Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Fukushima brought on major fear by the public and brought an onslaught of new regulations for fromt eh NRC. Containment, seismological testing, strengthening of reactor houses, etc... was mandated for existing nuclear power plants and required. Also, nuclear cannot compete with natural gas in terms of costs. It's far more lucrative in the short term for companies like Duke Energy to retrofit a coal fire plant and build 10 natural gas plants than to build a single nuclear reactor.
As for timing... Do you think nuclear reactors get approved overnight? It can take many, many years to get throught eh regulatory process fo building a nuclear reactor. That may not be fast enough in your book, but we've also managed to not kill people with our plants as well.
One can quibble about our lack of progress on technology and storage versus countries like France, but you can't say that it's dead.
Now just how is "liberalism" holding us back?
So, nice try. But you could have saved a lot of time by taking 30 seconds to google before starting this thread.
Actually, that's part of the point of this thread, as identified in the links that I provided in the OP. And that is that liberals have started to admit that they screwed up with their anti-nuclear ideology. Why would they admit that they screwed up if they hadn't in fact screwed up?
They screwed up, they know it. Click the links to find out.
All this other blather about the length of time it takes to get nuclear infrastructure approved and running is just that....blather. 40 years is plenty of time to get many more plants than we currently have up and running. That's 40 years of wasted time.
Actually, that's part of the point of this thread, as identified in the links that I provided in the OP. And that is that liberals have started to admit that they screwed up with their anti-nuclear ideology. Why would they admit that they screwed up if they hadn't in fact screwed up?
They screwed up, they know it. Click the links to find out.
All this other blather about the length of time it takes to get nuclear infrastructure approved and running is just that....blather. 40 years is plenty of time to get many more plants than we currently have up and running. That's 40 years of wasted time.
Then blame it on NIMBYism (the true culprit) and an overly potentially overly cautious bureaucracy instead of making it a black/white partisan issue. Seriously, that's the main reason we can't have nice things in this country. Also, don't ignore the cost associated with building nuclear versus other energy sources.
But that reasoned approach to discussing the issue wouldn't get you 13 pages of comments now would it?
Then blame it on NIMBYism (the true culprit) and an overly potentially overly cautious bureaucracy instead of making it a black/white partisan issue. Seriously, that's the main reason we can't have nice things in this country. Also, don't ignore the cost associated with building nuclear versus other energy sources.
But that reasoned approach to discussing the issue wouldn't get you 13 pages of comments now would it?
NIMBY is definitely a factor. No one denies that. But the underlying theory of NIMBY is that of misinformation, demagoguery, scaremongering, and downright lies. Why would you be opposed to something in your "backyard" if it in fact didn't come attached with all sorts of negativity? That negativity doesn't just appear....it's blasted out across the country through liberal intransigence. And that's what happened. Scaremongering and lies and people were scared away by it.
One just has to "recycle" those fuel rods in drums off our cost lines that will eventually rot away and contaminate the oceans. I think the OP doesn't know what the word "sustainable" means.
you forget that uranium and plutonium are both metals, and as such are 100% recyclable.
NIMBY is definitely a factor. No one denies that. But the underlying theory of NIMBY is that of misinformation, demagoguery, scaremongering, and downright lies. Why would you be opposed to something in your "backyard" if it in fact didn't come attached with all sorts of negativity? That negativity doesn't just appear....it's blasted out across the country through liberal intransigence. And that's what happened. Scaremongering and lies and people were scared away by it.
This thread failed from the OP.
Latest NIMBY'ism came from McCain opposing Yucca Mountain.
If you knew ANYTHING bout nuclear energy policy or the industry, you'd know it transcends partisanship.
Keep posting. It's hilarious.
This has gotta be one of the more laughable threads I've seen in a LONG time. And that's saying a LOT here on CD.
Blame eco-liberals all you want but the answer's in the original assumption (minus coal).
If It Weren't For Liberalism, Today America Would Have Safe, Functioning Nuclear Power Plants INSTEAD OF FOSSIL FUELS (+COAL).
Consider who caters more favor:
• Oil / gas / coal lobbyist
• Scaremongering eco-liberal
Just today, USEC filed their 8K with the SEC on DOE support. 148% gains in 1 day.
Although partisanship has no place in nukes' future, DOE support for American Centrifuge has come during Obama's tenure.
Actually, that's part of the point of this thread, as identified in the links that I provided in the OP. And that is that liberals have started to admit that they screwed up with their anti-nuclear ideology. Why would they admit that they screwed up if they hadn't in fact screwed up?
Tell you what; Lobby a power company to build nuclear power plants in Plano TX, or Brentwood, TN and then get back to me on how the residents react. Are you certain that the oh-not-so-liberal residents of those cities will welcome it with open arms?
You could honestly say that the green movement as it is these days, didn't help build the nuclear power industry. Heck it is (was) very unpopular in Germany, but has always had wide support in even more "liberal" France. But after the near disaster at Three Mile Island and the very public disaster at Chernobyl are you surprised that Americans weren't open to nuclear power, despite how safe our plants may be?
It's human fear and irrational behavior in the face of counter evidence, not "liberalism" that has stunted nuclear power in the US.
But I'll also "just say no" to nuclear power as well. I'd rather have no power at all if that were the only choice. I've heard way too many rhetorical claims about how safe it is, just as I'm sure the passengers aboard the Hindenburg were rhetorically told that they were quite safe. Well, I suppose they were until a stormy day in May of 1937. S**t happens. But when it happens with nuclear energy, the stakes are way higher than if a coal-fired power plant blows.
The nuclear power crowd reminds me of someone telling me that kids playing with matches in the house is perfectly safe if the kids are trying real hard to be safe. Sure. Perfectly safe. Until the house gets burned down one day.
Just like the title of the thread states: If it weren't for liberals and liberalism, America would have a vast and expansive nuclear power infrastructure, renewable for infinity, more efficient than fossil fuels, less damaging to the environment than scavenging for coal, oil and natural gas, and more economically efficient than high-cost wind and solar farms.
For the past 40 years, America could have been building upon a tried and true energy infrastucture. But, no. We can't have that here in America. Liberals just won't allow it. And because of that, America missed the boat.
In essence, no one should listen to any liberal anywhere when it comes time to have a thoughtful discussion on energy policy. They screwed America royally on the nuclear power issue. And now they have the gall to tell us how bad coal, fracking, and oil is?
But I'll also "just say no" to nuclear power as well. I'd rather have no power at all if that were the only choice. I've heard way too many rhetorical claims about how safe it is, just as I'm sure the passengers aboard the Hindenburg were rhetorically told that they were quite safe. Well, I suppose they were until a stormy day in May of 1937. S**t happens. But when it happens with nuclear energy, the stakes are way higher than if a coal-fired power plant blows.
The nuclear power crowd reminds me of someone telling me that kids playing with matches in the house is perfectly safe if the kids are trying real hard to be safe. Sure. Perfectly safe. Until the house gets burned down one day.
If you drive in a car on public roads, you don't have room to talk.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
