Someone please explain to me the right wing's love of nuclear power

[CTyankee]

I was discussing the need for alternative energy sources with my Republican friend and she brought up nuclear power. I was surprised because I hadn't really heard it discussed much recently, but I do remember some really right wing lunatics in the past who seemed obsessed about it.

This friend is not totally crazy but she reads the Wall St. Journal faithfully and I often hear her 'pub talking points, but never this one.

I thought this issue was one where everybody understood the major drawback of nuclear power: what to do with nuclear waste. That didn't seem to faze her one bit.

So my question is: why do Republicans like nuclear power so much?

[HughMoran]

1. 1) they think it's free 2) it has the potential to destroy the environment which pisses on liberals

I think they get a certain enjoyment in promoting stuff just because it annoys liberals - in their hearts they know they don't want it in their back yard

[Tesha]

29. A commercial nuclear establishment makes it much easier to have nuclear weapons.

A few points:

Keeping a commercial fission business in business means you'll have an
ongoing stream of uranium mining that you can draw on to support the
weapons community's need for highly-enriched uranium.

You can always reprocess spent commercial fuel to extract plutonium.

You need fission reactors to produce the tritium you need to make
boosted fission weapons.

Keeping scientists and engineers familiar with nuclear technology means it's
easier to find skilled professionals to work on nuclear weapons development
programs.

You can often find "cover" for weapons-related work by hiding it within
commercial power-related work. Or is it just Saddam who was doing that ;)?

Tesha

[SpiralHawk]

65. Materialism

Ahrimanic materialism.

Lies at the occult core.

[benld74]

2. How bout these,,,?

Level of financing required to fund the building
Amount of financing required to fund the building\
The large corps getting the work
The cost overruns passed to the people
The higher rates passed to the people
Oh of course, allowing us to become less dependent on oil!

[CTyankee]

8. I think the large corps liked it at one time, but now isn't more money in

R & D for safe alternate energy? If it's just about making profits, well, you can do that with solar, wind and investment in the electric grid. :shrug:

[OwnedByFerrets]

36. You forgot that no Insurance company will insure them....

so, We the People insure each and every one of them. Fun to know that most of my taxes go towards killing things and making the world more unsafe.

[pitohui]

45. no we the people do NOT insure them, if yr home destroyed by nuclear event you're not covered

not by anyone, ever, you have no recourse

please do not be fooled

NO insurance co. covers nuclear disaster, this does not mean there is a gov't insurance program you can buy (like the national flood insurance program) to cover your home -- it means you can't buy coverage period not from any program, not from any gov't, you're just fucked

this means if the nuke in your city melts down and destroys your property YOU lose everything w/out any recourse or any compensation



if they were safe, insurance companies would clamor to sell the unnecessary insurance

but there is actually legislation that prevents you from going after a nuclear power plant that melts down and destroys your home, neighborhood, health, and city -- you my friend are fucked

that to me is all the proof i need of the confidence the nuclear industry has in its own safety record

provide every homeowner near a nuclear plant with a guaranteed $1 million coverage against loss of life, home, and health due to a nuclear accident or act of terror aimed at the plant, and i might rethink my stance (altho the nuclear waste problem is prob. still a deal killer) -- but right now i am being asked to take a risk to my life, health, and property for NO benefit whatsoever to myself, somebody else reaps the profit and i only gain the misery

[mrreowwr_kittty]

73. Well of course they're not going to cover us little people.

But the gov't is statutorially required to pay for the cleanup and rebuilding of the plant site.

[Veritas_et_Aequitas]

3. I was having a similar conversation with a conservative friend of mine.

While he supports putting money into solar, wind and hydroelectric programs, he thinks nuclear might be a good stepping stone (and should be part of a non-oil based energy grid) because we already have the technology and its cost-effective. As for nuclear waste, he suggested digging a hole deep enough that waste would not affect the biosphere and burying it.

[CTyankee]

4. This was the argument for burying it in Nevada, but the people of Nevada won't have it.

What does he say about THAT?

[Veritas_et_Aequitas]

7. He'd probably say Nevada's not 10 miles beneath the surface of the earth.

The guy's not stupid by any stretch of the imagination, but I really don't know much about the economics of the situation.

[CTyankee]

17. It was about a mountain in Nevada, as I recall, where it could be "safely" buried.

But the mountain was 100 miles from Las Vegas, so Harry Reid blocked any further progress in doing that. However, there was some agreement by scientist that nuclear waste would be safer there.

Proponants have a real problem with the "we don't know what could happen" rebuttal, if you ask me...

[jpak]

32. It's called Yucca Mountain and it will cost taxpayers $68 billion to build and operate

The total cost of the project has risen to $96 billion. Nuclear reactor owners will pay only $28 billion of this.

Since Ronald Reagan took spent reactor fuel off the hands of nuclear plant owners and gave it to the taxpayers, we have to pay for its disposal cost.

[ZombieHorde]

40. I have heard that some geologists are concerned that Yucca MT is on a fault line.

Even if the containers endured an earthquake, the people who own the plant will not be able to reach the waste. They are hoping to discover a way to profit off of the waste.

[gristy]

5. Your one friend notwithstanding, I'm not convinced that the pro/anti nuclear power forces

are particularly consistent with being a Republican or a Democrat. A serious poll would be needed to determine this.

[ThomWV]

6. Actually no one has ever accused me of being Right Wing but I promote nuclear power all the time

And it is as clear to me as anything that I have ever seen that in the end nuclear will be our major source of power in this country and eventually the world.

[CTyankee]

11. OK, then talk me down. It seems to me that the only strong argument for nuclear

is that it is available now and we won'thave to wait for the payoff in the other alternative energy sources. "Eventually" they will be the major sources of power in the world. What am I missing here?

[DonEBrook]

13. The other alternatives aren't sufficiently energy-intensive to provide what will be needed.

Even at near 100% efficiency.

[CTyankee]

24. But do we know that for sure at this point?

After all, we've been slow to move on this in our country. I have never heard that statement from the pro environment/pro alternative energy people. My understand has been that green energy is good precisly because it is renewable and I've never heard the argument that there are built in limits.

[bananas]

30. Global energy use is around 15TW, offshore wind capacity is around 72TW

The amount of land needed to provide all our energy with photovoltiacs is small compared to the amount of cropland.

[ThomWV]

57. And the amont of wire to connect it all dwarfs availability too

Not that it would matter if we had an infinately large ball of wire because you still can't move the electricity more than about 200 miles. It may suprise you to learn that very important parts of this country are not within 200 miles of the coast.

[bananas]

68. About half the population lives within 50 miles of the coast.

Windmills also work on land.

[CTyankee]

62. What is TW? Sorry to be dense...n/t

[bananas]

67. TW = terawatts = trillion watts

KW = kilowatts = thousand watts
MW = megawatts = million watts
GW = gigawatts = billion watts
TW = terawatts = trillion watts

[CTyankee]

69. I thought it had something to do with watts but couldn't get to the "tera"

Who knew?

[DonEBrook]

38. Well, 'renewable' energy sources are also, by definition, 'real-time' sources.

That is, it must be produced at the time it's needed. Hydrocarbons had the benefit of millions of years to concentrate solar energy into chemical...we can use up a thousand years worth in a day or 2. The amount of energy from the sun that actually falls on the surface of the earth averages out around 100 watts per square meter. An awful lot of that is in places where it isn't needed. What we really need is a "super-Manhattan project" to find out once and for all if fusion can be achieved on a small scale (compared to a star)

[Occulus]

58. And here is one serious attempt to do exactly that. Meet the Polywell:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polywell



WB-6, assembled

The polywell is a plasma confinement concept that combines elements of inertial electrostatic confinement and magnetic confinement fusion, intended ultimately to produce fusion power. The name polywell is a portmanteau of "polyhedron" and "potential well."

The polywell consists of electromagnet coils arranged in a polyhedral configuration, within which the magnetic fields confine a cloud of electrons. This configuration traps electrons in the middle of the device which produces a "quasi-spherical" negative electric potential and is used to accelerate and confine the ions to be fused. It was developed by Robert Bussard under a US Navy research contract as an improvement of the Farnsworth-Hirsch fusor.

<snip>

Bussard claimed that, assuming superconductors are used for the coils, the only significant energy loss channel is through electron losses proportional to the surface area. He also claimed that the density would scale with the square of the field (constant beta conditions), and the maximum attainable magnetic field would scale with the radius (technological constraints). Under those assumptions, the fusion power produced would scale with the seventh power of the radius, and the energy gain would scale with the fifth power. While Bussard had not publicly documented the physical reasoning underlying this estimate, if true, it would enable a model only ten times larger to be useful as a fusion power plant.

<snip>

Possibility of net power

Bussard believed that this device can run with net energy production on boron-11 and proton fuel. Controversies exist over whether the ions and electrons will thermalise and whether bremsstrahlung losses will emit more energy in an unrecoverable form than can be produced by the fusion reaction.

Todd Rider calculates that bremsstrahlung losses with this fuel relative to the fusion production will be 1.20:1.00. Bussard said that his calculation of the losses are about 5% of this, and therefore, greater gains than unity are possible.

According to Bussard the high speed and therefore low cross section for Coulomb collisions of the ions in the core makes thermalizing collisions very unlikely, while the low speed at the rim means that thermalization there has almost no impact on ion velocity in the core.

Another paper on the feasibility of IEC fusion, using the full bounce-averaged Fokker-Planck equation operator, concluded that IEC systems could produce large fusion energy gain factors (Q values). However, a deuterium-tritium reaction was necessary to minimize operating potential and Bremsstrahlung losses in order to reach large Q.

<big snip>

In September 2008 The Naval Air Warfare Center, Weapons Division, China Lake, CA publicly solicited a contract for research on an Electrostatic "Wiffle Ball" Fusion Device which was awarded to EMC2 as preferred supplier in the absence of other bids.

In October 2008 the Navy publicly solicited two more contracts which were also awarded to EMC2 as preferred supplier. Rick Nebel commented "This isn't a big deal. This is small, interim funding. It's called staying alive until they make a decision."

WB-6 during assembly with coils showing

[jpak]

37. Nonsense: wind, solar, geothermal, hydro, tidal and biomass can provide all our energy needs

Furthermore, the US imports 80% of the uranium used by commercial nuclear power plants.

When existing commercial uranium stockpiles are depleted, the US will have to import >90% of its uranium.

[ThomWV]

25. That is not the only strong argument for it

If nothing else it should be immediately apparent that there is no Carbon release associate with it either. One of the things you are missing the the extent of the nuclear waste problem. In comparison to coal nuclear energy is almost pure in its cleanliness even with today's technology and in terms of sheer volume you would probably be stunned to find out how little waste nuclear power plants produce - and a visit to even one slag pile from a coal-fired plant is a real eye-opener.

By the way, I should tell you, I spent about 20 years working on the clean up of the Department of Energy's weapons sites, nation wide. We didn't deal with commercial power production or with military reactors (mostly aboard ships) but had to constantly keep them in mind and often coordinate research with the commercial side. I should also tell you I've been a voting Democrat my whole life - this year's vote was no fluke for me as it was for so many of the people who visit here now days.

[CTyankee]

28. Are nuclear power plants more vulnerable to terrorist attacks?

I mean, are they potentially more dangerous because a terrorist with Armagedden on his mind could use our nuclear power plants as a weapon?

I really don't know, but if the answer is yes, then I think we have another powerful argument against them and that's an argument you don't have with other alternative sources of energy.

[pitohui]

48. yes they cannot be secured against a commercial airliner being flown into them

there was an extortion threat in the early 1980s where an airliner was hijacked and diverted, the hijackers demanded $3 million not to fly the plane into the oak ridge nuclear facility

the problem was studied for years and nuclear plants ARE secure against small aircraft like cessna's, unfortunately, after 911, you will recall that united 93 came within minutes of the infamous three mile island facility -- it may have even been headed there before it was shot down, it's still quite unclear -- but in any case it was acknowledged that we don't have the technology to secure them against that kind of attack -- even after two plus decades of seeking the technology

i say again, if nuclear power is so safe, then the nuclear power operators should be obliged to provide $1 million worth of insurance coverage per every homeowner in range of an accident -- instead, by law, they are protected from any claim -- a terrorist attacks the plant or there's an accident and the plant melts down and you lose your home, by law you have no recourse

can you afford to lose your home? can you afford to lose your entire city?

i invite you to look at new orleans and try to imagine how terrible it would have been if instead of most of us having some flood insurance, instead of most of us having some way to get compensation to rebuild, there was a law that denied us the right to collect insurance for the damage and get on with our lives!

that's the situation with nuclear power -- there is a law denying you the right to compensation in event of an accident at a nuclear power plant

if it was safe, the insurance companies would be lined up to sell the insurance and take the money for nothing -- they're not in business to pass by free money

[ThomWV]

55. Neither can the Superbowl, but they still play football

And we should not have cities because they invite invasion during time of war?

I reject your argument out of hand.

[DonEBrook]

70. A Boeing 7x7 couldn't breach the containment vessel of a modern nuke plant.

It might break a cooling tower (the tall vase-shaped structures that many people wrongly assume contains radioactive material) but not the reactor building. And there IS insurance coverage...your claim that there is a "law" against that is simply a lie.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price-Anderson_Nuclear_Industries_Indemnity_Act

[PearliePoo2]

16. An apparent drawback that is rearing it's ugly head...

is at Hanford in Washingon State.
The radioactive waste is leeching from decaying tanks.
It's finding it's way into the water table to possibly contaminate one of the most spectacular rivers in the world...the mighty Columbia.
:puke:
:scared:

[Tikki]

23. Yes it is...and it will....but see, that is a million miles away from...

most of these worms who promote NUKE. NUKE is magic to them...it is a light show..it is a fantasy
with all the right characters.

And if you keep saying it is safe over and over and over again...Well, it just might, it could, may...be...


Tikki

[PearliePoo2]

34. People like to just "bury stuff" .

Out of sight...out of mind.
Dilution is the solution and all the rest of the bullshit they spew. That's why river banks are such popular dumping spots. The nice river will take all the nasty stuff away.

This shit isn't what's in your average landfill. It's the gift that keeps on giving...for like about ah.....say 15,000 years or so.(half-life)
We are in over our heads on this one folks.

[FarCenter]

9. I thought that the right-wing oil and coal interests were opposed to nuclear power

The current mantra is to use the "almost inexhaustable supply of clean burning natural gas" for electrical power generation.

Good luck with your gas heating bill.

In fact, I thought that a lot of the anti-nuke studies were paid for by the oil companies?

[CTyankee]

12. This is why I don't understand the basic dynamics of RW support for nuclear. n/t

[DonEBrook]

10. I certainly am not a Republican by any reasonable standard but I have no problem with nuclear power.

And I say that as one who has lived on money from the oil business all my life.

[John Q. Citizen]

14. Look at the history. it was a way to pay for nuclear missle program by having a domestic

energy component.

a lot of energy can be generated but until they solve the storage problem a lot of problems are also created.

The RW sees it as better than being hostage to the energy cartels and it's Co2 free. It also concentrates production and distribution into corporate hands in the RW scheme of things.

[morningglory]

15. My husband is 69yo and he remembers when they first started touting

nuclear power. The power companies said it would be so cheap, it would be almost impossible to meter, endless power. Okay, they built a couple of plants and the cost overruns became astronomical, and that is what they like about it, I think, that is overruns. Also, any way they can screw up the environment is a big plus. They are the backwards people.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

18. Because most of them don't know it's the most subsidized form of energy there is

You could try pointing that out to her, if she's a fiscal conservative. Then again, I'm finding more and more that Republicans don't give a shit how much money the government spends just as long as they don't spend it on poor brown people.

[CTyankee]

19. any way to document the fact that it is the "most subsidized form of energy"?

I'm not doubting what you say, I just want to be able to back it up. Guess I could google it...

[mrreowwr_kittty]

51. It is.

For one thing, no insurance company in the world will underwrite a nuclear power plant so the cost of any mishaps are borne by you and me. We also pay for the considerable security that nuclear power needs since it's a ripe target for terrorists. Waste disposal gets heavy subsidies too, because the safety of the community requires it. Many people aren't aware of it because the costs are buried in our federal, state, and local taxes. I had no idea either until my boyfriend, an attorney who is well versed in energy issues and who does a lot of work with utility companies, explained it to me.

The best place to go for info on just how substantial government involvement in nuclear energy is is straight to the source: http://www.nrc.gov/ They publish the annual budget for regulatory activities. It ain't cheap.

[Turbineguy]

20. The answer lies in your question...

"Power". They are obsessed with it.

Then, when they get it, they don't know what to do with it.

[bananas]

27. Yup - the same reason they love nuclear weapons. nt

[endless october]

21. it's not just right wing.

i like nuclear power because there are no greenhouse gas emissions. you're left with the problem of waste, but we need something for our energy infrastructure. i would prefer wind and solar, but you play the hand you're dealt.

[jpak]

42. Nonsense: there are greenhouse gas emissions at every step in the nuclear fuel cycle..

As the quality of uranium deposits declines, more fossil fuels will be required to mine and mill the ore.

Currently, coal fired power plants are used to supply mass quantities of electricity to US uranium enrichment plants.

Greenhouse gas emissions from the nuclear fuel cycle will only increase with time and approach carbon emissions currently emitted by gas-fired power plants (on a kwh basis).

It is not a viable solution to our energy or environmental problems.

[endless october]

52. then what is the solution?

are you telling me that as much coal gets burned to enrich uranium?

[pitohui]

50. if you think there are no green house gas emissions w. nuclear power you are just ignorant

we have a country full of people who don't even know basic science

i think folks who have never heard of the 2nd law of thermodynamics really shouldn't post on energy policy

[DividedWeAre]

22. the real question (and the real scandal)

the loudest supporters seem opposed to anything green, "soft", liberal causes, or the like. and, they are especially opposed to anything that is not already set up for them to invest in or profit from. But the quiet supporters would accept all forms of alternative energy and see no reason to exclude nuclear. the problem is the waste and it's associated 14,000 year half-lifes..

Here is what i would say, "OK, you can have five plants, scattered where we need energy most or where we are most oil-dependant BUT a percentage comes off of the top, no matter what, and it is dedicated specifically to research into fusion technology which has much better waste properties than the current fission technology.

And that is the real question (and the real scandal).. why do these "people" think that we should pursue dubious, wasteful, deadly technology just because they have a monetary or political attachment to them. Why can't they be big enough to invest in something that will be much more likely to allow their children and grand-children to have good lives as well as a lot of material goods.

It is because they are greedy, or lazy, or both ? I say both.

[Neshanic]

26. I'm not a republican, and I support nuclear power.

[jpak]

31. Simple - back in the 1970's, the anti-nuclear movement was lead by hippie-type liberals

Conservatives embraced nuclear power in their typical knee-jerk-off fashion.

They exhibited the same response to renewable energy - hippie-types were for it, so they HAD to be agin it.

In a nutshell...

[CTyankee]

61. I agree with you because I remember exactly the polarization you describe.

Which is why I don't understand why the debate hasn't moved along with the times. Back in the 70s only hippies were against the combustible engine spewing foul emissions and embracing solar. The knee jerk reaction by the RW was "more oil." Even in THIS election, what did we hear: "drill, baby, drill"! It's amazing.

However, there are quite a few Republicans now embracing alternate sources and agreeing that the earth is warming. Hell, we even have that bastard Boone Pickens braying about wind farms. He's evil but he isn't stupid. He sees a way to make money.

So this is why I don't get it with the argument over nuclear from the RW perspective. The show has left town and moved on, AFAIC.

[droidamus2]

33. Diversification

Most of the 'green' solutions solar, wind, geo-thermal lead to a much more diversified energy infrastructure where the money to be made is not centralized in the actual energy producers hands. Nuclear allows the energy companies to keep control of the primary electricity generating in this country. I think think this is one of the big reasons the the Republicans like this solution. As long as they are making the big money off the process I don't think the Republicans really care about the waste because it probably won't have to be dealt with until well in the future (sort of like running deficits in the federal budget). As somebody else mentioned I also think their support has to do with a knee jerk reaction that the 'treehuggers'/liberals are against it so they just naturally have to be for it whether it makes sense or not.

[Greyhound]

35. It is the best method of maintaining the centralized generation and control of distribution.

Other power generation technologies are distributed and allow people to own the means of production and that is bad from an energy corporation's POV.
:kick: & R

[CTyankee]

64. Ah, owning the means of production, where did I hear that before?

Of course, it has to be reduced to Karl Marx. Isn't everything, with the Republicans?

[Mudoria]

39. The French and Japanese seem to love nuclear energy

Looks like it works pretty well there. We can't do something like that as well as they can?

[Dreamer Tatum]

43. Excellent answer

I regard nuclear energy as highly progressive.

[jpak]

56. The French exploited their former African colonies to mine their uranium

Those people/countries did not benefit from the exploitation of their uranium resources and were left with a legacy of toxic/radioactive mine wastes.

France's nuclear power industry is also a politically opaque state-owned monopoly that until recently suppressed competition from reneawbles.

Japan's nuclear industry has been fraught with political scandals, safety issues and massive cost overruns for their $20 billion plutonium reprocessing plant.

"works pretty well there" is also Cheney's pro-nuclear mantra...

[DonEBrook]

71. They have one religion and 1000 sauces. We have one sauce and...

you know...

:shrug: :silly:

[pitohui]

41. they are easily suggestible people who believe something they are told many times

propaganda works and it works particularly well on a certain type of mind

some of us (unfortunately a minority) hear an assertion and our first thought is skepticism, says who? oh yeah? prove it!

the majority of people hear an assertion and their first response is a nod or a no kidding? isn't the interesting?

if something is asserted many times, many people will come to believe it's true without any further proof because it's simply their nature to be accepting

therefore the powers that profit from selling this dirty and dangerous technology know that they can gain acceptance merely by repeating that "nuclear is good, it's clean, it's safe" in defiance of all scientific evidence and that large numbers of people will believe them

it's the principle by which advertising works, by which propaganda works, by which many forms of sales work

it has nothing to do w. the merits of the case and all to do with how easy it is to make a certain kind of person repeat propaganda and honestly not realize that they are a mouthpiece for a private business interest

same for people who for whatever reason think africa should be sprayed with DNA "to fight malaria" or people who repeat the "peak oil" meme which was created to help create widespread support for price gouging -- these people are not necessarily conservatives but they are people who will repeat something if they hear it said often enough even if there is no proof

[DonEBrook]

72. "spray africa with DNA"?? Maybe you shouldn't smoke that stuff.

:eyes:

[NNN0LHI]

44. They give you 2 free doses of Potassium Iodide in case of a nuclear accident so whats the problem?

http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:VfW6fbCbXiQJ:www.ostp.gov/galleries/default-file/Potassium%2520Iodide%2520Memo%252001-22-08.pdf+nuclear+plant%2Bpotassium+iodide%2Bwaivers+to+give+to+children&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us


On a serious note it is because they think all those new nuclear plants will be built somewhere they don't live and it will be some other parents who will be asked to sign a waiver to administer doses of Potassium Iodide to those other peoples kids at their school in case of a nuclear accident. Whether it works or not doesn't matter to them.

Homeowners insurance policies won't cover the loss of someones home if it becomes uninhabitable in the event of a nuclear accident but what the hell thats those other peoples problem to worry about. Not theirs.

Thats why.

Don

[lib2DaBone]

46. I think Turbineguy nailed it... it's about political power....

Nuclear power is government controlled and well within the manipulation of the oil companies in CONgress.

Wind and Solar and a new energy grid (on the other hand) would require new contractors, new companies and new players coming into the system.

Washington, D.C. and the Big Oil Companies WILL NEVER let go of the purse strings.... unless pryed from their dead, dying hands. The American people be dammed...who will support the old money power structure in America? Who will support ehir lifestyle and sending their kids to Yale like Junior Bush?

[CTyankee]

66. I agree with you up to a point. That point is when more people support green energy

than those who don't. Science has been shown to be on our side. Economics will favor it and many new millionaires will be made, just as they were in the field of computer technology. Old energy is dying or may be already dead at this point. The world has moved on, only some people don't realize it...

[muntrv]

47. The pukes really love nuclear weapons. It makes Amurka the imperialist center.

[yurbud]

49. rich like it because it is a choke point: they can make it, we can't.

It takes a lot of money to build it, and when you see that nuclear plant in the distance, if your electric bill goes up, you don't think, "Shit, I just put a reactor in my backyard." So they can set the price as they please.

On the other hand, if the primary source of energy is simple renewable technology like wind & solar, if your utility starts charging you too much, it wouldn't seem like that big a deal to make "moonshine" electricity yourself. So even if large scale power generation still dominates, the specter of moonshiners would keep the big boys honest.

I suspect this is why biofuels didn't take off sooner and why pot is illegal.

[old mark]

53. Mainly, because the left hates it. There was a large US Government

contribution in the early days of nuclear power - The atom was our friend, and there was to be atomic powered everything. The TV ads of the 1950's and many popular science type magazines told of a future when nuclear-generated electricity would power every home for $10 a month.

The idea became extremely popular till the negatives became apparant - accident hazzard, waste disposal, targets for terrorists, etc.
I worked in the engineering department of a large electronics lab in the '80's, and many of the engineers there were angry that nuclear energy was not aas prevalent as had been forcast. They blamed the Democrats for "killing" nuclear power, and many times I heard how sorry the Democrats would be when the oil runs out and there was no nuclear generated electricity to rely on.
For some reason, the Dems got the blame for all the bad publicity and negative public opinion of nuclear generation of power. I know they really hated"The China Syndrome" - and Jany Fonda - and they refused th regognized that nuclear was pretty unsafe and surpassed by renewable resource generation.

A lot of engineers wanted long careers in Nucs and were frustrated that the jobe were not there. They tended to be GOP's, and blamed Dems for all the hard times in manufacturing, etc in the US.

mark

[lib2DaBone]

54. So True. If they can't have it.. no one can. How do they always manage to blame the DEMS?

..It seems we have had the 'technology' for many long years. But we don't have the vison or the popular will to make it happen.

Watching NPR Nightly News.... the Public Relations ads for Big Oil are overwhelming.

In other words... we can get off fossil fuel.. (no Problem).. but by God... the Oil Companies are going to run the show.

This is a 'Political Problem' that is crippling America (and the World)

[Juche]

59. Its the only alternative energy that liberals tend to dislike

That and clean coal. Nuclear and clean coal are the main forms of energy the GOP likes to look at if/when some of them do take climate change seriously. I guess supporting wind, geothermal, solar, hydrogen or any of the 'wimpy, liberal' forms of energy would be tantamount to submission to the liberal mindset. So they go with the few forms of alternative energy that liberals don't like. We could use reverse psychology on the GOP and all pretend we hate wind power.

The problem with nuclear power is that it is far more expensive than other forms of energy, more dangerous, produces waste and is an easy target for terror.

[LWolf]

60. Explain to me some DEMOCRAT'S support of nuclear power.

Oh, you did. They are right-wing democrats, lol.

[electron_blue]

63. Not all 'lefties' oppose it. It's garnered quite a bit of support from both pol. parties

Yes, nuclear waste - what to do with it. I agree that is a stumper. But burning fossil fuels and coal also has a deadly side to its waste. If you tally up all the deaths most likely attributable to pollution from burning fossil fuels and coal, it dwarfs the amt of deaths from nuclear power plants to date (I'm thinking mainly of accidents like Chernobyl), and dwarfs numbers even if you extrapolate a likely number into the future. Of course, number of deaths is not the only concern, because even if nuclear power is safer in the short term (100-200 yrs), you need to be responsible to the earth and its inhabitants far longer than that, so storage is an issue. In the immediate future, however, nuclear power is far safer than all the other dominant energy sources we're exploiting now.

[hunter]

74. Okay then, this radical lefty simply hates nuclear power less than the others.

Coal -- The very worst. First outlaw coal power plants, even "clean coal." Replacing these with nuclear plants is an acceptable compromise to me.

Natural Gas. No, it is not clean, it is not green.

Hydro, big and small. Mostly worse than nuclear power. I'd tear down a few big dams, and lots of smaller dams and diversions. Replacing these with nuclear plants is an acceptable compromise to me.

Tidal/Wave Power -- Destroys or damages sensitive coastal habitats. No.

Photoelectric solar -- expensive, toxic, bulky.

Thermal Solar -- maybe not so bad.

Wind -- intermittent, generally requires natural gas backup.

Since it takes about 9 Americans to screw in a light bulb, which won't light anyways because they are all fighting about how to make electricity, I plan to keep my light bulbs lit using bicycle generators powered by unemployed banking CEOs I've rescued from mobs of angry peasants armed with pitchforks, torches, and automatic weapons.

Keep peddling you vermin, I've got a few more snarky posts to make on DU!

[aikoaiko]

75. If nuke power is good enough for France its good enough for me.