Nuclear Power

Climate Change Activists Need To Get Serious About Nuclear Power

It would significantly reduce carbon emissions, but onerous regulation stands in the way.

|

This Thursday, Earth Day, politicians and activists will shout more about "the climate crisis."

I don't think it's a crisis. COVID-19, malaria, exploding debt, millions of poor children dying from diarrhea—those are genuine crises.

But global warming may become a real problem, so it's particularly absurd that Earth Day's activists rarely mention the form of energy that could most quickly reduce greenhouse gases: nuclear power.

When France converted to nuclear, it created the world's fastest reduction in carbon emissions.

But in America, nuclear growth came to a near halt 40 years ago, after an accident at the Three Mile Island plant in Pennsylvania.

The partial meltdown killed no one. It would probably have been forgotten had Hollywood not released a nuclear scare movie, The China Syndrome, days before.

"People saw that and freaked out," complains Joshua Goldstein, author of A Bright Future: How Some Countries Have Solved Climate Change (with nuclear power).

One of the people still freaking out is solar activist Harvey Wasserman. "I live in terror of the next accident," he says in my latest video.

His anti-nuclear argument has basically won in most of the world. Nuclear plants are being shut down.

"Why?" I ask Wasserman. No one was hurt at Three Mile Island.

Wasserman replies that after the accident, he went to nearby homes and people showed him "their tumors, their hair loss, their lesions."

"It's bunk," I tell him. "It's been studied. People lose hair and get cancer and they attribute it to Three Mile Island, but it's not true."

"Having been there," Wasserman responds, "it's my clear assertion that people were killed."

Actual scientists don't agree. In fact, they find less cancer near Three Mile Island than in other parts of Pennsylvania.

But what about Fukushima? That was more serious. Today, clueless media quote Greenpeace claiming Fukushima's radiation could "change our DNA!"

Also bunk. "There was heightened radiation, but it was all at this low level below what we consider to be safe," explains Goldstein.

The low level of radiation released at Fukushima was hardly a threat. What killed people was the panicked response.

"Everyone freaked out and ordered a massive sudden evacuation. That caused suicide, depression….Fear of radioactivity really did kill people."

One nuclear accident, Chernobyl, did kill, and its radiation may still kill thousands more.

But Chernobyl was built by socialists cutting corners to please dictators. No Chernobyl-like plant will ever be built again. And even with Chernobyl's deaths, nuclear power's safety record is better than that of coal, oil, and natural gas.

"But what about the nuclear waste!" shout the activists.

"It's a small problem," says Goldstein. "All the nuclear waste from all America's reactors for 60 years would fit into a Walmart."

While the anti-nuclear movement has stopped nuclear construction in most of the West, "other places are building them like crazy," says Goldstein. "China puts a nuclear reactor on the grid every two to three months."

America may soon finish…one. It took Georgia Power Company six years just to get permission to build a plant. Regulation is so heavy that, 15 years later, it still isn't operating.

Wasserman is proud he played a role in that. "If you want to accuse us of having raised the cost of building new nuclear plants by demanding more regulation, I plead guilty."

He claims countries can power themselves with rooftop solar panels and wind.  Technology improvements did lower their prices, but what happens when the wind doesn't blow? Or the sun doesn't shine?

Store energy in batteries! replies Wasserman. "We are having a major technological and industrial revolution in battery capacity."

Goldstein scoffs in response, "The idea that a miracle battery is going to come along and save us is completely untested."

By contrast, nuclear energy has been tested. It could reduce greenhouse gases, and provide reliable energy, if only we didn't fear it so much.

"The whole regulatory system is crazy," Goldstein concludes. "We're regulating this energy source as though it were the most dangerous thing out there, and it's actually the safest thing!"

COPYRIGHT 2021 BY JFS PRODUCTIONS INC.

NEXT: Biden Applauds Derek Chauvin Guilty Verdict, Condemns Violent 'Agitators and Extremists'

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Yeah but who’s gonna build it? Utilities that had large monopolies with guaranteed returns don’t really exist like they did in the 70s. EWGs don’t want to take on the risk they chase low cost which is why there are shitty windfarms all over. You would need a large pool of investors with the crony corporatist clout to secure a 50 year deal with fat profit margins. Good luck given the assholes running the feds these day.

    1. LIFE CHANGING OPPORTUNITY BE an Internet HOME-BASED real Earner.I am just working on facebook only 3 to 4 hours a Day and earning £47786 a month easily, that is handsome earning to meet my extra expenses VGTTand that is really life changing opportunity. Let me give you a little insight into what I do….. Visit Here

      1. FOR USA Making money online more than 15$ just by doing simple work from home. I have received $18376 last month. Its an SDWQ easy and simple job to do and its earnings are much better than regular office job and even a little child can do this and earns money. Everybody must try this job by just use the info
        on this page…..VISIT HERE

    2. My last paycheck was $2500 for working 12 hours a week online. My sisters friend has jsk been averaging 8k for months now and she works about 30 hours a week. I can’t believe how easy it was once I tried it out. The potential with this is endless. This is what I do…. Visit Here

    3. [ PART TIME JOB FOR USA ] Making money online more than 15$ just by doing simple works from home. I have received $18376 last month. Its an easy and simple job to do and its earnings are much better than regular office vcdjob and even a little child can do this and earns money. Everybody must try this job by just use the info
      on this page…. Visit Here

  2. When I visited a nuclear plant for the first time I did have that nagging feeling. It was caused by all the hoopla surrounding the Three Mile Island incident and the Chernobyl debacle. The DOE people give you classes and explain the “how” and the “why” of every nuclear incident. In just a few hours, my view was totally different. They need to make this information more readily available to the general public. I never felt unsafe at a nuclear site ever again.
    The media demonized nuclear power and continues to do so. The “celebratards” like Alec Baldwin aren’t helping. He made the statement, “Those nuclear fuel rods don’t grow on trees”. He has never seen a nuclear fuel rod and has no idea at all how they are used.
    In 2010, it was estimated that the US needed 33 nuclear plants by 2030 to keep the power running. Obama authorized one. Trump, one. When rolling blackouts start, the cities are going to wish that they had been more proactive. Instead, they wanted wind and solar. They are going to regret it.

    1. If there was an accident, it would just give you super powers anyway.

      1. That’s not what happened to Mayor West.

    2. They do make that information readily available. You just didn’t have the incentive to seek it out before your visit.

  3. Spot on.

    People who are serious about climate change need to be serious about nuclear power as well. Or they’re just not serious about climate change but just cheap poseurs looking to hook up with other cheap poseurs.

    I have a friend who is a major Lefty, almost socialist in fact. (Real socialist, not the meaningless euphemism). But he’s also a nuclear physicist and is thoroughly pro-nuclear power. He agrees, the best way to combat climate change is to switch from carbon based energy sources to nuclear power.

    With sufficient battery technology and deployments, we could get buy with wind and solar and all the podunk miscellaneous stuff. But we’re not there yet, and nuclear still has a smaller environmental impact.

    1. (Real socialist, not the meaningless euphemism)

      History has shown us that the only difference between the two is their willingness to load people onto the traincars without having a gun pointed at their own head.

    2. Seems most are just posers. None of them are giving up air travel or air conditioning in their big houses.

      1. Soviet upper caste had their dachas and nazi leadership was hardly the picture of perfect Aryanism they advocated.
        Lying and hypocrisy go hand and hand with socialism.

        1. That being said, Stalin’s dacha was the most tasteful and modest of all the dictators’ homes. It was the most comfortable-looking and least garish of all.

          1. Did he make the trains run on time?

            1. That was Mussolini’s claim to fame.

    3. Agreed. I also believe climate change is our most pressing issue. Nuclear power definitely has hard to solve long term problems such as what to do with the radioactive waste, but it our immediate term problem is CO2, and nuclear has to be a part of the solution right now.

      1. “hard to solve long term problems such as what to do with the radioactive waste”
        are grossly exaggerated.
        As a nuclear worker I made plenty of ‘activated’ targets testing materials and semiconductors with proton irradiation.

        200 MeV protons to simulate the South Atlantic Anomaly dosing
        of satellites over their lifetime really lights up the target.

    4. Sorry, but the environmental impact from extracting the resources for any of the current or near term battery technologies outstrips even that of just extracting coal severely. The first alternative is just using two reservoirs at different heights with pump and turbine technology from dams to store power, but we’ve all seen the yowls by the wacko (typical unfortunately) members of the environmentalist movements. Another workable alternative is using a large chunk of molten salts (type yet to be determined) with heating elements and a heat extractive element to convert the molten salts back too solids. However, you really, really don’t want to see how these react to even a pin-hole atmospheric leak even if they are extremely efficient.

      Anyone sane would look at the newest designs for nuclear reactors (pebble-bed, thorium, others) as something of a relief when it comes to environmental impacts. Sanity it seems is not a consideration.

  4. Heh. Climate activists are not serous about anything except being whiney assholes. They’ll freak over nuclear. They’ll even freak over fusion.

    And their masters want anything but cheap energy.

    1. Serious, damnit. Where’s the edit feature?

      1. Not a very interactive and modern system. How can someone discuss issues and opinions without some sort of conversation/notification/reply/edit system?

      2. Reason needs to step up the quality of their SW.

    2. I believe it was some leftist population control advocate (perhaps the idiot Paul Ehrlich but I don’t think so) who once said that finding a cheap, abundant source of energy would be the biggest tragedy to befall mankind. What an ass, whoever it was.

      1. Ehrlich and others are/were still living in the past with the assumption that any material condition for the world population at large would leave a large overhang of population from the days when large families were both social insurance for the parents and an on-hand labor force to improve the family’s material condition. That hasn’t been true for quite some time if you bother to examine the world-wide data on family size even in “developing” countries which has seen a major reduction in family size already, almost as if in anticipation of an improvement to the family’s material condition and societal social insurance. Odd. Very odd, but true.

  5. Sorry John, but the climate change crowd is not going to reduce a single regulation anywhere in the world.
    They don’t care about global climate warming change; that is just another excuse for the fascist takeover of all freedom anywhere in the world. Like us, they know that IF there is any change, it is/will be so gradual that humans will adapt as we go.

    1. This exactly. There’s a reason the founder of green peace left it. Because they are a socialist organization and have nothing to do with the enviroment

      1. Funny thing is, way back at the beginning of the Green Party, they were debating Socialism versus Capitalism. Socialism lost because of Socialism’s horrendous environmental record. In Europe the Green Party is still mostly pro-capitalist. It didn’t become a Socialism-First and Environment-Second party until it crossed the pond to the US, where the New Left was in full sway at the time.

        1. They still make disastrous decisions such a pushing Germany to use coal in place of nuclear and shutting down all their nuclear plants. CO2 reduction? Environmental costs, such as the fact that coal fly waste is far more radioactive than 99.9% of supposed nuclear waste? What maroons.

  6. What nuclear waste? If it’s radioactive enough to be dangerous then it’s radioactive enough to be fuel in a reactor.

    The reactor design may need to change but that just means you build a couple of different types instead of one design.

    1. Not necessarily. Sometimes it’s just not feasible to extract the last big of energy out of radioactive decay. Theoretically you’re correct, practically you’re wrong.

      So store the problematic nuclear waste. Perhaps in the future technology will improve where we can use it. But not right now.

      1. It is feasible to recycle the waste the government doesn’t allow it.

      2. I’ve looked at this, the ‘waste’ consists of three basic components:

        1) The largest: Fuel that you had to stop ‘burning’ because it became isotopically poisoned, it just needs to be reprocessed. Including fuel that was bred during operation.
        2) Long half life ‘waste’ isotopes that have such long half-lives that they wouldn’t be dangerous at all if they weren’t heavy metal toxins.
        3) Really short half life isotopes that go away within a few hundred years.

        Category 1 IS fuel, for conventional reactors.
        Category 2 IS waste, but easy to deal with, pitch it down a hole.
        Category 3, yeah, maybe you could get energy out of it in a special reactor, it’s pretty hot.

        1. “Long half life ‘waste’ isotopes that have such long half-lives that they wouldn’t be dangerous at all if they weren’t heavy metal toxins.”

          Pitch it down a hole, eh? How many geologically stable locations that are there that wouldn’t risk poisoning groundwater if they were simply forgotten a few hundred years from now and not maintained?

          Speaking of which, how do the economics work when you generate waste that needs to be managed for hundreds of years or more in order to produce electricity now?

          1. Yucca Mountain is geologically stable and away from groundwater, and has enough capacity to handle all of the radioactive waste that has been produced in the US several times over.

      3. No, there are specific designs that accept all radioactive waste as fuel. Indeed, that’s a selling point for anyone with any sense. No worries about storage or terrorist activity trying to obtain materials for a dirty bomb.

    2. 99% of it isn’t even waste it’s just the fact that the government doesn’t allow the recycling of nuclear fuel that it exists at all.

      1. I think that they reopened or are reopening the breeder reactor in Idaho.

        1. Breeder Reactor was my nickname in college.

      2. The ban on reprocessing was specifically intended to create a crisis which would result in nuke plants being closed.

    3. “If it’s radioactive enough to be dangerous then it’s radioactive enough to be fuel in a reactor.” — I could be wrong but I be thinking you got the idea of nuclear power generation all wrong.

  7. amazing but we are the one who will save the environment.

  8. I used to take my kids to a nearby nuclear power plant to watch the manatees frolic by the coolant water outflow pipe. People need to take their Ritalin. It should also be mentioned repeatedly that the US Navy has continuously operated hundreds of nuclear reactors for 50 + years without incident. This last point cannot be emphasized enough.

    1. Show also be emphasized that the Navy reactors are fairly primitive in terms of nuclear technology. They are NOT the kind of reactors we want. But they do demonstrate the point that they are not all bombs waiting to end civilization.

      1. Should also be emphasized that unlike land-based reactors, Navy reactors are more subject to the risk of being shot at, run aground, and otherwise mishandled in high risk situations.

        Should also also be pointed out that even if they were all bombs waiting to go off, unless they somehow all went off at once and without warning, devastation and recovery would be less than your average direct-hit hurricane.

      2. They aren’t primitive in any way, shape or form and this is from personal knowledge. Navy nuclear reactors are designed in many cases to operate without pumps at all and that’s as far as I can go in describing them without a visit from the government.

    2. USN #1.Carriers need to refuel every 25 years, vs China’s “carriers’ that are brown water navy and can’t operate more than a couple of hundred km without refueling and just landed the first fighter on an obsolete carrier a few days ago. Chinese technology has almost caught up to the USN of 75 years ago.

  9. But in America, nuclear growth came to a near halt 40 years ago

    Only on the civilian side. Every US submarine and carrier is nuclear. I’m unaware of any significant accident occurring in the past 40 years.

    1. Cruisers too. Not sure about destroyers.

      1. You’re right, there were a handful of nuclear cruisers. No destroyers.

        Funny thing – Decades ago, Congress mandated that carrier escorts be nuclear powered. It was so expensive that the Navy just disregarded it.

        1. The reasoning for that was that the nuclear escorts could keep up with the carrier when it pulled out all the stops on its upper speed. My father served on the USS Enterprise and one day, off the coast of South Vietnam, they kicked it in the ass, with a “rooster-tail” shooting well beyond the flight deck, and the only ships that could keep up were her nuclear escorts. I know the speed they were pulling, but it’s still classified to this day.

  10. “You do not cool the planet with a radioactive fire”

    Wasserman’s an idiot.

    1. LOL!

      Idiot and science denier. The only the reason the Earth is habitable is because radioactive material in the mantle keeps the core molten. Does he think there are a shitload of hamsters in there running on billions of little wheels or a kaiju size hamster on one big giant wheel?

      Mars is volcanically inactive because of the lack of heavy elements. It’s one of the reasons Mars would be nearly impossible to terraform.

      1. Nah, Mars probably has about as many heavy elements as Earth. It just loses heat faster due to having a larger ratio of surface to volume, and didn’t have enough water getting sucked into subduction zones to lubricate the plates. So the power output dropped below the critical level necessary to keep things going, earlier in the planetary history.

        Plate tectonics is just easier to keep going on a large, wet planet, kind of like a large compost heap gets hotter than a small one, even if you build it with the same materials.

        1. While I admit it was not recent, I remember it suggesting that Earth has more radioactive elements and iron than expected from regular planetary formation theory and cited this as additional evidence of a planetary collision as the source of the Moon, i.e., Earth is heavier than it should and the Moon is lighter than it should be. This also points to Earth being more of a Goldilocks planet than run-of-the-mill.

          That would suggest that Mars should have relatively fewer heavy elements than Earth, but I have no idea how they estimate those things.

          The original point was that radioactivity is extremely important to the habitability of Earth.

          1. While I admit it was not recent, I remember it suggesting that Earth has more radioactive elements and iron than expected

            And HO2. Don’t forget the vast oceans of HO2 that White Knight has discovered.

            1. HO2 is a by-product of the decay of radon in fairy farts. I thought everybody knew that. We must immediately mobilize Greta Thumperberg to address the U.N. – HOW DARE YOU BELIEVE IN FAIRIES!

            2. What is HO2? A Santa Clause that is missing a HO?

              1. “What is HO2?”

                A pair of Vegas streetwalkers.

              2. I think we need to have WK weigh in on this subject.

          2. Not just that, but when you consider that the largest planets are found well away from the primary (Sun), our solar system doesn’t look like any of the solar systems we have found to date. This likely is a significant factor in the Fermi Paradox. Why it hasn’t been picked up so far is something I’d like to know.

      2. “Does he think there are a shitload of hamsters in there running on billions of little wheels or a kaiju size hamster on one big giant wheel?”

        That’s Gojira’s day job. And even HE runs on radioactives.

        Mosura does her part by making wind generators turn.

  11. It’s a religion. But it’s mostly about finger-pointing and shallow tribalism. Their belief in what the climate priests say is secondary. Climate doomsday is like Satan: mostly to scare people into doing what they’re told.

    The climate priests won’t go for nuclear power. Not enough sacrifice. Without you sacrificing your prosperity, the priests’ won’t be satisfied.

  12. It would probably have been forgotten had Hollywood not released a nuclear scare movie, The China Syndrome, days before.

    Worst. Movie. Ever.

    1. Jane Fonda looked good.

    2. Written by a journalist-turned-screenwriter.

    3. Is the sequal “the China syndrome: wu Han 2 virus Boogaloo”

      1. Little Trouble in Big China

  13. One nuclear accident, Chernobyl, did kill, and its radiation may still kill thousands more.

    In 1945, we not-accidentally triggered two unregulated chain reactions in the middle of two highly populated cities. ~230K peope died, 60 yrs. later, more than 2 million people live within the blast zone. COVID has killed more people than nuclear power (accidentally *and* intentionally). Heart disease *still* kills more than either one in any given year.

    1. Yes, but more people were killed by COVID due to a lack of regulation. The reason nuclear is killing fewer people is because there’s a permanent mask-mandate surrounding nuclear.

      1. The nuclear industry term is ALARA. As Low As Reasonably Achievable. It can easily be applied to almost anything in 2021.

    2. Moreover, Pripyat was an ‘atomgrad’, a remote city built around a nuclear reactor. The fact that it now sits vacant has as much to do with the meltdown as any given ghost town in the west being abandoned because of a mine collapse and even more to do with the fact that it was designated as a site of historical significance.

    3. Kyshtym says, “Hi!” Though that’s more an indictment of Communism than nuclear fuel production. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyshtym_disaster

      The INES can eat a bag of dicks, claiming that Fukushima was worse.

    4. that fact always makes me wonder about “nukleer half life”!!

  14. TMI became a problem only when a worker turned off the safety system which was working perfectly.

    1. What was hilarious here was every news source talking about a hydrogen explosion. To any non-idiot in the chemistry and physics departments, the presence of hydrogen with an energetic source simply indicated that there was a lack of oxygen.

      Yes, the fuel elements released the hydrogen embedded in them. Was it a problem? No.

  15. i really is amazing the way climate activists avoid nuclear as an option. but then the activists are not really interested in fixing the problem, they are interested in political power.

    of course, that is typical. the laws people want rarely do anything about the excuse hey give for wanting to pass them. and, the flip side is that those who disagree with the bad solutions tend to pretend the excuse is wrong too…… even if it is legitimate.

  16. At a minimum all operating plants should be kept in operation

  17. Stossel still thinks fighting climate change is about C02, but he hasn’t figured out it’s really about “equity”.

    1. And equity is about getting others’ money and about vain people congratulating themselves.

      1. For now. What the progs don’t know is that too much equity and they will be wiped out. To get rid of the equity.

    2. Yeah, weird how using the pinnacle of human (not just Western) innovation to provide everyone the same access to cheap, abundant, and eco-friendly power jives with the notion of ‘equity’.

      1. Er; jives with the notion of equity or doesn’t jive with the notions of ‘equity’.

  18. To paraphrase my environmental Science professor: Nuclear power is racist because the US government encouraged the Navajo to mine the uranium on their tribal lands.

    But silver would take the medal for most racist based on what the Spanish did to the Inca.

    1. Just wait and see what the Chinese will do to the Aymara and Quechua, in order to get their Lithium.

  19. Canada gets around 16 percent of its energy from nuclear sources.

    1. France gets something like 70% from theirs.

      1. Yea, that’s impressive actually.

  20. Two scenarios. One is preferred by environmental activists, the other is not.

    1. 100,000 vehicles, moving at a reasonable speed towards their respective destinations.
    2. 100,000 vehicles moving slowly or idling in traffic, taking tens, even hundreds of minutes longer to reach their respective destinations because roads were closed/narrowed/restricted to make way for bicycles and/or empty trains.

    1. The carbon footprint converting a vehicle lane to a bike lane is substantial. As is the upkeep. Asphalt comes from dead dinosaurs. Some bike lanes have asphalt that came into human possession via fracking. And the heavy breathing that bicycles exhale has a much higher rate of CO2 emissions than someone driving a car.

    2. Neither is acceptable to the Greenie Weenies.

      The only one that they will accept is 99,950 people in train cars, with the remaining 50 being the activists in their Teslas.

  21. One person’s lifetime nuclear waste is approximately one CANDU bundle.

    (These are the relatively small tube bundles filled with unenriched UO2 pellets that we in Canada use. A reasonably fit person could lift one. If it were a *used* one, but had been retired for ten years, they still could lift it, but would have a better-than-even chance of dying if they parked themselves next to it for 12 hours.)

    Why not launch it into space? Because it, and all its American and other cousins, have never in the slightest degree done any public harm, and it has a lot more energy left to give, someday, when economical reprocessing is allowed. If space is where the reprocessing is, that could make some sense.

    What if the rocket crashed in the ocean? Well, we don’t know how much fuss the usual suspects would make about launching burnt-out fuel rods, but we *do* know how much fuss they made about the hundreds-of-times-hotter load of 238PuO2 that now is powering *Perseverance*. A lot of coverage of the launch didn’t even mention the N-word at all. (Yes, those few kilograms were as radioactive as a whole rocket-load of “high-level nuclear waste”.)

    What’s made that plutonium politically non-nuclear? Its lack of threat to fossil fuel tax revenue.

    Fossil fuel tax revenue is what it’s all about.

    1. Anyone screeching about freedom of speech in relation to the n-word is a nazi.

    2. Given those RTU’s can drop from orbit and all you’d have to do is go pick it up to put it on the next mission, they have zero threat value except in the hands of someone willing to convert it to a dirty bomb. 10 KW over a ten to twenty year period is nothing to sneeze at when it comes to a long term power source.

  22. Can any of you come up with the names of cities, counties or states that are eager to have a nuclear power plant built close by? Anyone? Bueller?

    1. It’ll take me some time, but there’s quite a list of towns in France that are good with it.

      1. I’m sure it will take you some time. A reactor hasn’t been built in France since 2002. Since then the French population has turned slightly against nuclear power. Partially because of Fukushima but even more because close to half their reactors went offline in 2016 because of a steel quality problem. That is inevitable with nuclear reactors because those will always tend more towards centralized design, supplier, operation, etc. Which makes the system itself more brittle. If they hadn’t been able to buy excess coal power from Germany (which Germany is slowly shutting down), France would have been in real trouble.

        1. For his part, Wood Mackenzie’s Osbaldstone said the 50% target did not mean the technology had fallen entirely out of favor, noting that in 2019 the French government had “instructed EDF to explore the possibility of constructing six new reactors across three sites.” The utility, he added, was “due to respond by mid-2021.”

          France ain’t letting go of nuclear any time soon.

          1. Oh, JFree is full of shit again?! Imagine my surprise!
            Fuck off and die, JFree; your dog will piss on your grave.

        2. Neutron embrittlement of steel has been a known problem with reactors since the 1950’s. The problem is not the steel, it’s a problem with preventing the process which is not an easy problem to solve.

      2. Illinois used to be cool with it and, if Cook County weren’t wagging the dog, probably still would be.

        1. Cook County isn’t the tail.

          It’s just BELOW the tail, judging by what comes from Chicago.

    2. They decommissioned the plant that was upstream from Portland, Oregon. I got to visit it while it was operating when I was a kid.

      Perhaps they should not have named it W.P.P.S.S. (whoops!)

      I can tell you definitively that the storage depot at Hanford, WA is sited there because the naturally occurring radioactive material in the region masks the waste stored there. Lefties try to allege that the site pollutes the Columbia, but it’s just natural runoff from the uranium deposits in the surrounding mountains.

  23. Yeah sure. The energy solution is clearly something that must be centralized, socialist and will require or result in one world government as globocop. WTF.

    China puts a nuclear reactor on the grid every two to three months.

    No they don’t. And even if they did, that would be nowhere near enough to ‘quickly reduce greenhouse gases’ as Stossel is hyping.

    Nuclear is one form of energy for use in reducing carbon footprint. But the fact is that it hasn’t solved some of the problematic issues that have been around for 60+ years – with no solution on the horizon either – and it can’t deal with the one big uncertainty of climate change itself. So it is at best of secondary or tertiary importance.

    It’s possible the book itself indicates some nuance but there ain’t none here is there.

    1. “…Nuclear is one form of energy for use in reducing carbon footprint. But the fact is that it hasn’t solved some of the problematic issues that have been around for 60+ years – with no solution on the horizon either – and it can’t deal with the one big uncertainty of climate change itself. So it is at best of secondary or tertiary importance…”

      The asshole JFree arm-waves without a single specific once again! The asshole JFree is so smart we should all listen to his arm-waving and simply accept we don’t know enough to criticize the asshole’s arm-waving.
      Fuck off and die, asshole.

      1. You want specific problem statement?

        Exactly who will make the decisions to fix problems that pop up in 1000 years as the whoopsie for whatever decision we made today for the waste? how will we fund that fix 1000 years in the future or are we just going to base things on theft?

        How are you going to stop a)the control of fuel source a la all the Middle East shit during oil era or b)the diversion of fuel to nuclear weapons by Iran, NKorea, alQaeda, etc? How much is that gonna cost? Because those all cost ZERO with wind/solar.

        How much more does NIMBY cost because the NIMBY radius for a nuclear power plant is a fuckload bigger than for a wind turbine?

        If climate change is gonna require moving people inland to deal with the hurricanes, sea level rise, etc – then wtf you gonna do with the nuclear power plants that were built on that same coast at sea level? Just another fucking whoopsie ya didn’t think about?

        1. “Exactly who will make the decisions to fix problems that pop up in 1000 years as the whoopsie for whatever decision we made today for the waste? how will we fund that fix 1000 years in the future or are we just going to base things on theft?”

          Yep, bullshit on stilts.
          Anyone who claims that we need to solve hypothetical problems one millennium out is……….
          Full.
          Of.
          Shit.
          The rest of your ‘details’ are of a similar ‘quality’.
          Stuff your PANIC flag up your ass.

        2. wtf you gonna do with the nuclear power plants that were built on that same coast at sea level?

          From that right wing bastion that is the Guardian: “researchers from the University of Copenhagen’s Niels Bohr Institute believe levels could rise as much as 1.35 metres by 2100, under a worst-case warming scenario.”

          Worst case predictions are 1.35 METRES? OMFG! That is like, 5 ft. And it is almost completely moot because they build them next to rivers, not oceans.

          You use a lot of pretentious words, but you are just a fucking gas bag.

          1. He’s an idiot. Through and through.

            1. Oh, goody! One more chance to point out that JFree is a lying piece of lefty shit:
              “Are Coastal Nuclear Power Plants Ready for Sea Level Rise?”
              […]
              “…In fact, research by Ensia suggests that at least 100 US, European, and Asian nuclear power stations built just a few meters above sea level could be threatened by serious flooding caused by accelerating sea-level rise and more frequent storm surges…”
              “Published at the University of Minnesota’s Institute on the Environment, Ensia is a solutions-focused media outlet
              reporting on our changing planet.”

              Yep, a lefty org publishes claims (absent data) that our resident lefty shit claims as, well,worth more than the resident lefty shit’s are commonly worth.
              And fails.
              Fuck off and die; your family will thank us, TDS-addled lefty asshole.

            2. 90% plus of the population as near as I can tell are also on the coasts, whatever will we do! Idjit.

        3. Build a new plant inland at higher elevation then move the fuel there. Voila.

        4. See level “rise” in the last 30 years was about 60 millimeters. A lot of that is attributable to greater accuracy of measurements.

          How many people you think we need to move inland over 2-1/2 inches?

    2. You obviously don’t bother to pay attention to the other side of nuclear engineering, solutions, something I’ve been tracking for five decades. I’d say six, except I’m only six decades old. Vitrification. All the high level waste in the US would fit in a vitrified cube 100m on a side. That’s it. Every bit of it. All the other waste is considered nuclear waste solely based on NEC regulation as having been “potentially” exposed to nuclear radiation. By that standard, I’m nuclear waste as well and you don’t want to go there.

      Further, there is not reason at all to dispose this at all. It is fuel for the newest generation of reactor, waste being an enabler of power generation with lesser fuels such as thorium, let alone mildly enriched U235. Come back with some facts and engineering problems next time.

      1. NRC regulations, frigging lack of an editor.

  24. “Save the environment” — !!!???!!! Really stop for a second and think………… Save it from WHAT? Itself? If you think little puffs from fuel engines are an issue; you’ve never witnessed a volcano eruption, forest fire, or dust storm.

    “Save the environment” is just another slogan for screaming “Wolf!”. Talk about a world being entirely duped by idiocy. First it was Global Cooling, then it was Global Warming and now it’s just “Changing”. Save the environment from changes???? Here’s a fun fact. The weather has been changing ALWAYS.

    1. And for much of the last two Billion years, the climate has been changing in one direction or another without human intervention with the top end of CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere being 1200 ppm+ (a low ball estimate with the high estimate of 1500 ppm). The question isn’t so much whether the concentrations are changing but around how, exactly, we are going to prevent the Earth from doing its own thing and we stop it, if that is even possible.

      For anyone reasonably informed about the climatological record, we are coming out of an Ice Age and have so far dipped twice since that transition back into one (Lesser Dryas and Little Ice Age). What has been keeping us out of returning to an Ice Age is human activity, unless you are someone that doesn’t understand numbers and statistical data collected to date.

      As for the models to date, my entire academic and life experience is around mathematical, statistical, and numerical computing models as well as experimental design. It’s my damned degree. The current models are garbage that have entire sections, such as cloud modeling, wrong., so wrong we are revising them on a monthly basis since the field was defined. There’s too much we don’t know about the existing feedback loops on this planet, so much so I fear for any solutions from the geoengineering side, despite some very elegant solutions, something else I’m paying attention to here.

      We do have a horizon out there where we need to get our collective s— together. The question remains, what are we trying to achieve in controlling the climatology of an entire planet and can we both afford it and can we succeed. I have extreme doubts as to both based upon that other degree in economics.

  25. The 2 issues being downplayed or ignored are 1. Spent nuclear fuel is dangerously radioactive for tens of thousands of years and in all the decades of use there is Not One Safe n Secure storage site ot storage method.

    2. Nuclear plant accidents are not a matter of Probability but of definite Possibility. DOE exhibitions are nothing like the real thing with its human errors in manufacturing and maintenance and the ongoing pervasive wear n tear. Nor are nuclear subs equivalent to huge power plants.

    Btw u left out Detroit’s Fermi incident,as described in the book “We almost lost Detroit”.(the title is not hyperbolic).

    The reason i will never subscribe 2 Reason is its writers dogmatic adherence to their arcane philosophy that time after time elevates corporate friendly viewpoints over our citizens welfare. This is Not Libertarianism.

    1. Unless you bother to pay attention to the Fact that spent nuclear fuel is the beating heart of new reactor designs. As to nuclear accidents, well the US Navy hasn’t had a nuclear accident of even mild significance since the program began back in the 1950’s. Everyone would have noticed since their plants would have had a mushroom cloud over them if they had, which speaks extreme volumes about who should have been handing such nuclear security issues since the beginning.

      No, I don’t have faith in corporations here, this is something where you need individuals who see this kind of responsibility as their duty that defines their lives. There are two of us in this house right now, but nuclear trained and qualified. Heck, even Heinlein knew this by heart.

  26. “Climate Change Activists Need To Get Serious About Nuclear Power”:
    This is true. Way to go Reason for being right about something.

  27. It is ironic that the people who forever shout “Follow the science!” rarely ever do.

  28. I agree whole heartedly with Stossel point. Alas there is no one “point” that is the ultimate answer as we learn (and forget) more about things everyday/year/decade/….

    How can we overlook the already tested, proved workable Thorium nuclear reactor technology. Bottom line: SAFE from “critical mass” explosions, NON-POLLUTING (by reasonable standards – everything is “polluting to someone, e.g. RAP music to me), TESTED (Thorium reactor used by the TVA for years). Note that India is supposedly going all out on Thorium reactors (well internet news anyway).

    My guess re why it’s been virtually ignored is the familiarity with uranium based reactors and the value of uranium isotopes for weapons. How would I know why? Never been asked… duh!

    HOPEFULLY someone in the small world MSM talking heads will pickup on this idea and bring awareness to our decision making elites.

  29. This has nothing to do with “climate change or attempts to protect the Earth.”

    It is about POWER. It has always been.

    Sanjosemike (no longer in CA)

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.