The Green New Deal from Bernie Sanders has been floating around the past few days and I contemplated writing a long thread detailing why a large
fraction of his promises are absurd and completely unrealistic. However I decided not to waste the energy doing that because I've basically explained
it all in past threads and he probably doesn't have great odds of winning anyway.
However there was one paragraph of this plan I just couldn't look past. To say "we will not rely on any false solutions like nuclear" is such a naive
and uneducated view of the subject, makes you wonder just how naive he is about everything else. Let me guess, nuclear fission is evil but nuclear
fusion will miraculously be solved during his Presidency. The plan even states carbon capture (things like
clean coal) are not a valid solution.
Phase out the use of non-sustainable sources. This plan will stop the building of new nuclear power plants and find a real solution to our
existing nuclear waste problem. It will also enact a moratorium on nuclear power plant license renewals in the United States to protect surrounding
communities. We know that the toxic waste byproducts of nuclear plants are not worth the risks of the technology’s benefit, especially in light of
lessons learned from the Fukushima meltdown and the Chernobyl disaster. To get to our goal of 100 percent sustainable energy, we will not rely on any
false solutions like nuclear, geoengineering, carbon capture and sequestration, or trash incinerators.
Michael Shellenberger has done several TED Talks over the last few years where he explains why a decline in nuclear energy is not good for us or the
environment, it's 4x cleaner than solar farms. He points out how most "green solutions" are much less clean than they are often said to be, and
nuclear is far safer than it's often said to be. His response to the nuclear waste concern: "the waste that we don't control, from energy production,
we call it pollution and it kills 7 million people a year".
The top comment for the above video, at least for me, makes a very good point: "I'm shocked France was not mentioned once in this video. 76% of our
energy comes from nuclear plants, and we have had a large nuclear energy program since the early 1970s, without a single incident.". It seems Michael
picked up on what France is doing and makes some very interesting comparisons between Germany and France in his next talk. He also goes deeper in the
downsides of solar and wind:
I've written in-depth threads (such as this one) explaining why nuclear energy is so
vital to reducing emissions without increasing the cost of energy or harming the reliability of the energy grid. We've been working on fusion for
decades and still lack a real solution capable of generating more power out than what was put in. If instead we had of put that same time and energy
into increasing the efficiency and safety of nuclear fission we wouldn't have emission problems.
Despite all the fear-mongering, nuclear technology is making a comeback in recent times due to several nations realizing it's the only clean reliable
solution. There are obviously still issues to work out, the following video does a great job of explaining the construction cost issues but also how
these problems can be solved with next-generation modular "Mini-Nuclear Reactors", which are currently in development by businesses such as
Lastly I just want to share this recent video from Thoughty2 which looks at green technology without the rose tinted glasses many of its proponents
often wear. He also does a good job of explaining why nuclear energy is a crucial base load component and how it's statistically the safest form of
power production we have. If you take the time to watch all these videos you'll gain a much deeper understanding of these energy issues and ways to
edit on 24/8/2019 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)
The great thing about Democrats is public policy is more important than who is in authority.
The problem with nuclear power is the Navy design. We should be using the Air Force design of the nuclear power plants they were going to use for
long range bombers back in the 1950s. But the Air Force design lost out to the Navy design because the the military need material for making nuclear
weapons to protect us by destroying us.
Thorium reactors don't meltdown in any meaningful sense of the world. The only reason we ever used uranium was: a hugely profitable cold-war and the
"need" for weapons-grade material. At this point, the public has been too traumatized by the word "nuclear" and the fossil fuel/alternative energy
cartels have too much power in Congress, where idiots make laws and provide oversite in policies, programs, and technologies they were never smart
enough to understand.
This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.