6 ms·

I have heard a lot of chatter recently about how nuclear has fallen out of favor among certain circles on the left. Can someone explain what the reasons for tha

I have heard a lot of chatter recently about how nuclear has fallen out of favor among certain circles on the left. Can someone explain what the reasons for that are?

HideousKojima 4y ago
What do you mean? The left has been opposed to nuclear since the 60's and 70's, it's been part of pretty much every green party's platform for decades. Dropping opposition to nuclear by some parts of the left is the new phenomenon. If nuclear is falling out of favor with the left then that's simply a return to the status quo.
xiaq 4y ago
The green party started out as an anti-nuclear party: - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-nuclear_movement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-nuclear_movement - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_party https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_party
- mikelward 4y ago
  It gets even more interesting. The Tasmanian Greens are often thought of as the first green party, and they started out as an anti-hydro party. (Well, against a specific dam.) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Tasmania_Group https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Tasmania_Group
nicoburns 4y ago
The historical reasons for the opposition are a lot to do with opposition to nuclear weapons, and to a lesser extent environmental concerns around both waste storage/disposal and the impact of catastrophic failure events.
happytoexplain 4y ago
I'm not aware of a change, politically, except perhaps in the opposite direction (more people on the left supporting nuclear power - but that seems to have been slowly going on for many years at this point). Those who oppose nuclear don't trust the long term effects of how nuclear waste is stored, and they don't think the tradeoff between how horrible it is when something goes wrong and how rarely it happens is at an acceptable balance. Of course, these are the main two obvious points of examination from anybody arguing the cons of nuclear power - not just people on the political left.
pastor_bob 4y ago
fukushima
- seanw444 4y ago
  If Chernobyl and Fukushima are the only examples of major catastrophe they can point to, and one wasn't even directly caused by malpractice of the employees, and the last one that was malpractice was nearly 40 years ago... then I don't even know. The best I got is "they're stupid."
  - happytoexplain 4y ago
    Why are you implying that natural disasters don't "count"? That's not a very pragmatic stance. If an earthquake has drastically different effects on two different power sources, than that is one difference you must consider. I'm for nuclear power, but you shouldn't call people stupid for petty reasons.
    - seanw444 4y ago
      That's not my point. We've learned from the mistake of building a nuclear facility that's vulnerable to earthquakes. We know how to build earthquake-resistant buildings. We know how to build dams. We know that building things close to coastal areas puts them risk of being hit by tsunami. We've learned the hard way. We're in a better position now to build them than we were before.
  - cma 4y ago
    As we are seeing with the Russian invasion, Chernobyl isnt even over yet and is still a major risk.
    - ncmncm 4y ago
      Others coming right up, unless Russian expansion in southern Ukraine can be contained.
- Nicksil 4y ago
rtkwe 4y ago
One of the main reasons is the nuclear waste which for the purposes of the timescales of human civilization and planning are indefinitely dangerous. In the US in particular there's never been a great plan implemented to actually deal with that waste long term. It mostly just gets shuffled around to current running reactors when one shuts down.
- ncmncm 4y ago
  Waste management is the smallest of nukes' problems. That doesn't mean it is negligible, it just means the others are much bigger.
goodpoint 4y ago
It's difficult to have a rational discussion about nuclear power with all the pro-nuclear shilling and the anti-nuclear FUD. However the following concerns are standing: - Nuclear is becoming more expensive while solar and wind are becoming much cheaper. Nuclear and renewables compete for investments so people disagree on what to invest to. - Nuclear proliferation is an unsolved problem and the risk is growing due to increasing tension. - Centralized power production is more vulnerable to war, social unrest and floods compared to distributed power production. Risks of social unrest and climate change is increasing. - Unlike solar, nuclear technology is difficult to deploy safely in developing countries, increasing inequality in energy access. - Centralized [power] production is intrinsically less democratic than distributed. - Safe very-long-term storage of nuclear waste is still being debated. Affordable solutions to reprocess and destroy existing waste have not been adopted yet. - Deployment of new nuclear power takes decades and might be too slow do address climate change. - Many argue that society should address overproduction and overconsumption of goods, and therefore energy, rather than increasing energy production.
- automatic6131 4y ago
  > Many argue that society should address overproduction and overconsumption of goods, and therefore energy, rather than increasing energy production. These people should be ignored. They are not serious people. And, against these concerns, there are only two renewable sources that provide constant power and both are limited by geography: hydro and tidal. I'm not aware of any high output tidal in the first place, and both are extremely limited about where they can be built in the first place.
  - goodpoint 4y ago
    You made a false quote including "These people should be ignored. They are not serious people." as if I wrote it.
    - automatic6131 4y ago
      My mistake, definitely my opinion that.

I have heard a lot of chatter recently about how nuclear has fallen out of favor among certain circles on the left. Can someone explain what the reasons for that are?

HideousKojima 4y ago

What do you mean? The left has been opposed to nuclear since the 60's and 70's, it's been part of pretty much every green party's platform for decades. Dropping opposition to nuclear by some parts of the left is the new phenomenon. If nuclear is falling out of favor with the left then that's simply a return to the status quo.

xiaq 4y ago

The green party started out as an anti-nuclear party: - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-nuclear_movement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-nuclear_movement - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_party https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_party

mikelward 4y ago
It gets even more interesting. The Tasmanian Greens are often thought of as the first green party, and they started out as an anti-hydro party. (Well, against a specific dam.) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Tasmania_Group https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Tasmania_Group

nicoburns 4y ago

The historical reasons for the opposition are a lot to do with opposition to nuclear weapons, and to a lesser extent environmental concerns around both waste storage/disposal and the impact of catastrophic failure events.

happytoexplain 4y ago

I'm not aware of a change, politically, except perhaps in the opposite direction (more people on the left supporting nuclear power - but that seems to have been slowly going on for many years at this point). Those who oppose nuclear don't trust the long term effects of how nuclear waste is stored, and they don't think the tradeoff between how horrible it is when something goes wrong and how rarely it happens is at an acceptable balance. Of course, these are the main two obvious points of examination from anybody arguing the cons of nuclear power - not just people on the political left.

pastor_bob 4y ago

fukushima

seanw444 4y ago
If Chernobyl and Fukushima are the only examples of major catastrophe they can point to, and one wasn't even directly caused by malpractice of the employees, and the last one that was malpractice was nearly 40 years ago... then I don't even know. The best I got is "they're stupid."
- happytoexplain 4y ago
  Why are you implying that natural disasters don't "count"? That's not a very pragmatic stance. If an earthquake has drastically different effects on two different power sources, than that is one difference you must consider. I'm for nuclear power, but you shouldn't call people stupid for petty reasons.
  - seanw444 4y ago
    That's not my point. We've learned from the mistake of building a nuclear facility that's vulnerable to earthquakes. We know how to build earthquake-resistant buildings. We know how to build dams. We know that building things close to coastal areas puts them risk of being hit by tsunami. We've learned the hard way. We're in a better position now to build them than we were before.
- cma 4y ago
  As we are seeing with the Russian invasion, Chernobyl isnt even over yet and is still a major risk.
  - ncmncm 4y ago
    Others coming right up, unless Russian expansion in southern Ukraine can be contained.
Nicksil 4y ago

rtkwe 4y ago

One of the main reasons is the nuclear waste which for the purposes of the timescales of human civilization and planning are indefinitely dangerous. In the US in particular there's never been a great plan implemented to actually deal with that waste long term. It mostly just gets shuffled around to current running reactors when one shuts down.

ncmncm 4y ago
Waste management is the smallest of nukes' problems. That doesn't mean it is negligible, it just means the others are much bigger.

goodpoint 4y ago

It's difficult to have a rational discussion about nuclear power with all the pro-nuclear shilling and the anti-nuclear FUD. However the following concerns are standing: - Nuclear is becoming more expensive while solar and wind are becoming much cheaper. Nuclear and renewables compete for investments so people disagree on what to invest to. - Nuclear proliferation is an unsolved problem and the risk is growing due to increasing tension. - Centralized power production is more vulnerable to war, social unrest and floods compared to distributed power production. Risks of social unrest and climate change is increasing. - Unlike solar, nuclear technology is difficult to deploy safely in developing countries, increasing inequality in energy access. - Centralized [power] production is intrinsically less democratic than distributed. - Safe very-long-term storage of nuclear waste is still being debated. Affordable solutions to reprocess and destroy existing waste have not been adopted yet. - Deployment of new nuclear power takes decades and might be too slow do address climate change. - Many argue that society should address overproduction and overconsumption of goods, and therefore energy, rather than increasing energy production.

automatic6131 4y ago
> Many argue that society should address overproduction and overconsumption of goods, and therefore energy, rather than increasing energy production. These people should be ignored. They are not serious people. And, against these concerns, there are only two renewable sources that provide constant power and both are limited by geography: hydro and tidal. I'm not aware of any high output tidal in the first place, and both are extremely limited about where they can be built in the first place.
- goodpoint 4y ago
  You made a false quote including "These people should be ignored. They are not serious people." as if I wrote it.
  - automatic6131 4y ago
    My mistake, definitely my opinion that.