The Political Sabotage of Nuclear Power
Abundant, emissions-free energy was once the promise of a nuclear-powered future. What happened?
HD DownloadOnce upon a time, America embraced nuclear power as the future of energy. Today it accounts for a mere 18 percent of the nation's electricity generation, while fossil fuels remain dominant at 60 percent. Why did nuclear fail to take off?
From 1967 to 1972, the nuclear sector experienced significant growth, and 48 new nuclear plants were built. But in March 1979, a meltdown at Pennsylvania's Three Mile Island nuclear power plant, which resulted in no casualties and no lingering environmental damage, spooked the entire nation and empowered anti-nuclear activists.
"After Three Mile Island, what was considered to be in the best interest of the public was just reducing risk to as low as possible," says Adam Stein, director of the Nuclear Energy Innovation Program at the Breakthrough Institute. "It resulted in a huge volume of regulations that anybody who wanted to build a new reactor had to know. It made the learning curve much steeper to even attempt to innovate in the industry."
After the incident, the momentum behind nuclear reactor construction tapered off and no new reactors were built for the next two decades. Nowadays, the landscape remains unchanged: The federal government makes permitting arduous, while many states impose severe restrictions on new plant construction and force operational ones to shut down prematurely.
For example, take Indian Point Energy Center, the largest nuclear plant in New York State. In 2007, anti-nuclear activists targeted the plant, which provided a quarter of downstate New York's electricity. Their cause gained significant traction with the support of New York state attorney general—and future governor—Andrew Cuomo, who believed the nuclear plant was "risky."
Cuomo promised to usher in a new era of clean energy for New Yorkers. His moves against Indian Point garnered support from fellow Green New Deal advocates, including Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D–N.Y.), as well as environmental groups.
The plant eventually closed in April 2021, but there was "a gulf between intentions and results," explains writer Eric Dawson, co-founder of Nuclear New York, a group fighting to protect the industry. The closure of Indian Point increased New York's carbon emissions. State utilities had to make up for the loss of energy by burning more natural gas, resulting in a 9 percent increase in energy-related CO2 emissions. At the same time, the state's energy prices also increased.
This outcome isn't unique to New York. Germany also opted to phase out nuclear power, betting on wind instead. Electricity from windmills increased, but so did the country's reliance on coal. In 2023, Germany emitted almost eight times the carbon per kilowatt-hour than neighboring France, which still gets the majority of its electricity from nuclear and less than 1 percent from coal.
According to Dawson, nuclear power is "the most scalable, reliable, efficient, land-conserving, material-sparing, zero-emission source of energy ever created." Wind and solar aren't as reliable because they depend on intermittent weather. They also require much more land than nuclear plants, which use about 1 percent of what solar farms need and 0.3 percent of what wind farms require to yield the same amount of energy.
The economics of nuclear power are undoubtedly challenging, but its advocates say that's primarily because of its thorny politics. The headache of building a new power plant is vividly exemplified by Georgia's Plant Vogtle. The first U.S. reactor built from scratch since 1974, the project turned into a nightmare scenario: It took almost 17 years from when the first permit was filed for construction to begin, it cost more than $28 billion, and it bankrupted the developer in the process.
Nuclear regulation is "based on politics and fear-mongering and a lack of understanding," explains Indian Point's vice president, Frank Spagnuolo. If they aren't shut down, he says, power plants such as Indian Point could safely continue to provide clean energy for decades.
Despite the opposition, there remains some hope for the future of nuclear energy. Companies are actively developing next-generation nuclear technologies, such as small modular reactors and molten salt-cooled reactors, to minimize the risks associated with nuclear meltdowns and explosions. And some former nuclear opponents have become advocates, acknowledging it as a vital source of clean energy. The converts include the Environmental Defense Fund, the Natural Resources Defense Council, and even Rep. Ocasio-Cortez. The Biden administration has also demonstrated support for nuclear power, with the Department of Energy projecting a tripling of nuclear energy production in America by 2050.
Anti-nuclear activists, environmentalists, and politicians have crippled the only truly viable form of clean energy. But the long nuclear power winter might finally be coming to an end in America.
Photo Credits: Louis Lanzano/Polaris/Newscom; Erik McGregor/Pacific Press/Newscom; JB NICHOLAS/Splash News/Newscom; Erik Mcgregor/ZUMA Press/Newscom; Erik Thomas/NY Post/MEGA/Newscom/DBNYC/Newscom; Pool/ABACA/Newscom; Jon G. Fuller/VWPics/Newscom; imageBROKER/J. Ehrlich/Newscom; */Kyodo/Newscom; RICHARD B. LEVINE/Newscom; FRANCES M. ROBERTS/Newscom; Bill Clark/CQ Roll Call/Newscom; MOURAD ALLILI/SIPA/Newscom; Pacific Press/Sipa USA/Newscom; Paul Hennessy/SOPA Images/Sipa/Newscom; Michael Siluk/UCG/Universal Images Group/Newscom; Joe Sohm/Visions of America/Joseph Sohm/Universal Images Group/Newscom; KEVIN DIETSCH/UPI/Newscom; ROGER L. WOLLENBERG/UPI/Newscom; Utrecht Robin/ZUMAPRESS/Newscom; Dick Darrell/Toronto Star/ZUMA Press/Newscom; St Petersburg Times/ZUMAPRESS/Newscom; Ron Adar, M10s/ZUMAPRESS/Newscom; Reginald Mathalone/ZUMAPRESS/Newscom; Hans Pennink/ZUMAPRESS/Newscom; Paul Hennessy/ZUMAPRESS/Newscom; Antti Yrjonen/ZUMA Press/Newscom; Brittany Murray/ZUMA Press/Newscom; Meghan McCarthy/ZUMA Press/Newscom; Dan Herrick/ZUMAPRESS/Newscom; Nuclear Regulatory Commission, CC BY 2.0 DEED, via Wikimedia Commons; Library of Congress/Bernard Gotfryd; Jmnbqb, CC BY-SA 4.0 DEED, via Wikimedia Commons; Truzguiladh, CC BY-SA 2.5 DEED, via Wikimedia Commons; Georgia Power; Edibobb, CC BY 3.0 DEED, via Wikimedia Commons; Michael Barera, CC BY-SA 4.0 DEED, via Wikimedia Commons; Ken Lund, CC BY-SA 2.0 DEED, via Wikimedia Commons; Z22, CC BY-SA 3.0 DEED, via Wikimedia Commons; Ron Sachs - CNP for NY Post/CNP/Polaris/Newscom
Music: "The Edge" by Theatre of Delays via Artlist; "Digital Abyss" by Stephen Keech via Artlist; "Expand" by Theatre of Delays via Artlist; "Monomer" by Leroy Wild via Artlist; "Behind the City" by Ziv Moran via Artlist; "No Decides" by Or Chausha via Artlist; "Pulse" by Theatre of Delays via Artlist; "Each and Every" by Crosstown Traffic via Artlist; "Upon Dragon Wings" by Rob Cawley via Artlist; "Silent Bloom" by SLPSTRM via Artlist; "Sad Snow" by Yehezkel Raz via Artlist; "First Try" by Neon Ridge via Artlist; "Still Need Syndrome" by Yarin Primak via Artlist; "Night Shift" by Curtis Cole via Artlist; "Elastic Clock" by Jozeque via Artlist
- Video Editor: Danielle Thompson
- Camera: Jim Epstein
- Graphics: Adani Samat
- Audio Production: Ian Keyser
- Writer: Katarina Hall
- Camera: Kevin Alexander
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments 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 and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Nuclear regulation is "based on politics and fear-mongering and a lack of understanding," explains Indian Point's vice president, Frank Spagnuolo.
Government is the idiots who tell the experts how to do their job.
You didn't see where Frankie proposed storing the radioactive waste did you? You probably didn't see how the insurrectionist senator from MO, Josh Hawley, crying for federal funds to clean-up the outskirts of the St. Louis suburbs due the radio activity that was left behind after the area had been used in the development of our 1st Nuclear weapon in 1945...still killing people 80 yrs later, but its safe...by the way you can't nuclear power for the Chernobyl or the Fukushima catastrophes; dumb Russians & God, (natural disasters for the agnostics & atheists) can be minimized by us immortal Americans.
How much radioactivity in the outskirts of Saint Louis? Can you name a single person killed by it?
And what does the word salad in the rest of your comment mean?
The Political Sabotage of Nuclear Power
Abundant, emissions-free energy was once the promise of a nuclear-powered future. What happened?
People in the Seventies let a stupid Jane Fonda movie The China Syndrome scare the living shit of them. If ever a movie needs the MST3K treatment, it’s this one!
The China Syndrome (1979) Original Trailer (HD 1980p)
https://youtu.be/bIGH1AfIS18?si=ssQOG4Pd4a4I_Paa
Joel: Hey! It’s a blue agate! I won one of those playing marbles as a kid!
Tom Servo: Funny! I didn’t know “Snake” Pliskin was a photographer! Maybe The Duke of New York is the A Number One suspect in the meltdown!
Crow T. Robot: Yeah, Honey! You got your job because you look hawt in workout tights! Did that NVA gun give your legs a good workout?
GPC (Formerly Gypsy): He should have used the low-fat bacon in the nuclear reactor! Now it’s having a heart attack! Why isn’t Richard Basehart in this movie?
🙂
😉
By the way Zach, if you're reading, I'll still watch you and Liz ask questions on YouTube and give you support in non-Reason Magazine endeavors. You're both great even if your bosses aren't.
TMI was like 3 months after the movie came out.
12 days.
Sounds suspicious.
You're right about The China Syndrome and it came out right after a widely read book, We Almost Lost Detroit. Of course we did lose Detroit but for other reasons. Anyway I was in my 20s at the time and I fully bought into the propaganda because that's what all the cool kids were doing. We didn't have the kind of access to countering opinions then that we have now so once Hollywood and Walter Cronkite bought in it was pretty much a done deal. Have watched this same game play out dozens of times since then on other issues. The lesson is never ever trust the conventional wisdom.
We Almost Lost Detroit
If only...
Walter Cronkite misinterpreting the news and changing public opinion by being completely wrong in his analysis. This is my Tet offensive shocked face.
Two notes: How was Jane Fonda ever considered a sex symbol? She was average at best in this trailer. Second, that has got to be one of the worst trailers I've ever seen, additionally the FX look crappy, even by 1978-79 standards (the door blowing up and a couple of sparks, really?). Yeah, definitely needs MST3K treatment.
How was Jane Fonda ever considered a sex symbol
Cat Ballou and Barbarella
How was Jane Fonda ever considered a sex symbol?
Not sure how old she was, but she was clearly already hitting the wall here.
Pretty sure she was propped up as a "sex symbol" because she was reasonably attractive, even if a butterface, and had the "right views" on Vietnam. And she was willing to do a borderline porn movie (Barbarella).
"and had the “right views” on Vietnam"
She was against the police action, and even traveled to Hanoi to pose for photos at Vietnamese anti-aircraft weapons. Vinyl stickers with her face were fixed to urinals in US military bases to boost flagging morale.
https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B00CC3XPZK/reasonmagazinea-20/#immersive-view_1709682866226
She married Ted Turner. He made it into reality through his manipulation of media.
She was hot back in the 60’s. Barbarella comes to mind. That was also before Donald Sutherland radicalized her during the shooting of ‘Klute’.
Though, as with Mother's Lament, you and I will never agree on religion--and I freely admit to being a quarrelly bastard on the subject-- you have an awesome encyclopedic knowledge of history and military strategy in that sea of text you pour forth.
🙂
😉
Whether you stay here or let your Commenter status lapse like me, please never give up on that scholarship.
Please also use your knowledge and admirable U.S. Military service to inform and inspire everyone in better ways of thinking about our messed-up defense and foreign policy.
May you always keep the powder dry and live by the Special Forces motto of De Oppresso Liber. ("From an Oppressed Man, to a Free Man" or roughly "To Free from Oppression.")
Cause she was friggin' hot, that's why.
IIRC, the decline in her looks was sudden and before she was 35. Possibly even between _Barbarella_ in 1968 and _They Shoot Horses, Don't They" in 1969. I think she decided that giving men wet dreams was against her politics and stopped doing makeup, although she stayed fit for herself.
There's a cowgirl sequence in _9 to 5_ that shows that even in 1980 and over 40, when she wanted to she could get dolled up and look as good as she did in _Cat Ballou_.
"a meltdown at Pennsylvania's Three Mile Island nuclear power plant ... spooked the entire nation and empowered anti-nuclear activists."
No, it did NOT spook "the entire nation." And no, it did NOT empower anti-nuclear activists. Politicians empowered anti-nuclear activists. Fear is pretty much the only lever power-craving politicians have at their disposal to justify their meddling. They could not care less how much the serfs have to pay for electricity or whether nuclear power is better, worse or a mix of both compared to fossil fuel, solar, wind or tide generation. It does not bother them to say that nuclear is too dangerous while banning fossil fuels and promoting failed "renewable" energy AT THE SAME TIME.
"Politicians empowered anti-nuclear activists."
It certainly empowered the activists who run Exxon, Shell, BP, Chevron, etc. They run the largest, most profitable industries on the planet today, and spend billions of $US on propaganda and lobbying. The dirty hippy with the green placard is about as empowered today as he was before TMI.
"...It certainly empowered the activists who run Exxon, Shell, BP, Chevron..."
Never forget:
mtrueman|8.30.17 @ 1:42PM|#
"Spouting nonsense is an end in itself."
He actually has a point here, even if it was likely by complete accident. If you look into it, the big oil/energy companies like Exxon and Shell were (and still are to a degree) large funders of the anti-nuclear activists and lobbyists. I'm sure the fact that he actually got something correct is just another example that even a broke clock is right twice a day.
The Soviet Union funded a lot of the anti nuclear movement too.
What happened is pretty fucking obvious.
the anti-Human, anti-western faction took over the environmentalist movement!
Afraid not. What obviously happened was that the politicians found a new socialist movement to excuse their satisfying their lust for power. Justification, usually using fear as a tool, is incidental to the ongoing quest for and accumulation of power. The useful idiots hand them all the tools they need to perpetuate themselves as the power elite. The idiots who hand the officials the tools of their own enslavement unintentionally prove the case that they are in need of guardianship. The rest of us are the undeserving victims.
“Power is not a means; it is an end.”
-George Orwell, 1984
More insidious than that. Cheap energy led to the rise if much if the individualism. Keeping people down to expensive energy sources limited their freedom. We see this with WEF and in Europe as they seek to reduce travel and movement.
I’m tellin’ all y’all…
I can't stand it
"all y'all" a great Southern expression.
This is what annoys me about Republicans. They could introduce legislation to encourage the construction of more nuclear plants and force Democrats to look like complete hypocrites in the process for opposing clean energy, but they are too stupid for that.
I can see the Democrat’s “Republicans want to expose your children to dangerous radioactive materials to please the capitalists” ads now.
Which they actually did do to some degree when Bush tried to bring some sanity to the regulations to make building nuclear plants easier during his presidency (the second one, not the first).
Trump favored nuclear power, shoring up our current military stockpiles, but acknowledged that those stockpiles were the most dangerous threat facing mankind and should only be used as a last resort, if at all.
The media cited unnamed sources to make it look like he was trying to figure out if he could nuke Russia (despite other sources alleging him being a Russian asset) or China and get away with it.
Again, you’re talking about the subtleties and science of low grade vs. weapons grade enrichment for people of the general level of intelligence that, when the SCOTUS nominee answers “I’m not a biologist.” to the question “What is a woman?”, cheer and throw their pussy hats in the air. We’re talking about people who were wearing masks under their noses to prevent the spread of infectious disease while advising each other to use glory holes at Bear Week.
What's the point of acquiring political capital if you don't spend some of it on important stuff? If the Republicans are going to go all damsel in disress with the vapors every time the Democrats might say something mean why vote for them? You may as well directly vote for Democrats since the Republicans are nothing but subs to the Democrat doms.
You mean like this?
https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/2373/text
Or…
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/512
I would keep going but limited to 2 links.
Even Trump got in on it. Often these measures are blocked at the state level for building plants.
https://www.energy.gov/articles/president-trump-signs-bill-boost-advanced-nuclear-america
And won't even get into Reid blocking nuclear storage for spent waste in remote Nevada sites. Oh guess I will.
https://www.ktnv.com/news/harry-reids-legacy-a-staunch-opponent-of-yucca-mountain-nuclear-waste-disposal-site
Can’t have abundant power or the slaves might start thinking they’re free. The real irony of TMI is that it was completely a man made accident. The safety system worked perfectly but the operators couldn’t believe what the instruments were telling them so it was shut off.
"The real irony of TMI is that it was completely a man made accident."
It's not irony at all. All accidents are man made. TMI is no exception. Chernobly was caused by the engineers who were running dubious experiments on the reactor, and the veil of secrecy that surrounds the industry. Fukushima was caused by flaws in the design that were inadequate to withstand large earthquakes and flooding.
As long as plants, which from an engineering perspective are as sound as can be expected, are operated by humans, there is risk of disaster. Humans are prone to ambition, greed, vanity, laziness and short sightedness. They feel they have to keep to arbitrarily set schedules and routines to please their superiors. They get tired, distracted, drunk, or stoned. They mistakenly believe they can second guess faulty instruments, accurately predict the future, or know what's happening in the core.
An interesting book which catalogues the world's nuclear accidents:
http://libgen.is/book/index.php?md5=5D2F3E3D5C11639C011FC9060F9D0661
Pretty much all of them are down to human error. The first death due to radiation goes back to 1946 when over confident Louis Slotin, grandstanding before a small audience of scientists and technicians, performed some totally gratuitous procedures, slipped up, and died shortly afterwards:
At 3:20 p.m., the screwdriver slipped and the upper beryllium hemisphere fell, causing a "prompt critical" reaction and a burst of hard radiation. At the time, the scientists in the room observed the blue glow of air ionization and felt a heat wave. Slotin experienced a sour taste in his mouth and an intense burning sensation in his left hand. He jerked his left hand upward, lifting the upper beryllium hemisphere, and dropped it to the floor, ending the reaction. He had already been exposed to a lethal dose of neutron radiation.
The first death due to radiation goes back to 1946
I know what you mean – the first death due to radiation once we knew it was dangerous.
However, Harry Daghlian died in 1945 at Los Alamos.
Before then, Marie Curie died from aplastic anemia likely caused by exposure, and plenty of workers whose job it was to apply radium paint on watch dials died from cancers due to exposure – they’d lick the brush tips to keep the brush pointy.
Both Daghlian and Slotin died due to accidents caused by their ham fistedness and disregard of protocols. And they were aware of the dangers involved. Not so with Curie or the radium painters. Nor those who were suckered into ingesting radium by medical quacks.
IIRC, several of Marie Curie’s lab assistants died before her, of diseases we now know are often caused by radiation. Marie seems to have been unusually resistant to radiation, or else was remarkably careful to avoid contamination from her experiments. Fear of radiation wasn’t the first reason for that. Much of the chemical separation was done with fluorine compounds, and _all_ of those were terribly poisonous and could eat their way out of containers. When she started university, fluorine had only recently been isolated after nearly 70 years of experimentation, and her professors must have remembered many colleagues who died of fluorine poisoning after a tiny slip.
Anyway, she lived a remarkably long time for someone who once spent years processing huge quantities of uranium ore through dozens of steps to extract a few grams of radium. It’s said that she and Pierre would eat sandwiches while stirring huge vats in their back yard. (Pierre didn’t get cancer because he was run over and killed by a beer wagon.) But when scientists later exhumed her body and did some testing, they decided she hadn’t absorbed enough radium to kill her.
Instead, it was all the radiation she exposed herself as a radiographer in WWI. She installed her equipment in a truck and drove around France making X-rays or radiographs of the wounded. (A radiograph is like an X-ray, but using a vial of radioactive material to generate the beam) With the light loads a truck of that era could handle, I don’t think lead shielding was an option.
"...When thinking of safety with regards to nuclear energy, it is easy to think first of disasters such as Three Mile Island, Chernobyl (see Fig. 1), and Fukushima. Of these three events, the only one that caused deaths was Chernobyl for which death estimates are slightly above 50 people. [1] A 2007 study of energy production in Europe assessed accident related risks of several different sources of energy production. The results showed that nuclear energy production averages 0.012 deaths due to accidents per TWh of energy produced. [2] In contrast, coal production averages 0.12 deaths due to accidents per TWh. [2] Indeed, nuclear energy also had a lower number of accident related deaths than all other forms of energy production studied (Oil, Gas, and Lignite). [2]..."
http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2019/ph241/marshall2/
If you claim to be 'an environmentalist', and you oppose nuclear power, you are not a serious person, and no one should pay you any attention at all.
you do have to take the Chernobyl numbers with a grain of salt... we are talking about communist Russia...... more people died than the official death toll.
but, it is of note that nobody else in the world has ever designed reactors that way, and the people there pushed it to levels of insanity. what happened there wasn't possible in other reactors, and they had to try really hard to make it happen in that one. (also, they fixed the other reactors like that one, so it isn't possible anywhere now.) once you understand this, and the fact that there was no meaningful impact from the other two, it does seem a bit silly to not use nuclear power.
does. Expect the usual communist corruption didn't help. Buildings built in the bad old days have a tendency to fall apart because the commisars would send X tons of cement to make the concrete for the building. The guy running the show would snag a few for sale on the black market. A few construction workers would do the same. By the time they were making concrete they were using half as much cement as they needed.
I've no doubt a lot of the Chernobyl construction materials went missing in a similar manner. It was a disaster waiting to happen from the beginning.
the first big one was the graphite tips on the control rods. that only becomes an issue when most of the rods are completely removed from the core. (the tips being graphite instead of boron made them accelerate the reaction instead of slow it when they are first inserted..... which is the point of control rods..... the inevitable bureaucracy and bean counters of communism OKed that.)
the second big one was running an experiment with most of the control rods completely removed (making the graphite issue very relevant), contrary to every even halfway thought out precaution...... because the local party leaders wanted to get the experiment finished to impress the bureaucratic leaders who had no idea how any of it worked.
the HBO miniseries is pretty good at showing just how communism fucked the whole thing up. (a little dumbed down, but still pretty good.)
Who would have guessed that Soviet engineering back in the 50’s might be shoddy?
I had no idea that being an environmentalist focused so heavily on human deaths. But a man of your knowledge should contact the insurrectionist senator form MO, Josh Hawley, & tell him to stop begging for federal dollars to clean up the radio activity from the land that was utilized during WWII in developing our first atomic weapons.
I always love see Stanford University studies; especially after they got busted for publishing fabricated results on behalf of their donors.
I wonder, can we store all of the radio active nuclear waste in those republican controlled states?
FWIW when last I looked, a few years back, it was calculated that somewhat more people died from radiation per watt output from coal than from nuclear power, And looking again, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9594114/
The main contributors to the fatality risk for the former are the public dose caused by the use of coal ash and the occupational exposure caused by radon and its progeny in coal mines. The total health risk (but excluding low probability/high consequence accidents) of the coal-fired energy chain, 57.1 deaths (GW a)(-1), is about 12 times of that of the nuclear energy chain, 4.6 deaths (GW a)(-1). The health risk of coal-fired energy chain could be significantly reduced if technique and management were improved. Even then the risk of the coal-fired energy chain is about 4.4 times that of the nuclear energy chain.
And at the bottom there are links to other relevant papers.
I recall, also, the idiot opposition to research into disposal of nuclear waste - to summarise, "nuclear waste is dangerous, and so we don't want you to find safe ways to dispose of nuclear waste because it's dangerous!"
"In 2023, Germany emitted almost eight times the carbon per kilowatt-hour than neighboring France, which still gets the majority of its electricity from nuclear and less than 1 percent from coal. "
It's worth noting that during the summers of 2022 and 2023 France's nuclear power plants had to be closed. A heat wave and drought caused the river waters to dry up and heat. The plants produce excess heat and the river water is typically used as a heat sink. The hotter water plus the lower levels made it necessary to close the plants. How did the French cope with the shortfall of electricity? By importing it from Germany, a nation that produces electricity by non-nuclear sources.
If unions come for Nuclear, then never ending lawsuits come for Nuclear . Both political parties are promoting unions.
My limited understanding of modern nuclear energy is that no requirement for workforce or labor exists, it’s that easy and efficient.
In the United States risk is based on per capita per deep pocket hunting lawyer.
My limited understanding of modern nuclear energy is that no requirement for workforce or labor exists, it’s that easy and efficient.
You are omitting plant construction. My dad worked on the construction of STP Nuclear in Texas for nearly a decade.
True, not construction or build. Daily operations of a modern nuclear plant.
H Beam Piper wrote a story about exactly that. Day of the Idiot. Union thugs try to screw up a plant as part of a strike and.... well bad things happen.
You know, those unions only strike when they're being treated slaves or tools by their employers, God forbid that workers be compensated appropriately given the profitability of the organization is achieving due their labor.
The mistake is believing that the climate activists objective is "clean energy" or "saving the planet" or whatever. The objective is virtue signaling. At least at the lower levels. At the higher levels its about power, control and wealth. But for the foot soldiers its to show the world what great people they are. Nuclear power defeats that purpose.
Splitting atoms doesn’t jive with being one with nature, dig?
Dude, try a hit of this weed…
*cough cough*
Like when celebrity retards like DiCaprio show up at the Paris climate summit in their big private jets. What does that idiot contribute to the discussion? He just wants to virtue signal.
Ralph Nader believes in all this bullshit, but at least he lives a modest ‘climate friendly’ lifestyle. A rare exception. Where everyone like DiCaprio is a massive hypocrite.
That may be true of some climate activists, and a very few actual scientists. Bur scientists, including climate scientists, tend not to be motivated by either money or power. Of course, if you are so motivated, it's more difficult to imagine that others might not be.
See the most famous climate scientist Mann. Tried to sue everyone who criticized him and control the peer review process.
God damn youre dumb shrike. The entire climate movement is captured retard. It is about control and continuing on shit models.
Still not shrike, you lying POS.
Climate science does not depend on a single scientist and fame or celebrity do not in themselves guarantee probity within or outside a field.
The theoretical case for climate change was made long before there was even such a thing as "environmentalism" and without any consideration of power or control. And the data support the hypothesis.
Nor are the models shite. But where are the "sceptical" scientists' models? Most odd - for the amount of money available for denialism, you think we'd see a few of their models by now.
Again, you seem to think getting advanced degrees insulates people from politics. I does no such thing. Professors with an axe to grind pass bad ideas onto students.
you seem to think getting advanced degrees insulates people from politics. I does no such thing.
I don't think that, nor do I say that, but it seems - I can misrepresent my opponent's position as you do - that you and others think that the politics insulates the scientists from science.
If a scientist were really interested in power and control - which fwiw demonstrates the awesome powers of projection in the minds of the denialists - they'd not be doing science in the first place.
Simple question: what evidence would cause you to accept that AGW was happening?
People are people. If construction workers get political then scientists get political. We don't insert a special chip when a STEM student graduates to insure they are neutral on politics. Hell, they come from college campuses. Politics is a contact sport on colleges. You're saying they avoid all that and only seek the truth?
And climate denialism is the idea that in a conflict between industry and conservative politicians on the one hand, and scientists on the other, only the scientists are in it for the money and the power.
Scientists need funding. Most of which comes from your fellow travelers Shrike. And it’s long been proven that any dissenters get frozen out.
Or are you pretending it’s otherwise?
Abundant, emissions-free energy was once the promise of a nuclear-powered future. What happened?
Homer Simpson was hired. D'oh!
I was waiting for someone to bring him up. I had a script idea which showed Homer calmly eating a doughnut while alarms were going off everywhere, and being praised by visiting execs for not panicking, they leave, and then Homer notes that his break is over, whereupon he starts panicking.
The other problem with nuclear power in the United States is that there was a total failure to standardize plant design and thus reduce costs. Every new plant was a ground up unique design. Cost overruns were common. The only reason the remaining plants are competitive is that the construction costs have been absorbed over time. If we had been smart about it things might be different.
"Cost overruns were common. "
But they are fairly safe. There's only been one catastrophic accident in the US. Cutting corners to make construction faster, cheaper and more profitable will increase the risk of disaster. Substituting sea sand for river sand in the concrete, for example.
One significant problem was the passage of the 26th Amendment allowing gullible 18 - 21 year olds to vote. As a youngster, I was certainly foolish enough to go along with the "split wood, not atoms" hype, because, 'you know, well, you known', for which I herewith apologize.
Unfortunately, I was not alone in allowing myself to be manipulated by anti-Western, anti-technology ideologues.
You'll find that the world's most anti-western nations, China, Iran, and North Korea, to name a few, have the most active nuclear programs on the planet. It's no coincidence that authoritarians turn to nuclear to control the entire fuel cycle, from the mining to the distribution of electricity. Western thought has long privileged independence, autonomy and individual responsibility. Nuclear is antithetical to the principles that put the West on the map.
meh.... at 21 i was splitting atoms.
but seriously, that age group isn't big enough to really do anything through the ballot box that around half of the rest of the population already wants. there are not that many of them. they are only maybe 5% of the population, and they are the ones that vote least often.
Testify brother. I was a fucking dues paying member of Greenpeace. Its amazing how stupid you can be at 18.
Reason contributor Petr Beckmann wrote "The Health Hazards of NOT Going Nuclear," which I learned of the first Libertarian meeting I ever attended. His "Different Drummer" booklets expand on it. But also great is "Commonsense In Nuclear Energy" by Fred Hoyle and his son Geoffrey. All the nuclear electricity you consume in a lifetime produces a ball of "waste" the size of an orange. As an energy interpreter I asked utility suits during breaks why they didn't talk about this. Basically, cowardice and dereliction silence them.
OK, so where do you stash 350,million oranges?
And don't forget the anti-nuke actions taken by Jerry Brown, while the Brown family was reaping big bucks from their oil and gas investments.
It’s the democrat way.
IMO - the economic problem of nuclear power is its financing. It is not a privately financeable technology - now or ever. Every nuclear reactor everywhere in the world has been heavily subsidized by govt. You can yap all you want about 'political sabotage' but the reality is that there is no such thing as private capital that is being 'hindered' by government. There is no private-source capital. It is all pigs swilling at a trough where the 'private capital' follows the economic analysis of how much swill there is in the trough. And no surprise, that's exactly what commenters here and Reason think constitutes a 'free market'.
Further - it's funny that people here go apopleptic if someone builds a duplex near them but, in theory, they would just love living near a nuclear reactor. Nuclear energy is the most NIMBY development possible. Which means that once you do find a location where one can be built, then a ton of plants are planned for there.
Which also means that if/when one goes down - then many more do too in some way. eg Chernobyl where 1 went down, 2 under construction were cancelled, 6 planned for construction were cancelled, 3 were in operation but all three ended up being shut down early - two after maintenance problems that would have required too much human exposure to the area to repair. Fukushima had six reactors - all of which had to be permanently closed. Every location in France (btw - all owned by govt) has somewhere between 2 and 7 reactors at each site. Which is why local river drought/cooling problems cause such a big outage and maintenance problem.
No surprise also that commenters here and Reason just freaking love the central/govt planning part of nuclear power. The entire nuclear power program was initiated by government - Atoms for Peace - as a Cold War adjunct. The control of the fuel, supply chain, etc requires permanent and global military threat everywhere so that Iran/etc don't control their own nuclear energy. It requires a centralized to the max electric grid. There is nothing in nuclear energy that requires less than tens of billions in govt-subsidized spending over decades before ANYTHING productive occurs.
Nothing about this enables free markets. Free markets allow for millions of people to make SMALL decisions and have a big impact. Not for 50 or so entities to run the world and control the world's energy production.
"No surprise also that commenters here and Reason just freaking love the central/govt planning part of nuclear power."
what???? much as i enjoy bashing some of the regular reason posters, i have not seen that. the whole point of all of this is that central/govt planning has been the biggest barrier to getting more nuclear power. a barrier that arose due to the ignorance in response to the very few incidents that have occurred. the usual commenters seem justifiably eager to connect this to the climate activists who brainlessly reject nuclear as an option, but i have not seen any praising regulation that blocks nuclear.
the whole point of all of this is that central/govt planning has been the biggest barrier to getting more nuclear power. a barrier that arose due to the ignorance in response to the very few incidents that have occurred.
I understand the notion on this site is - if govt would only get out of the way we'd have a reactor in every backyard. But that's false. Nuclear power is not privately financeable. The nuclear power industry cannot even finance its own insurance risk without govt subsidizing 90% of that cost.
Nuclear power requires subsidies - huge subsidies and distortions and guarantees - or it doesn't get built. So what people are really saying here is that lack of govt subsidies is the biggest barrier to getting more nuclear power. Hella libertarian idea.
Look into how provided Pakistan & India with nuclear technology for their nation's electrical needs in the 60's & by the 70's the both had their nuclear weapons.
Funny that Iran wanted to build nuclear power plants so bad that they made a deal w/the world's greatest military & economic powers to allow them to roam freely throughout their country to make sure they weren't going to destroy the world, but then our new potus decided to unilaterally back out; the world's inspectors were thrown out & Iran will be unveiling its newly developed nuclear weapon sooner than anybody thought.
The climate activists are dumb as sht<this is what they are clearing the way for
JAN 2024
BLM proposes to open 22 million acres in Western states to solar development
22 MILLION ACRES
This is why normal folks are never Libertarians,just the unmarried 18-34 group that George Gilder showed leads in virtually every social ill and criminal category
I cant monitor everything but has any discussion on Reason taken note of the UTTER INSANITY of
BLM proposes to open 22 million acres in Western states to solar development
Combined with the atrocious move of our lazy and stupid President , known as the 30 X 30 Project
"Soon after taking office, President Biden issued an executive order to tackle the climate crisis domestically and abroad. In it, he established a national goal to conserve at least 30 percent of U.S. lands and freshwater and 30 percent of U.S. ocean areas by 2030"
Either one is disater but both together !!!!
So,you feel all warm and righteous about anti-nukes but the following , which utterly dwarfs that, goes right over your head
JANUARY 18 2024
BLM proposes to open 22 million acres in Western states to solar development