Why is the left afraid of nuclear energy?

T. A. Gardner said:
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
Nice try, but you overlook a few details: Had those flood waters had gone just a few feet higher, the feed water supply to the cooling system, the auxiliary water supply and main switchgear room would have been screwed. THOSE are crucial regarding maintaining of fuel temperature and such. So regardless of the "refueling" status the shit would have hit the fan, as the back up generators were of the same design as in Fukishima. The NRC put the kibosh on that plant eventually because of those reasons.

I brought this and the other point to put a stop to yet another tired attempt by pro nuke plant wonks to paint a rosy picture that all was well and "nothing to worry about" with out nuke plant history. So like it or not, you can't BS past ALL the facts.

As for 3 Mile Island, seems your study habits lack a broad scope...thus leading to false conclusions. Please note:

https://www.counterpunch.org/2015/03...e-mile-island/
Click to expand...



Here's some things from your link:

As Gar Smith notes in his 2012 book Nuclear Roulette, public officials issued one false statement after another for days, like: there were no radiation releases; radiation releases were “controlled”; radiation releases were “insignificant”...

Gar Smith's bio. I'm sure his high school diploma qualifies him as an expert...
https://worldbeyondwar.org/garsmith/

David Lochbaum of the Union of Concern Scientists estimates between 40 million curies and 100 million curies escaped during the accident.

He gives no credible, well any, evidence of where he got that number...

Then you have another anti-nuclear activist with no credentials giving his two cents:

Activist Eric Epstein, who chairs the nuclear energy watchdog group Three Mile Island Alert Inc.
https://www.pennlive.com/news/2021/...ans-to-run-for-dauphin-county-controller.html

Even the listed notes are all from radical Leftist anti-nuclear groups and sources.

Your study habits lead to false conclusions.
Click to expand...


Congratulations! With this entry you graduated from pro-nuke power wonk to pro-nuke power troll.

1. Nothing in the article has Smith acting as a an "expert" in any form. BY YOUR LINK, he is a reporter & long time peace activist who focuses on the nuke power industry in a book. If you'd read the linked material carefully and comprehensively (damn, I've been trying to teach you corporate/conservative wonks that for YEARS!) you would have noted that the NRC corroborated his assertions; The NRC later admitted to several “deliberate but uncontrolled releases” of the cancer-causing gases. Estimates of these airborne releases are mere guesses, because half of the outside radiation monitors were not working, and of those that worked, a large number of them went off-scale.


2. Lochbaum is NOTHING as you falsely portray him: David Lochbaum received a nuclear engineering degree from The University of Tennessee in June 1979 and began working in the U.S. nuclear power industry. He worked in the nuclear power industry for 17 years as a reactor engineer, shift technical advisor, system engineer, licensing engineer, and consultant. While working on a power uprate project for a nuclear plant, he and a colleague identified a safety problem with onsite spent fuel storage. When the concerns were dismissed by the plant’s owner, they raised the issue with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). When the NRC slow-walked the matter, they went to Congressional committees that oversee the NRC.
Concerned about nuclear safety and frustrated with the NRC’s complacency, Lochbaum joined the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) in fall 1996. He monitored safety issues at U.S. nuclear power plants and engaged the NRC, Congress, media, and local activists when problems were identified.


And as to where he got his evidence: https://blog.ucsusa.org/dlochbaum/three-mile-island-intruder/


3. As the article pointed out, Epstein REPORTED what the American Journal of Public Health had stated.

So once again, your attempts to discredit information and sources has failed when brought to bare under the scrutiny of ALL the FACTS. You can deny it, repeat it, blow smoke, have a tantrum, but when all is said and done, you've been proven wrong as the chronology of the posts shows.

Carry on.
 
Phantasmal said:
Do you want the plant in your backyard?
Click to expand...


For a while I lived in the old family summer home all year round until coming back to Boston.
I could literally see a nuclear plant from my window when I lived at Seabrook Beach, New Hampshire.

It was an asset to the community and appreciated by the residents for what its taxes brought to the town.

I'm on the far political left and I support nuclear energy.
 
Tinkerpeach said:
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
Insipid stubbornness on your part. I put refer to current facts and information that you blithely ignore. Then you make an irrational claim on top of that...a claim that "assumes" all nuke plant problems will eventually be solved (waste, plant safety and security) in the near future, and all deaths, contaminations, failures and near misses are just trivial.

Sorry, but just because it's not happening to me doesn't mean I wish it upon others so that I may be comfortable. You do, but I don't.
Click to expand...


There is no such thing as risk free energy production so you look at which systems are the safest and that is nuclear by far
Click to expand...

How many ways can you repeat a basic line that has been thoroughly disproved and debunked in the chronology of your exchanges? Your insipid stubbornness is just a waste of time and space .... a mere gain saying without worthy content or merit.

I leave you to :bdh:
 
T. A. Gardner said:
That looks like a damn good industry record to me. Take coal plants, oil and gas production, or for that matter, even wind and solar. They all have issues and safety violations. Here in Arizona the Solana solar array got hit with the biggest environmental fine in Arizona history--a solar array.

On the whole, the nuclear industry is very tightly regulated and has an excellent safety record. Is it perfect? No. But it's a damn sight better than many other industries have.
Click to expand...

In a study that covered 27 years, 1,078.6 nuke plant workers contracted leukemia and other fatal cancers EACH YEAR. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34669562/#article-details

Look it up. The more you know.
 
Nordberg said:
Of course, you are as usual, lying badly. The list of "accidents" at nuke plants is long and we have gotten lucky a few times. The luck will run out. Fukushima was a result of the corporation building and running it, to overpower the regulators and build it for a smaller earthquake and tidal wave than was needed. Japan has had a higher level of earthquakes off shore than they built for. They fought the government and the people lost.
Click to expand...

One person died from Fukushima

I guess with those losses its better to destroy our climate with fossil fuels right?
 
Tinkerpeach said:
It doesn’t add to climate change, it would massively reduce our reliance on fossil fuels, it would clog up the environment with windmills and solar panels and it’s extremely cheap

So why are you folks on the left against this power supply?
Click to expand...

They consider it 'hazardous' and that it 'poisons the Earth'.

There is no need to reduce reliance on coal, oil, or natural gas. Both oil and natural gas are renewable fuels and much cheaper than nuclear. None are fossils.
 
Tinkerpeach said:
Then why isn’t the left pushing for nuclear power if they care so much about climate change?
Click to expand...

Because they want to rely and government subsidized and mandated wind and solar systems, even though they are the most expensive method or producing electric power, and because they do not understand you have to have generating capacity you can rely on and quickly start up and shut down as loads change.

Once they get set on what they consider 'the solution', they refuse to budge.

Climate, of course, cannot change. There is no value associated with climate. It has no temperature, no wind speed or direction, no rain measurement, etc.
Climate is a subjective description. A marine climate will always be a marine climate. A desert climate will always be a desert climate.

The Church of Global Warming stems directly from the Church of Green. Both deny and discard science and engineering as well as mathematics.

No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth. Not CO2, not methane, not water vapor; NOTHING.
 
Into the Night said:
Because they want to rely and government subsidized and mandated wind and solar systems, even though they are the most expensive method or producing electric power, and because they do not understand you have to have generating capacity you can rely on and quickly start up and shut down as loads change.

Once they get set on what they consider 'the solution', they refuse to budge.

Climate, of course, cannot change. There is no value associated with climate. It has no temperature, no wind speed or direction, no rain measurement, etc.
Climate is a subjective description. A marine climate will always be a marine climate. A desert climate will always be a desert climate.

The Church of Global Warming stems directly from the Church of Green. Both deny and discard science and engineering as well as mathematics.

No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth. Not CO2, not methane, not water vapor; NOTHING.
Click to expand...

WOKE is Anti-Human...your misery is a feature not a bug.
 
Taichiliberal said:
Explain how windmills and solar panels "clog up" the environment?
Click to expand...
Since they provide so little power, you have to commit huge plots of real estate to come even close to what a single natural gas power plant can generate, so they are a blight on the landscape.

They also don't last long. Solar panels are easily damaged from wind, sand, hail, heavy rain, heavy or wet snow, insects, mice and other critters, and even sunlight (which begins to damage them as soon as they are exposed to it). They are therefore discarded. They provide no power when covered with snow or at night, making them useless as a quick generation demand system to adjust for changing load.

It ain't cheap either. It is the most expensive method of generating electrical power, watt for watt.

Wind power also requires huge chunks of real estate, must be installed by 11 specially modified semi-trucks (for just one machine), 1 or 2 helicopters, etc. They do not generate power if the wind is too little or too much (their range of operation is narrow), or during icing conditions, making them useless as a quick generation demand system to adjust for changing load and useless in winter. These are also dangerous machines. A failure of the governor or feathering system can easily result in catastrophic destruction, throwing debris up to a mile away. Some birds use the updraft generated by these blades to help them soar, but easily misjudge the speed of the blade tips, killing the bird. This effects hawks, falcons, eagles, buzzards, etc.

It ain't cheap either. It is the 2nd most expensive method of generating electricity, watt for watt.

Because of the cost of these forms of power, they are also not attractive to grid system operators to buy energy from, choosing instead to buy from much cheaper sources.

Taichiliberal said:
And of course, you have all the answers on how safe and reliable disposal/storage of all that radioactive waste produced?
Click to expand...
Okay. Let's talk about disposal and storage related to various types of energy:

Solar: panels are not renewable. They are discarded as solid waste when they become damaged or become inefficient. A typical panel is replaced within ten years.

Wind: machines are not renewable. They are discarded as solid waste when damaged or discarded.

Nuclear: uses a small amount of non-renewable fuel. Waste fuel pellets are easily reused as fuel in other types of reactors (not as efficient, but hey...the fuel is free!). After use in this 2nd type of reactor, fuel pellets may be disposed in any normal solid waste. The fuel is expensive, but the power generated for the cost is very good.

Natural gas: generates no waste material. It is cheap and easily available. The fuel is renewable. The exhaust consists of CO2, a naturally occurring gas absolutely essential for life on Earth, and water vapor, also absolutely necessary for life on Earth.

Oil: generates no waste material. It is cheap and easily available. The fuel is renewable. The exhaust consists of CO2 and water. Inefficient burning that generates other products including soot, are a bit more of a problem.

Coal: generates clinker as waste material. It is cheap and easily available. The fuel may be renewable. Properly burned, exhaust consists of CO2 and water and little else. Impurities such as sulfur products are easily removed from the exhaust. Clinker can be used as a cementation material.
 
Last edited:
Phantasmal said:
Well, unlike you, I wouldn’t want a reactor near me. I would want to be outside of the 50 mile range in case of mishap and evacuation. I would also want to know what types of cancer and disease are associated with living near a facility.
Click to expand...

Normal rate. The same is true of workers at the plant.
 
Phantasmal said:
[FONT="]Here's what we know. This July 24, 2008 photo shows the Monticello nuclear power plant in Monticello, MN. [COLOR=#040C28]In November 2022, the plant confirmed a 400,000 gallon leak of water containing tritium[/COLOR] and reported it to officials.[/FONT][/COLOR][COLOR=#70757A][FONT="]Mar 19, 2023
[/FONT]


https://www.npr.org › 2023/03/19

[h=3]A nuclear power plant leaked contaminated water in Minnesota. Here's what we know - NPR[/h]
Click to expand...

Water normally contains tritium.
 
Trumpet said:
Where do you get it's low cost???? BTW I am not oppose to nuclear energy; I myself have worked in commercial nuclear plants during shut downs.
Click to expand...

Nuclear is much lower in cost to build and operate, watt for watt, than solar or wind. A distant 3rd most expensive method of generating electricity.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top