Top 5 reasons why intelligent liberals don’t like nuclear energy

[FBaggins]

1. Ignorance: This simple reason remains remarkably pervasive. I am not trying to sound preachy or elitist here but reading two or three books would greatly benefit people who have a gut reaction against nuclear energy. The whole set of beliefs about any kind of radiation in any proportion being harmful, about nuclear plants releasing large amounts of radiation (when in reality they release fractions of what everyone naturally gets from the environment), about nuclear waste being a hideously convoluted and insoluble problem (the problem is largely political, not technical) can be dispelled by reading some basic books on radiation and nuclear energy. The most important revelation in this context is how, in our daily lives, we face risks that are hundreds of times greater than those from nuclear energy (transportation, air pollution etc.) without being nonplussed.

...snip...
2. Bad psychological connections: There are two bad connections in the minds of many liberals, both of which are rather unjustified and contribute to their dislike of nuclear power. One is the connection between nuclear power and nuclear weapons. Knowing the basics about how different weapons are from reactors can contribute to mitigating this misunderstanding; for instance it’s been known for years that contrary to popular belief, reactors can’t blow up like a bomb. The fundamental fact to be understood is that every power source carries some risks, and the danger from nuclear proliferation mainly exists because of human fallibility, not because of some inherent problem with nuclear energy. The thrust should be at maintaining an international system that safeguards nuclear material from being used for weapons, not to ban the material and technology themselves.

Another flawed connection is between environmentalism and the boycott of nuclear power. Unfortunately die-hard environmentalists are mainly responsible for reinforcing this connection. Their decades-long opposition to nuclear energy started with some reasonable premises, but then mainly descended into irrational, uninformed and exaggerated polemic. Helen Caldicott whose dedicated opposition to nuclear weapons is commendable is a prime example of peacemongers gone awry. Her latest book warps and misrepresents facts, grossly in some cases, and demonstrates ignorance of simple scientific principles. It also indulges in much cherry-picking. A resounding counterexample to Caldicott is James Lovelock, the originator of the Gaia hypothesis, who was staunchly against nuclear power before he realized that it’s the only source that truly promises to be a cheap, high energy-density and low-carbon alternative to fossil fuels. Solar and wind energy could provide a small percentage of our energy needs over time, but Lovelock realizes that nuclear technology is already here and it’s the only form of energy that can be deployed quickly on a large scale to prevent the grim consequences of climate change. The fact is, liberals need to know that nuclear power is completely compatible, if not especially so, with environmentalism. It releases very little greenhouse gases and is a model for efficiency.

...snip...

3. Waste:
4. Damn them Republicans:
5. Fear of the unknown:

The simple fact that a piece of uranium the tip of your finger can deliver as much energy as almost 2000 pounds of coal should be evidence of humanity’s astounding achievement in wresting nature’s essential source of energy from her. In the discovery of nuclear power we have done the unimaginable. We have brought the sun and the stars to our world. Extinguishing their flames will be conduct unbecoming of our vast and unique place in the universe, and a very great tragedy for our future generations.

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/the-curious-wavefunction/2013/02/06/top-5-reasons-why-intelligent-liberals-dont-like-nuclear-energy/

[Deep13]

1. I only have two reasons: ...

danger and cost.

Not suggesting either of those are insurmountable, but as of yet, they don't seem to be solved.

[FBaggins]

2. Cost is reasonable.

Danger clearly falls under #1 & #5.

The problem with saying "cost" though is that the cheaper solutions (if you're talking about the cost of meeting a society's energy needs in general) are much more dangerous and the arguably less dangerous options are more expensive.

[Warpy]

3. I've got a one word answer to that

Fukushima.

Obviously you find concerns about danger from the plants, themselves, as well as the waste they generate uncomfortable to think about, so you and the OP label them "ignorance."

They are anything but that.

[FBaggins]

4. Your one word proves the OP to be correct.

Fukushima did a great job of proving just how "dangerous" nuclear power is (or isn't).

One of the oldest western models lacking many of the safety features inherent in (for instance) US reactors... in a country prone to the most severe earthquakes... along a coast among the most prone to tsunami... with any number of human errors during an event that was so severe that tens of thousands were killed...

... and the design still protected the general public well enough that it's very possible that not a single civilian will die from the release of radiation (and quite possibly not a single worker at the plant). It's going to be incredibly costly and time consuming to clean up, but the irrational panic caused by the fear-mongers killed more people than the radiation did/will.

And the debate goes on as coal kills tens of thousands of people every. single. year.

[Deep13]

9. Well, Fukashima comes to mind.

And the title of the thread says "don't like" not "unalterably oppose" or "has a better idea."

[joshcryer]

10. Cost is the reason I think nuclear is a dud.

Which is why I, rather than say things like "throw out nuclear loans, open up permitting, make new nuke technology" I say, "tax the fuck out of carbon!"

Then we'll see which technology is best.

That being said, get back to me when we're pumping out thorium reactors in a factory assembly line.

[Heywood J]

11. Working on that.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/nuclear/next-up-in-nuclear-small-modular-reactors

That’s why the Department of Energy is pushing a new technology called the small modular reactor (SMR). Last week, the department announced that it would invest $452 million toward developing and licensing a smaller and sleeker nuclear reactor.

SMRs will be small enough to be pre-assembled in a factory and shipped to location.

It would be nice to get large-scale steelworks up and running again on this continent.

[joshcryer]

12. Those SMRs are Gen III.

They use pressurized containment and produce a lot of waste, they only use 2-3% of the energy of the uranium that is inside. We need Gen IV breeders if we're going to even approach nuclear technology.

[kristopher]

14. “SMALL MODULAR REACTORS” NO PANACEA FOR WHAT AILS NUCLEAR POWER

“SMALL MODULAR REACTORS” NO PANACEA FOR WHAT AILS NUCLEAR POWER
Fact Sheet Explores Cost, Safety, and Waste Issues Glossed Over by Industry

WASHINGTON, D.C. – September 29, 2010 – The same industry that promised that nuclear power would be “too cheap to meter” is now touting another supposed cure-all for America’s power needs: the small modular reactor (SMR). The only problem is that SMRs are not only unlikely live up to the hype, but may well aggravate cost, safety, and environmental problems, according to a new fact sheet prepared by the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research (IEER) and Physicians for Social Responsibility (PSR).

Titled Small Modular Reactors: No Solution for the Cost, Safety, and Waste Problems of Nuclear Power, the new IEER/PSR presentation is available online at
http://www.ieer.org/fctsheet/small-modular-reactors2010.pdf.

The small modular reactor is being pitched by the nuclear power industry as a sort of production-line auto alternative to hand-crafted sports car, with supposed cost savings from the “mass manufacturing” of modestly sized reactors that could be scattered across the United States on a relatively quick basis.
The facts about SMRs are far less rosy. As the IEER/PSR document notes: “Some proponents of nuclear power are advocating for the development of small modular reactors as the solution to the problems facing large reactors, particularly soaring costs, safety, and radioactive waste. Unfortunately, small-scale reactors can’t solve these problems, and would likely exacerbate them.”

[Heywood J]

17. It's an openly anti-nuclear think tank.

I distrust think tanks in general and the "reports" they present. I've never come across one without shadowy sources of funding and an axe to grind in some direction. That's why I went with the Popular Science Mechanics link which, admittedly, has occasionally had its own issues.

I do agree that there are issues and questions that need to be addressed before proceeding with any solution, including new nuclear plants and renewables, on a large scale.

[diane in sf]

13. Cost is not reasonable and they are not clean when you take mining and health costs into account.

[Viking12]

5. Got any other strawmen to attack?

What a load of crap.

[FBaggins]

6. What a well thought out reply

[Viking12]

7. Why waste my time refuting such a weak collection of thoughts.

Being 'provocative' is not the same as having something worthwhile to say. I'm sure we can just as easily make up beleifs, attribute them to pro-nukers, and knock 'em down. Too cheap to meter anyone?

[FBaggins]

8. No need to waste time refuting something you disagree with...

... but you might at least avoid such obviously false claims.

A "strawman" is when you place intentionally weak arguments into your opponent's mouth so that they're easier to refute. Often this is because you can't deal with the person's actual positions.

But it is not a strawman to claim that anti-nukes most common reasons for opposition include fear of things that they don't understand... improper psychological connections between nuclear power and nuclear weapons...concerns about nuclear waste... association with RW politicians while ignoring democrats who also support nuclear power... etc. Those are some of the most common arguments and we see them here on E/E frequently.

You can disagree with how he responds to or belittles some of those positions, but you can't pretend that they're strawmen.

Too cheap to meter anyone?

And thank you for proving my #6 so efficiently. The oft-repeated claim that nuclear proponents ever said that our xurrent flavor of nuclear power would be "too cheap to meter" is itself an anti-nuke's strawman. The person who said it was referring to future energy generation from cheap hydrogen fusion... not nuclear fission - and the position of the commission that he chaired was merely that they expected to bring the cost of (fission) nuclear power down to the level of the cost from conventional fuels.

http://www.thisdayinquotes.com/2009/09/too-cheap-to-meter-nuclear-quote-debate.html

[PamW]

15. "Too cheap to meter" fallacy

Viking12 states:
Too cheap to meter anyone?

This oft quoted complaint of the anti-nuke liberals falls under #1.

NOBODY in the nuclear industry ever said that commercial nuclear fission power plants would be "too cheap to meter". ("Too cheap to meter" is the most often quoted example of the nuclear industry lying. )

That expression was coined not by the nuclear industry but by a Government official; namely then AEC Chairman Lewis Strauss.

Additionally, Chairman Strauss was NOT speaking about commercial fission power plants when he said this - he was speaking of future FUSION power:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis_Strauss

In 1954, Strauss predicted that atomic power would make electricity "too cheap to meter." He was referring to Project Sherwood, a secret program to develop power from hydrogen fusion, not uranium fission reactors as is commonly believed.

PamW

[Viking12]

19. Is your reading comprehension that poor?

I used that phrase as an example of an anti-nuke strawman as clearly identified by the sentence preceding it. Such a fallacy is not unlike the strawmen in the OP. Making up weak positions to attack is lame, but apparently you're cool with that.

[PamW]

20. ...and he says my reading comprehension is poor.

Viking12,

If you really read what I wrote, you will notice that I didn't attack you.

As per DU policy, my remarks were totally constrained to attacking the "too cheap to meter" quote.

You were using it for irony. I was rebutting it for the benefit of those that think the "too cheap to meter" fallacy is accurate.

PamW

[FBaggins]

21. Yep. Post #8 was the one that misread the poster's irony.

[CRH]

16. I only need one reason, ...

Nuclear power industry is over sixty years old, now. Demonstrate what the industry has done even with massive funding from the DOE, to solve the nuclear waste problem. We are still maintaining most of the waste on site at nuclear power stations, are we not?

If nuclear power is cheap, why hasn't an economic solution to this been found, in three score. If nuclear power is clean, why hasn't an safe and lasting method of returning the by products into the earth or environment, been found.

Nuclear proponents never have a solution to this, why? I think the problems with nuclear waste treatment and disposal, destroys the notions of clean and cheap. It is obviously neither, or the waste would not be a problem.

The government has subsidized billions of dollars to the industry for R&D. Where is the solution?

[FBaggins]

18. Economic solutions are easy.

Political solutions are much more complicated.

[PamW]

22. Only in the USA where we outlawed the solution...

CRH states:
If nuclear power is clean, why hasn't an safe and lasting method of returning the by products into the earth or environment, been found.

CRH,

It has been. What we want to do is to return a short-lived waste to the earth or environment; one that doesn't need to be isolated for thousands of years.

We'd be able to do that with reprocessing / recycling of spent nuclear fuel, i.e. "nuclear waste". Here's an interview with a nuclear physicist Dr. Charles Till, formerly Associate Director of Argonne National Lab to explain:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/interviews/till.html

Q: And you repeat the process.

A: Eventually, what happens is that you wind up with only fission products, that the waste is only fission products that have, most have lives of hours, days, months, some a few tens of years. There are a few very long-lived ones that are not very radioactive.

Unfortunately, at the behest of the anti-nukes, in 1978 Congress outlawed the reprocessing / recycling of spent fuel in the USA. This was also reaffirmed in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 and the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1987. The former stated that the USA would not reprocess spent fuel, but instead isolate spent fuel for thousands of years in a geologic repository. The latter Act specified that repository would be Yucca Mountain, which the present Administration has cancelled.

So how is the nuclear industry supposed to fix the problem, when the anti-nuke goaded politicians keep putting obstacles in the way and cancelling any attempt to deal with the problem?

Other nations don't have this obstructionism; and like France, are happily reprocessing / recycling.

That's why FBaggins is totally correct - it's a POLITICAL problem, and not a technical nor economic one.

PamW

[CRH]

23. Followed your link to the Dr. Till interview, ...

and have done a little digging on my own. I would like to do some more reading on both sides of the issue before forming an opinion. I do have a couple of questions you should be able answer off the top of you head.

1. Are - Fast Breeder Reactors - Integral Fast Reactors - and S-PRISM - interchangeable terms or different types of technology?

2. As other countries are using IFRs, with the obvious problems of waste in this country, why isn't the government using the technology at least at their own sites? It seems the issue of potential proliferation could be minimized at a government installation, while investigating the technology and possibly realizing the potential gains of rendering waste much less toxic for much shorter periods. If the technology was proven sound, the process could be government controlled if necessary, to prevent proliferation. It seems there is something missing from the picture.

3. Is the link below, one you could recommend for a primer on the issues and general information? I realize it is not a primer for the technology, which appears to be fairly tightly controlled, and which I would not understand in its complexity, anyway.

http://skirsch.com/politics/globalwarming/ifrQandA.htm

Thank You.

[PamW]

24. Answers

CRH,

1) The IFR is a fast reactor. It doesn't have to be a breeder, but can. S-PRISM is GE's design based on Argonne's IFR.

2) Other countries aren't using the IFR. Other countries do reprocess / recycle spent fuel which is inherent in the IFR fuel cycle.
The IFR waste products as Dr. Till states are NOT usable for nuclear weapons as Dr. Till states in the interview.

You've asked the $64,000 question. For some reason, the USA, which is a nuclear weapons state, has to deny itself the use of a technology if some other nation can "abuse" the technology by making nuclear weapons.

3) I think the link you cited is pretty much right on. I think that it a pretty good summary of the case.

PamW

[RobertEarl]

25. Here's why we say NO.

From the OP:

In the discovery of nuclear power we have done the unimaginable. We have brought the sun and the stars to our world.

Einstein, after contemplating Atomic Power is said to have decided that because man's mode of thinking had not changed, that managing such power would not turn out well.

Mankind has not the maturity nor the wisdom to use in a correct manner such power. Really we are like kids playing with matches. And we ARE burning down the house.

Anyone is free to make claims that mankind is responsible and intelligent enough to use such power but they would be fucking wrong. We have not and never will change our mode of thinking.