You take it incorrectly.
Reading this thread has me more convinced than ever that that the anti-nukes won’t listen to any reasoned argument.
Nah, the reality is that liberals or “the left” are never more than 1/3 of Americans.
The reality is that recent polling shows that when asked if they would like to have a shiny new nuclear power plant in their neighborhood almost 2/3 of Americans oppose it.
The reality is that blaming all that on “the left” is silly. There is also a good chunk of conservatives and independents that are not listening to logic.
Good point. Except the OP only asked about the left.
Even the OP knew that it is not ok to use the wide brush. As for me I already showed my willingness to criticize anyone on the left that is not listening to reason; however, my point is that if all conservatives would drop Nimby many on the left would be unable to stop Nuclear power use in the USA.
We all want more Electricity, but given ANY option, I’d wager the majority of the people in ANY location are going to oppose it. NIMBYism runs hard and fast. All well and good to build or do something, as long as you don’t do it in my neighborhood. Which is why, in the interests of the public at large, we sometimes have to ignore or over-ride the desires of local populations.
Except nothing in more “in your back yard” than global warming and all that waste that coal plants are pumping out.
But we all know the issue. Everythink has risk. But what is more risky. Nukes or the continued use of coal?
I see no reason to bury radioactive waste deep in the bowels of a mountain. We have unlimited scrap-land in the US. we could build warehouses in Area 51 and store it like any other commodity. I fail to see the need for digging holes in the ground when the money could be spent on containerizing it for ease of monitoring.
As if they are the only options.
Right now, they are. Maybe, in 100, 50, possibly even 20 or 10 years, we will be able to rely on other technology. But proposing that as a solution, while opposing nuclear, is a de facto vote for coal, since they just are not feasible right now.
Gonzomax, why do you support coal power plants? Don’t you realize just how dangerous and harmful they are?
He doesn’t support coal plants. He’s simply convinced that there are other viable alternatives that are out there that are being kept down by big energy/big business, and that we could just do that, if only we could get the evil capitalists and such out of the way, etc etc. There is a wide spread belief that we COULD do solar/wind/geothermal/hydroelectric/pony power on a scale that would make both coal AND nuclear (and other FF based energy sources) irrelevant, but that this technology is being kept from the people because…well, who knows why? I suppose because there is a concept that big energy wouldn’t make a profit from it or something.
-XT
Yeah, this is the weirdest part of it all. I mean, any new power source has to be implemented on a worldwide scale. And anything that would have a hope of producing enough power to meet demands would have to be pretty advanced, technologically. And corporations (i.e. big business, capitalists, conglomerates, etc.) are best suited to handle large scale, hi tech production.
Any revolution in renewable technology would be embraced by any CEO more intelligent than these guys.
I live in the Northeast. We just had that blizzard. I went 36 hours without power. It was horrible. Anything that results in less power, I’m against it. 
Solar, nuclear or steam produced by burning puppies and newborn babies. I don’t care, do em all at once. No power=crushing boredom.
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0009/Yim-0009.html Here is one. radiation storage is a very complicated problem. Start with trucking it in from all parts of the country. You don’t dump it in a plastic bucket. You have to contain the radiation,and protect it from accidents . It is different stuff too. Medical and industrial waste would also be contained there. They all have their own unique problems. There have been transportation accidents already. Do it on the scale you want for nuclear plants and you have problems. Of course it has to be in earthquake proof containers too. They have to last approximately forever.
Well duh, I already knew that they weren’t easy to build. But it’s not like they’re impossible to build: we’re already building them. We’ve already built a whole bunch of them.
http://www.texas.sierraclub.org/radwaste/highway.asp We have already had spillage in transportation. There would be more. They are not easy to build. The technology is unique for different types of radiation. It is not all the same.
Thank god they don’t transport chlorine by truck or train. That would be madness.
Total death total is?
And as Grey pointed out, we already ship dozens, if not hundreds, of highly toxic or explosive materials via truck all over the country regularly. You are holding nuclear waste to an impossibly high standard that you do not levy on other items.
No, actually he’s holding Low Level Waste to a standard he doesn’t levy on other items.
Is it necessary to die quickly before you count?
There’s a world of difference between cutting 10 years off of the end of someone’s lifespan and killing them, cutting off the rest of their life immediately and irreversibly, so yes, it does.