Why the conservative anger over climate change

In My Humble Opinion
141

I’m not “demonizing” anyone, I’m disagreeing with you and saying that your claim is nonsense. And I provided further proof in the very part that you chose not to quote, namely that climate scientists wrote an open letter to the federal government on behalf of their profession strongly advocating for nuclear power.

Let’s look at your own statement – “… conservatives deny AGW and evolution because it violates their core beliefs. Liberals deny GMO and nuclear power because it violates their core beliefs”. The first part is plainly correct – evolution denial has a clear link with conservatives and evangelicals, and AGW denial with conservatives in general. But what does “denying GMO” or “denying nuclear power” even mean? The correct statement is that some liberals are opposed to those things because of perceived risks, which is not the same thing at all. I think the GMO opposition is pretty much a minority, so let’s look at the elephants in the room, the big things that influence major public policy, AGW and nuclear power, and see how persuasive your comparisons are.

Republicans deny climate change, or downplay the extent and significance of the scientific consensus, aggressively and almost universally. In both the previous and the present presidential election cycle, among all candidates the only one I can think of who plainly acknowledged the reality of AGW was Jon Huntsman, and he was personally demonized for it, and his candidacy (for many reasons) was short-lived. Republican congressmen like Joe Barton have used government authority to harass and threaten climate scientists, demanding their financial records and personal emails; Republican administrations have falsified National Academy of Sciences climate reports; Republican senator James Inhofe has declared climate change to be “the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people”.

These are the kinds of anti-science lunatics I’m talking about. And what have you got? That some liberals oppose nuclear power. Clearly not all – see my link above. I support nuclear power. I’m gratified that my (mostly liberal) province produces the majority of its electric power from nuclear energy. Many liberals on this board support nuclear power. But those who are opposed to it are opposed because of the perceived risk. That nuclear power poses risks is manifestly true. There are operational risks and risks in transporting and storage of waste material. Whether those risks are justified by the benefits of nuclear power is a judgment call. I personally don’t agree with those who oppose nuclear power, but when you look at the catastrophes of Fukushima and Chernobyl, you can hardly call them crazy or “anti-science”. Whereas crazy and anti-science is exactly what I call the hostility of AGW-denying Republicans: faced with incontrovertible scientific facts, they aggressively deny that they are true.

You may believe that you’re “unbiased” but your argument is completely unpersuasive.

142

Do you have any evidence for this alleged child-like faith in the oil industry? None of your cites establish anything like this, and some establish the opposite.

Regards,
Shodan

143

The only thing the Yucca Mountain repository is a “solution” to is taking “expended” nuclear fuel (that is, enriched uranium fuel that has been through a once-through cycle and contains approximately 98% of the potential fissile energy which could be extracted) and moving it across the country at great expense in order to put it underground where we can’t see it, instead of leaving it in above ground storage where we can inspect it, vitrifying it for long term inert storage, or using one or more of the array of reprocessing technologies that currently exist and are being used by Japan, France, Russia, et cetera, as well as investing in development of the various proposed, credible technologies–many of which like the molted salt reactor that have demonstrated proof-of-concept–that would allow far more efficient use of nuclear fissile material and reduction of end-cycle waste.

Even if we accept your unsubstantiated premise that putting the high level waste in underground storage is somehow necessary and useful (to the tune of nearly US$100B over the life of the facility, about 20% of the cost subsidized by US taxpayers), Yucca Mountain isn’t the answer because it will already beyond capacity in storing the high level waste which currently sitting in dry cask storage at US reactor sites. It cannot even except waste which is expected from future production of current nuclear reactors much less the order of magnitude increase in waste production that would be required by the replacement of coal and natural gas electrical plants with nuclear plants.

Your continued assertion that I have not addressed this is disingenuous to the point of deliberate obtusity, as is the continued insistence that this is somehow a fundamentally ideological conflict between “conservatives” and “liberals” rather than a technical discussion about what is actually the most useful, fiscally viable, and safest way to implement an expanded nuclear fission power production infrastructure and the methods for dealing with nuclear waste resulting from it. I’m not going to address this again until you come with something novel instead of just repeating yourself continuously.

There are a number of net energy technologies that exist at an analytical or practical proof-of-concept level which, for the exorbitant costs of long-duration storage in an underground facility, could be developed in order to reduce the long-lived isotopes to much shorter half-life isotopes that will burnup to an essentially inert state in a few decades, including reprocessing to extract enriched uranium for new fuel elements, separation of plutonium for use in MOX fuels, accelerator- and fusor-driven subcritical reactors, thorium cycle, gas-cooled and integral fast reactors. In fact, pretty much any process that generates fast neutrons can be adapted to transmute fissionable material into fissile actinide isotopes with some net energy production. It’s not trivial and is beyond our current fifty-year-old Generation III fission reactor technology, but it makes a lot more sense than spending a billion bucks a year just to put material in the ground to be stored for a duration that can be measured in multiples of the history of all human civilization in the hope that it will never become a problem.

Ultimately, we expect some form of nuclear fusion to be a viable replacement for fission. We can’t say when or exactly how (fusion has consistently been “twenty to thirty years away” for about the last sixty years) but given that we understand in principle how it works and the requirements to achieve sustainable fusion means that we can measure progress to achieving it. One of the downsides of the easiest form of fusion to achieve (using deuterium and tritium, or D-T fusion) is that it produces a lot of neutrons, which is hazardous to both people and materials and wastes a lot of the energetic output, but becomes an advantage with the long-lived nuclear waste, because that problematic surfeit of neutrons is just the thing to transmute nuclear “waste” into useful thermal energy (i.e. the hybrid fission-fusion reactor). We may find that all of that annoying waste is a treasure trove of useful material we wish we had more of rather than having to mine and breed it from natural pitchblende or thorium.

Since we can’t depend on fusion being developed any time soon (the earliest realistic estimates for DEMO, the follow on to ITER, are sometime in the 2040s, and we can only assume at least a decade or two following before it is ready for prime time as commercial energy production source) nuclear fission has to be part of the discussion about how we reduce atmospheric carbon production in the near-to-mid term, but pretending as if the costs, risks, and the need to deal with remediation of fuel and facilities at end-of-life don’t exist or are part of some political conspiracy is just not honest or useful. Nor is grossly underestimating the scale at which nuclear fission plants and the fuel production/remediation cycle would have to be deployed in order to replace all coal and natural gas, not to mention how it would be used to replace petrocarbon fuels in for transportation energy.

Stranger

144

It’s not just climate change conservatives aggressively deride; remember the laughs from the right over Obama’s suggestion that we use white roofing materials? Or the howls of “oppression” over the use of LED lightbulbs?

145

There is no faith, they follow the bottom line. What they do know is how to manipulate the faith of others for their benefit.

146

I don’t know WTF more “evidence” the other poster is looking for. It’s like the definition of “right in your face” – it comes from a combination of paranoid distrust of government, uncompromising opposition to any kind of government regulation, and a child-like blind faith that free enterprise and unfettered capitalism can solve all our problems – the current crop of Republicans are the very definition of anti-science ideologues …

Big Oil Can’t Wait For the New Republican Majority in Congress
Even after the Keystone XL Senate defeat, the incoming fossil fuels caucus is poised to provide huge gains for the oil and gas industry.

After the election of Obama for president, Republicans in Congress were unified in almost total opposition to the programs and policies of Obama and the Democratic majority … they [kept] emissions trading from coming to a vote, and vow[ed] to continue to work to convince Americans that burning fossil fuel does not cause global warming.

147

Why are conservatives angry over climate change?
Because conservatives are retarded retards, duh. If they weren’t they would obviously be so in love with climate change that they would be sexing it up day and night. But alas no, conservatives are so so stupid, unlike the liberals who are so so smart.

Poor retarded conservatives. They should obviously be put into homes for the criminally retarded.

148

I’m not sure what the point of that was supposed to be. But here’s an example of how smart conservatives approach the problem. They acknowledge the scientific facts and that climate change is a serious problem. And they have the vision to see that the solutions that will be necessary offer a vast plethora of business opportunities, not to mention the national security of greater energy independence.

Here’s part a speech given by a former Republican politician and current head of an energy think tank to the Duke Environmental Law and Policy Forum. I don’t necessarily agree with all the principles he espouses, but I applaud the constructive spirit:
It is time for conservatives to take the lead on environmental issues because, in the face of our most pressing environmental problems, conservatism offers the solution—free enterprise.

… the climate is changing. That fact is neither conservative nor liberal. However, what we choose to do about the climate crisis is a political issue. I posit that the climate crisis is not an unsolvable riddle. Instead, if we apply conservative principles, climate change can be an opportunity for the economy and the environment.

… I suggest to you that conservatives really do have the answer to our energy and climate challenges. The reason we shrink into positions like science denialism is because we don’t think we have the answer. We’re not confident in our abilities to deliver a better product. This is simply wrong. If you’re a conservative, it is time to step forward and engage in the climate and energy debate because we have the answer—free enterprise. I’d like to outline several foundational concepts of this approach: accountability, certainty, and tax reform.
http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1244&context=delpf

149

Quote:

The trick will be getting that crowd to realize that it’s not conjecture at all- it’s pretty much a proven thing, and that now’s the time to act.
OK. suppose I accept this premise. China and India continue to burn coal and diesel. So what next?

150

Forever? How long can they do this with impunity in a global marketplace where trade agreements and environmental treaties are increasingly part of the mix? China has already agreed to mitigation measures thanks to Obama’s initiative. And how about if western nations develop, own, and market the technologies and expertise for the renewable energy that these countries will eventually, inevitably, need in order to participate in the global economy?

151

As I pointed before, what’s next is the end of the Communist party in China and the end of the government in India as their populations will not be able to sit still with all the crops failures and loss of habitat.

152

I meant to comment on this a bit ago but life got a bit crazy.

Anyway, there seems to be an odd disconnect when it comes to CAGW and other sciences. When anyone dares to question the science of AGW, the believers scream ‘But 9700000% of scientists say it gonna kill us all!!!?!’ yet when Yucca Mountain is brought up the scientists are untrustworthy.

Odd, isn’t it. Almost like ideology trumps facts.

As far as Yucca goes, I had a discussion with a man who knows more than all but 10 or 12 people in the world about the science behind Yucca a couple days ago. It turns out that man is my Dad. You see, the guys who did the design and safety testing worked for him. My Dads main gig was nuclear reactor safety. He ran a nuclear reactor safety division and did research for ~30 years. If you wanted to know something about nuclear safety, his division was the one you went to for answers. So he got the job of designing and evaluating Yucca for safety. He had his guys work on it while he ‘concentrated on the interesting stuff’. And by interesting my Dad means hard.

Anyway, according to the expert, your argument is bullshit. Yucca is safe and the opposition is purely political. And my Dad, and the guys who worked for him (many of whom I grew up around) are insanely smart, educated folks who don’t play politics with the science. Hell, my Dads first sort when going through resumes to hire someone was gpa. If you got your PhD with a 3.9, your resume went in the trash. My Dad got a PhD in math (and picked up a master’s in physics) with a 4.0. So did all the folks who worked for him.

A woman named Luba designed the containers to ship the waste. Why Luba? Because she was the best impact physicist in the world. Luba also made Lithuanian Easter eggs every year which were works of art. My parents have a bunch in the China cabinet. Luba is an odd lady, but smart as hell.

As were the rest of the folks who worked with my parents (Mom worked in the seismology division where they monitored the U.S.S.R for nuclear weapons tests, among other things).

I will see if I can get Dad to comment Yucca so I can post it. Or if you have any questions I’ll ask next time I see him.

However, the science behind it is sound. Also, at the time they started looking at Yucca, around 1978 or so, a lot of the technology for reprocessing waste didn’t exist.

Slee

153

I’d love to hear what he has to say! If he doesn’t want to give us a statement, can he – or you – give us a good reference book on the subject? Maybe a “popularized” science book, but one that a real expert can endorse, for our further reading and study?

I confess, I had always been one of those who thought the science of Yucca Mountain was bad, but that’s just because I was pretty much in an anti-nuclear echo chamber.

(After the fall of the Soviet Union, I dropped my membership in the Union of Concerned Scientists because of their unbalanced anti-nuclear-power stance. Their anti-nuclear-war views were good ones, I believe, but I don’t think their anti-nuclear-power views are properly thought out.)

154

I’ll ask him when I see him. As far as reference books, I suspect that he won’t know any as he is the reference.

Anyway, any time this subject comes up I have to post a link to this:

F4 Phantom Meets Wall. Wall Wins.

It actually has nothing to do with Yucca but it is neat and Dad ran that test.

And there is this:

Cask testing

Though I can’t seem to find the video of the really cool one. They take the cask, put it on some scaffolding, then ram it straight down into the ground using a, get this, rocket. Rocket on top pointed down, cask under rocket. Fire rocket, check cask.

The folks out there did some really cool shit.

Slee

155

Destructive testing can be fun. I got to be on hand during some over-voltage testing on a series of electronic power supplies. Nifty to watch smoke come out!

156

Good of you to utterly misattribute me and then ignore everything else I’ve said about the topic.

For the record, I’ve never stated that using the Yucca Mountain Repository is “gonna kill us all!!!?!”, or anything to the effect. I did point out that the selection of the Yucca Mountain site was largely driven by politics, and the particular lack of influence of Nevada at the time versus other, more geologically stable and hydrologically impermiable locations, e.g. salt domes which would encapsulate the waste for a geologically indefinite period (millions of years).

What has been continually ignored is the point that storing “used” nuclear fuel elements in a central underground storage location is doing nothing more than taking this “waste” and putting it out of sight at enormous cost versus spending reprocessing and full burn up capabilities to make better use of nuclear material that is itself a limited resource. It isn’t as if these technologies are some kind of errant speculation, either; many, like molten salt reactors and high temperature gas reactors, have seen proof of concept at essentially operational condition. The objection to putting this nuclear “waste” to use rather than burying it underground at a cost of tens of billions of dollars (a cost that has increased by almost 300% since the initial estimate of Yucca Mountain Repository cost) is obtuse, not to mention the point that Yucca Mountain would already be at capacity in storing all of the existing waste currently stored on-site at reactor and has no capacity for future use of the existing facilities, much less a dramatic expansion of nuclear fission capacity and resulting end products from a single use cycle.

Honestly, I can’t make heads or tails of the objection to developing reprocessing and full burn up technologies other than a knee-jerk fear that admitting that our current, largely fifty year old technology in nuclear fission is not by itself adequate to deal with long term expansion of nuclear power. It’s not as if I’ve argued against the use of, or indeed need for, nuclear fission as a replacement for current fossil fuel and petrochemical sources. I haven’t made some kind of ideological stand that only perfectly clean nuclear power is acceptable; I’ve openly stated that all forms of energy production, even renewable sources, have negatives that need to be weighed from both a cost and environmental impact perspective. The only point I’ve made with regard to the reliance on Yucca Mountain is that it isn’t some magical hole to which all nuclear waste, present and future, can be deposited without consideration to loss of future energy resources or impact upon power production, and that planning for a future of nuclear fission energy production should include technologies to make more full use of fissile material and reduction of resulting high level wastes, a point that would not seem to be objectionable to anyone regardless of political stance.

Stranger

157

My apologies. The bit about CAGW believers letting ideology trump fact bit wasn’t meant to directed at you. Poor wording on my behalf which I will attribute to having twin boys in the NICU and having a wife that had just been admitted to the hospital for major bleeding. Plus lack of sleep.

You are right that all options need to be looked at, however, when Yucca was first proposed back in 1978 or so, the tech was different and so was the thinking. So now, a bunch of years later we have more options. Yay for more options. But, the history of opposition to nuclear power in the U.S. shows that those options won’t be used for decades due to the political opposition and lawsuits brought by environmental groups and anti-science folks. It just won’t happen anytime soon, if at all.

Yucca, had it gone as planned, would have opened in the early 1990s IIRC. And in the mean time we could have been working on other ways to deal with the waste. Yet here we are some 20 odds years later…

Slee

158

What are the advantages of storing the waste on-site over storing it in Yucca Mountain? And as mentioned earlier, the anti-nukes are as opposed to nuclear waste reprocessing as they are to nuclear power in general.

Regards,
Shodan

159

Well, you need to sleep more because on this thread no one thinks like that. I already mentioned that I agree with Stranger On A Train

And I’m on the record of criticising the liberals who are against putting nuclear waste in safer locations, but once again I have to point out that it is guys like you the ones that still need to do a lot of convincing among conservatives and independents. Again, here in one of the most conservatives states of the union there was indeed talk to make a nuclear dump facility and take over the business that Nevadans do not want.

Unfortunately, after lots of talking and even legislation was made, there is now virtually silence on this matter here in Arizona. It is not just the environmentalists the ones that produce many unfounded fears that tell even conservative politicians that a nuclear dump is not politically viable in their backyards.

There is, unfortunately, a lot of bipartisan opposition is what I see regarding nuclear waste, and going to an even more conservative state like Idaho is not much better.

IMHO I still see more chances on convincing the liberals and democrats in the near future that nuclear will have to be a part of the solution that will be employed to deal with the current human influence on climate change.