Highest Rated Comments


MarkPawelek4 karma

The left are confused. They have a 1001 reasons to oppose nuclear power, or so they claim. Here are some of the left's arguments. 1) Nuclear power is not sustainable, 2) it's a centralized source, unlike wind which is decentralized, 3) it's not safe, 4) it make dangerous waste which is not safe for tens of thousands of years, 5) its uneconomic, 6) it's part of a military industrial complex, 7) it makes massive amounts of greenhouse gases, 8) blah...

I could go on but I think you get my point. If you really support or oppose something, there is generally ONE fundamental reason why. Not 1001 reasons. In other words: some factors are so important to us that they override everything else. I support nuclear power because I think it can lead to cheap, safe, plentiful energy which modern civilizations find essential.

MarkPawelek3 karma

Nuclear power does not have long-term waste issues. It has a well-funded conspiracy of green groups hyping a non-problem into a pseudo-problem. A conspiracy consistently funded over many decades by by non-tax paying foundations, some with AUM of $6bn. I find it tragic that greens are happy to see solar panels with cadmium telluride plastered on any and every roof with no plan for disposal, recycling, nor decommissioning. Yet they are obsessed with tiny amounts of radioactive waste. Compared to other industrial processes, the amounts are tiny.

All of that funding brushed under the carpet by a liberal media, spellbound by the words "environmentalist". As if environmentalists were primarily concerned with protecting the environment. They are not. If they were they'd be like the Sierra Club of the 1960s : supporters of nuclear power.

MarkPawelek3 karma

When you talk about how the anti-nuclear power movement began, you don't mention the Club of Rome. Why not? I regard them as crucial: 1968 : Club of Rome, 1969 : Friends of the Earth, 1970 : NRDC; Because they persuaded rich people to fund these new self-styled "environmental" groups like FotE. Groups who apparently did not care much for conservation and a life in the wilds, which, I get the impression, had been what "conservation" was about before it became "environmentalism".

MarkPawelek2 karma

Military grade plutonium is not made by reprocessing spent fuel from power reactors. Special low burnup reactors are used to make it, because it must be as free from other plutonium isotopes (Pu-238, Pu-240, ...) as possible. UK did have dual purpose (civilian/military) reactors: the Magnox series, but these have been the only ones. The last was decommissioned last winter. WNA have a plutonium page explaining the difference: http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/fuel-recycling/plutonium.aspx

I'm not saying there's no possible crossover. The military also use submarines and aircraft carriers powered by nuclear reactors. Much smaller reactors but still, essentially, the same kind of thing as power reactors. So there is an incentive to keep one's civilian nuclear industry because the same companies can make both kinds of reactor. This is the limit of crossover. Reprocessed plutonium making bombs is just an myth put about by anti-nukes.

MarkPawelek2 karma

The non-proliferation argument began with conservatives. Neo-conservatives to be precise. Greens later incorporated these ideas with their Gish Gallop. I'd say non-proliferation slowed and restricted nuclear power builds globally. But not in the USA. Because fuel shortage was not an issue and reprocessing was not needed. The NNPA restricted funds to advanced nuclear power because some politicians did not understand the difference between military grade plutonium (pure stuff) and that reprocessed from used reactor fuel. So NNPA specifically hit the Integral Fast Reactor. Yet we only saw 4 new reactors licensed after 1974.

The creation of the NRC in 1974 froze nuclear power in the USA. Their single-minded focus on safety at all cost. Their contempt for cost-benefit and everyday economics.