Why is the GOP pushing nuclear power?

[ColbertWatcher]

Poll question: Why is the GOP pushing nuclear power?

Why is the GOP pushing only one alternative to fossil fuels? Why is their alternative nuclear power?

[Occam Bandage]

1. Because it's the most cost-efficient, it's carbon-neutral, we have a near-infinite domestic supply,

and the Democrats are likely to abandon the issue to them due to the hysterical complaints of misguided environmentalists who believe that nuclear power plants represent a statistically significant health and safety risk.

[ogneopasno]

2. +1.

And, I like your sig line.

[ColbertWatcher]

4. So, this is the only issue the GOP has right?

All your arguments are why you would support nuclear power. I'm asking why the GOP is pushing it?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

8. Cheap power largely funded by the government, duh.

[DailyGrind51]

24. Exactly, privatized profit/socialized risk = Republican heaven!

[Occam Bandage]

9. Because, as I said but perhaps not clearly enough,

I believe they have calculated that this is an issue that is:

1. Justifiable in a policy sense, and
2. Likely to be ignored by the Democrats as a result of internal political pressure, allowing them to be its sole champion.

Moreover, since they hold very little power in Congress, they are unlikely to gain significant concessions in that direction. Any pro-nuke stuff that comes out, they can claim public credit for, sure--the Dems are unlikely to. And since no major pro-nuke stuff is like to occur (especially since the Yucca Mountain plan dead), they can use nuke power as the centerpiece of any "GOP alternative plan" they might want to propose. Best of all, they're unlikely to have to deal with the NIMBY backlash that goes along with actual nuclear power plant construction, since it'd be nothing but vague hypotheticals on paper.

[ColbertWatcher]

12. This is why you think they're pushing it at the exclusion of every other alternative? n/t

[Occam Bandage]

13. Yes. They like single solutions to complex problems. (Drill Baby Drill, anyone?)

I think they're not wrong from a political standpoint. Single solutions are more effective as a marginalized opposition party than comprehensive plans are. A nuanced, complex, serious plan would certainly impress the intelligentsia (and might even have some good ideas that would, God forbid, help the nation) but would mostly be ignored by the general public. And how do you sell that in the media? "Well, we have many good ideas to develop a synergistic domestic energy grid, which you can see if you download the 42-page .pdf..."

A single issue, on the other hand, is one that can be brought up in every TV segment, in every op-ed, in every radio rant. "Why are the Dems ignoring a million-year supply of cheap, domestic, zero-carbon-emission energy?" "No plan can be serious unless it includes all the options, and you're ignoring the fact that nuclear power is the absolute best." Hammer, hammer, hammer. Either the Dems include it, tick off their base, and the Republicans can crow about their "big win," or the Dems don't and the Republicans hammer and hammer until the country moves on to the next issue.

[ColbertWatcher]

14. Are you saying the GOP has politiczed the issue?

Because the only reason why their championing it is due to a political calculation instead of trying to figure out the best solution?

Also, I disagree that selling it in the media would be difficult.

Football is sold in Green Bay, but baseball probably isn't quite as popular. I think people understand that certain solutions work in certain regions (just like certain sports are more popular in certain areas).

But, I do agree that the GOP single-issue push is just a part of their belief that people are stupid. It's part of their http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_fear">FUD campaign.

[Occam Bandage]

16. Yes, I think that is a fair summary of my opinion. nt

[peacebird]

5. it's only cost efficient if the govt gives huge subsidies to build the plants

Without taxpayer subsidies it is financially impractical.

[ColbertWatcher]

15. We need to shine more light on what is getting subsidized and what isn't. n/t

[Posteritatis]

11. +2 (nt)

[AndyTiedye]

21. Except When It Isn't

[Onceuponalife]

22. +3

It's not the only alternative but it is the best option. Dems and libs need to get their heads out of the sand. It's not 1979 anymore. Grow up and get a new slogan.

[Enthusiast]

25. Grow up? Dems and Libs?

Take your disgusting Republican ass out of here.

[Onceuponalife]

33. I'm a Green Party member

and a left-liberal. The furthest thing from a repug. Do you think liberals can't disagree on nuclear energy or something? Yes, you need to grow up.

[Skidmore]

30. I take it that you are volunteering your back forty as a storage site

for the waste products.

[Onceuponalife]

35. You bring up a valid point

Waste storage is a problem but not an insurmountable one. No one needs to have any in their back yard. There is plenty of empty space to store the waste underground.

[Kitty Herder]

23. Those who are in favor of it, would you feel the same if they wanted to

build a nuclear reactor in your backyard? Or store the waste there?

There's discussion of building one near where I live, and dumping nuclear waste in my state and the next one over has been a controversial topic for a long time. Not to mention all the people around here who suffered and died from radiation exposure from working in uranium mines.

Everybody wants cheap power, but nobody wants to deal with the consequences. They always want to push the consequences away, to somewhere where "nobody" lives. Well, guess what. We may be few, but we do live here and our health matters. I'm not willing to take the bet that no human error will ever occur at the plant they're planning near hear. Catastrophic human error is inevitable given a sufficient length of time.

Nuclear plants and their waste have to be in somebody's backyard and it's not ethical to expose anyone to those risks, even us hicks out in the sticks. It's bad enough being five miles from a huge coal power plant. It causes me chronic sinusitis.(I'm pretty sure it's the plant, because when I've lived in other areas, my sinuses have been fine. But I always come back here because it's home.) Lord knows what else it's doing to my health and the health of those I love.

Here's the thing that really pisses me off about the plans for a nuclear plant around here. We have almost constant sunshine and plenty of empty space for solar farms. Why not make use of those resources? Would it really cost that much more? Sure the technology isn't perfect, but it will improve with time and with demand. The trade-offs are more than worth it to me.

[Massacure]

26. I live less than 20 miles from a nuclear power plant and I wouldn't mind another reactor.

Modern reactors have come a long way since those built in the 60's and 70's

[Occam Bandage]

31. I live one county away from a nuke plant that stores its waste in casks on-site.

"Well you'd be a NIMBY too" is a bogus argument.

[spanone]

27. misguided environmentalists.?....let's store the waste in your basement

[Muttocracy]

3. profits, ignore consequences, hope they'll all be raptured before too much waste builds up? nt

[Juche]

6. Because it is a non-fossil fuel that liberals hate

That about sums it up. Nuclear is expensive and dangerous so many liberals and environmentalists hate it, which means conservatives love it.

I guess there is also a macho vibe from nuclear whereas other renewables have sort of a pussy vibe (windmills and solar panels and whatnot). So as a guess I'm guessing conservatives go in for that too.

Basically, they do it for stupid reasons IMO.

[fascisthunter]

29. Expensive and dangerous=not efficient

yet conservos keep repeating the opposite which is a lie.

[baldguy]

7. Because the waste won't be buried in *their* neighborhood.

[Marr]

10. Nuclear power keeps energy production centralized, and in the same few hands that have it now.

That's why the GOP pushes it. Frankly, I think their base is receptive to it simply because they know environmentalists *don't* like it, and the Conservative Movement has degenerated into little more than a "piss off the people we hate" club.

[BrightKnight]

17. Because the Democratic Party is wearing knee pads for Big Coal.

They will tinker around with a little solar and wind but 95% of our power is going to be good old fashioned dirty coal. There will be no nuclear power. I'm a yellow dog Democrat but that is the way I see it.

[Kokonoe]

18. Anything that divides people. Thats what its all about. nt

[bridgit]

19. Cause other nuke companies are running into countries, starting up and making ...

money while nuke-energy investors here are holding portfolios brimming with un-maturated Westinghouse stock http://www.westinghousenuclear.com/index.shtm plus it's a way for them to say, "We really want to be more like France" without having to actually say it http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf40.html

[leftofthedial]

20. because Obama already owns "clean coal"

and now he's taking "free market" away from them too.

Soon they'll have no mythologies left!

[mdmc]

28. For the same reasons that the Democrats are pushing for nuke power

it works, and it is local. An easy answer.

[old mark]

32. OTHER: It involves large corporations all the way around, who

make huge profits building the plants, from the realestate folks to the maga construction companies to the equipment designers and makers to those companies who own and run the plants and thepower generation grid.
For all their small government rhetoric, GOP's LOVE cantralized control, big companies making huge money and paying lost of it to big time powerbroking pols!!!
About environment, storage, pollution, risk, etc. they don't care. You will NEVER see a nuke plant anywhere near where very rich people live.

mark

[scarletwoman]

34. "Other": Kickbacks. (nt)