It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Bernie Sanders very misguided on nuclear technology

page: 1
5

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 24 2019 @ 08:57 AM
link   
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.

The Green New Deal


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 Nuscale:


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 solve them.


edit on 24/8/2019 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 24 2019 @ 11:04 AM
link   
Fukushima and Tchernobyl were enough. Stop all nuclear reactors.

Bonus points:
* profits are privatised, all losses will be paid by the public.
* Terminal disposal place, anyone?



posted on Aug, 24 2019 @ 11:12 AM
link   
a reply to: ChaoticOrder

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.

Air Force Nuclear Power Design

Don't worry comrades, the Indians, Chinese, and Japanese are investing trillions in bringing LFTR power plants to commercial use.


edit on 24-8-2019 by dfnj2015 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 24 2019 @ 01:57 PM
link   
a reply to: ManFromEurope

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.



posted on Aug, 31 2019 @ 12:10 AM
link   
Andrew Yang is better tbh



new topics

top topics
 
5

log in

join