technological advancement. The US only has a (small) population growth mainly do to immigration and immigrants (such as myself).

I don’t think that, long term, the solution is to stagnate or even reverse growth. To me that leads to a downward spiral. Myself, I’d rather see us expand into the solar system (and possibly beyond), where both room and resources are, for all practical purposes, unlimited.

While this is pie in the sky, it’s no more unrealistic than attempting to control population growth, IMHO, which is already being limited due more to changing standards of living and prosperity than due to direct attempts to limit it. But I think this is all straying a bit far afield from the original topic of the OP…whether the ‘problem’ is population is moot, unless someone is proposing some kind of draconian population control methods involving the deaths of hundreds of millions or billions (it would take generations to get populations down to 2 billion without some fairly drastic measures), and really is irrelevant in any case, since the reality is we have to deal with the problem of energy and CO2 regardless…which brings us back to the question at hand and why people (left, right or center) are opposed to the one technology that could actually substantially reduce our CO2 footprint in the near term.

-XT

[begbert2]

@Una_Persson

Perhaps I’m just even more bitter this morning than usual, but really the power and GHG emissions crises are just echoes of the core crisis, which is overpopulation. If the world population is brought down to something sensible, like no more than 2 billion or so, an awful lot of these problems become reduced.

I volunteer to be one of the ones doing the executing… rather than the alternative.
Wait, we’re seriously discussion getting the population this low by talking people not to have as many kids? Even presuming 100% success (ie no kids species extinction), it’s going to take decades for people to start dying off in numbers. I thought we were in a hurry.

[ataraxy22]

@xtisme

Population levels have already started to flatten out, from what I understand, and in direct proportion to technological advancement. The US only has a (small) population growth mainly do to immigration and immigrants (such as myself).

In some places, but the population of the energy-hungry US could more than triple by 2100 to 1 billion. I’d hardly say that is a small population or a slow growth. Sure, maybe we could feed that many, but who wants to live in a crowded world where we are at or near the theoretical short term carrying capacity?

[XT]

@ataraxy22

In some places, but the population of the energy-hungry US could more than triple by 2100 to 1 billion. I’d hardly say that is a small population or a slow growth. Sure, maybe we could feed that many, but who wants to live in a crowded world where we are at or near the theoretical short term carrying capacity?

I haven’t heard anything indicating that the US population could top a billion (seems unlikely in less than a hundred years), but even if that were the case what would you suggest to fix this looming problem? I don’t see any way to prevent people in the US from having kids, and I doubt you are going to get a ban on new immigration passed, so I don’t really see much in the way of realistic options. And whether or not someone manages to get some kind of draconian birth control and zero immigration policy passed in the US, we are STILL going to have to deal with the energy issue, regardless (unless as well as the birth control and zero immigration the same person manages to drastically reduce our use of energy as well :dubious:), which leads us back to nuclear or status quo and wait for the magic ponies.

-XT