4 ms·

> Only if the “green energy” people actually had that much power... > In reality there are 2 forces that have stopped nuclear. NIMBYism. And terrible economics

> Only if the “green energy” people actually had that much power... > In reality there are 2 forces that have stopped nuclear. NIMBYism. And terrible economics. This is a huge misunderstanding. It was the "green energy" people who first fought nuclear power. Go look throughout the country where nuke plants have been taken down. It's because they were leaking and polluting and were ticking time bombs. The greens have been fighting against nuclear power since day one. There is an underground current of manipulation in online conversations trying to make nuclear power look green. It has only one element of green, that is low carbon, everything else about it is the absolute worst of all power sources. I hope to never see anything but fusion nuclear power come back, and all fission power fade away.

shkkmo 7y ago
> . It has only one element of green, that is low carbon, everything else about it is the absolute worst of all power sources. Pretty blatantly false. Nuclear kills fewer people most, if not all other sources of power, per unit of energy generated. There are significant pollution issues from mining and burning coal and from manufacturing solar panels. Hydro produces ecological disruption on par with non other. Wind power has significant and downplayed effects of wildlife. The comparison of these factors is complicated and 'best' depends on what you specific environmental agenda is, but your rhetoric is flat out false.
- RobertRoberts 7y ago
  There is toxic waste leaking into the Columbia river from nuclear storage in Washington. (only one example) Everything else you described has a solution and can be cleaned up. The nuclear waste is so tragic and horrific and the effects so egregious I can only imagine you are grossly misinformed or a paid troll.
  - shkkmo 7y ago
    > The nuclear waste is so tragic and horrific and the effects so egregious I can only imagine you are grossly misinformed or a paid troll. More horrific than the millions killed by air pollution? This is not to say that nuclear waste isn't a significant problem and one we can do a much better job dealing with, but spreading blatant misinformation does not do anything to help anyone.
    - RobertRoberts 7y ago
      It's amazing how little news there has been reported about all the nuclear waste disasters in our lifetime, and the near permanent disasters they create. But the news came and went and you can't find it online as real data to argue against the army of "nuclear is the future" mob. Gulf war syndrome is another example of head-in-the-sand behavior of the public regarding nuclear waste caused diseases.
      - shkkmo 7y ago
        I am opposed to depleted uranium armaments, and while they have been shown to have significant health effects (especially on the populations stuck living in the areas where the amunition was used), it has been ruled out as a likely cause of gulf war syndrome which is linked to the use of non-nuclear toxic chemics. Indeed, while I don't have specific numbers to prove this, I highly suspect that the health risks of non-nuclear toxic waste (by products from chemical plants and manufacturing) outweigh those of toxic nuclear waste and the release of these chemicals are often far less regulated than nuclear waste. In terms of nuclear waste disasters, the Marshall Islands is the most significant example (that I know of) of a nuclear waste problem that the US needs to step up and address. [0] [0] https://www.latimes.com/projects/marshall-islands-nuclear-testing-sea-level-rise https://www.latimes.com/projects/marshall-islands-nuclear-te... I not saying that nuclear is the future, but it is a important amd relativly safe source that we can use as stop gap to limit our use of more dangerous power sources while we fight global warming and find safer and cleaner sources of energy. We need to consider all of the risks of our power sources and not spread misinformation and fear.
        RobertRoberts 7y ago
        You've been very reasonable with your arguments. I appreciate that. We obviously aren't going to solve anything on a comment board. I would argue that the effects on US soil, the leaks into the Columbia river from Washington are incomparable to the Marshall Islands. But I feel we may be moving the goal posts in our discussion.

shkkmo 7y ago

> . It has only one element of green, that is low carbon, everything else about it is the absolute worst of all power sources. Pretty blatantly false. Nuclear kills fewer people most, if not all other sources of power, per unit of energy generated. There are significant pollution issues from mining and burning coal and from manufacturing solar panels. Hydro produces ecological disruption on par with non other. Wind power has significant and downplayed effects of wildlife. The comparison of these factors is complicated and 'best' depends on what you specific environmental agenda is, but your rhetoric is flat out false.

RobertRoberts 7y ago
There is toxic waste leaking into the Columbia river from nuclear storage in Washington. (only one example) Everything else you described has a solution and can be cleaned up. The nuclear waste is so tragic and horrific and the effects so egregious I can only imagine you are grossly misinformed or a paid troll.
- shkkmo 7y ago
  > The nuclear waste is so tragic and horrific and the effects so egregious I can only imagine you are grossly misinformed or a paid troll. More horrific than the millions killed by air pollution? This is not to say that nuclear waste isn't a significant problem and one we can do a much better job dealing with, but spreading blatant misinformation does not do anything to help anyone.
  - RobertRoberts 7y ago
    It's amazing how little news there has been reported about all the nuclear waste disasters in our lifetime, and the near permanent disasters they create. But the news came and went and you can't find it online as real data to argue against the army of "nuclear is the future" mob. Gulf war syndrome is another example of head-in-the-sand behavior of the public regarding nuclear waste caused diseases.
    - shkkmo 7y ago
      I am opposed to depleted uranium armaments, and while they have been shown to have significant health effects (especially on the populations stuck living in the areas where the amunition was used), it has been ruled out as a likely cause of gulf war syndrome which is linked to the use of non-nuclear toxic chemics. Indeed, while I don't have specific numbers to prove this, I highly suspect that the health risks of non-nuclear toxic waste (by products from chemical plants and manufacturing) outweigh those of toxic nuclear waste and the release of these chemicals are often far less regulated than nuclear waste. In terms of nuclear waste disasters, the Marshall Islands is the most significant example (that I know of) of a nuclear waste problem that the US needs to step up and address. [0] [0] https://www.latimes.com/projects/marshall-islands-nuclear-testing-sea-level-rise https://www.latimes.com/projects/marshall-islands-nuclear-te... I not saying that nuclear is the future, but it is a important amd relativly safe source that we can use as stop gap to limit our use of more dangerous power sources while we fight global warming and find safer and cleaner sources of energy. We need to consider all of the risks of our power sources and not spread misinformation and fear.
      - RobertRoberts 7y ago
        You've been very reasonable with your arguments. I appreciate that. We obviously aren't going to solve anything on a comment board. I would argue that the effects on US soil, the leaks into the Columbia river from Washington are incomparable to the Marshall Islands. But I feel we may be moving the goal posts in our discussion.