|
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend Bookmark this thread |
This topic is archived. |
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy |
GliderGuider (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Nov-22-10 11:04 AM Original message |
If nuclear power is so green, why aren't environmental organizations supporting it? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
dkf (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Nov-22-10 11:25 AM Response to Original message |
1. It doesn't make sense to me to create another utility dependent energy source |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
GliderGuider (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Nov-22-10 11:41 AM Response to Reply #1 |
2. Yes, that's one of the factors in the debate. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
kristopher (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Nov-22-10 12:08 PM Response to Reply #2 |
6. No, they do not. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
GliderGuider (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Nov-22-10 12:13 PM Response to Reply #6 |
9. You're talking about the future. I used the word "currently" very deliberately. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
kristopher (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Nov-22-10 12:24 PM Response to Reply #9 |
12. You use the word currently but you ARE talking about the future we SHOULD move to. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
GliderGuider (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Nov-22-10 12:31 PM Response to Reply #12 |
15. In this post the only future I'm saying we should move to |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
kristopher (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Nov-22-10 12:38 PM Response to Reply #15 |
16. We have been for years - you WANT nuclear power and you SLAM renewables... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
GliderGuider (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Nov-22-10 12:48 PM Response to Reply #16 |
18. Let's re-language that a bit. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
kristopher (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Nov-22-10 12:49 PM Response to Reply #18 |
19. You are wrong |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
joshcryer (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Nov-22-10 07:58 PM Response to Reply #18 |
44. I say fuck Gen III / III+. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
txlibdem (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Nov-23-10 05:11 AM Response to Reply #44 |
47. Gen IV is definitely what we should be focusing on |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
kristopher (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Nov-23-10 11:58 AM Response to Reply #47 |
54. We don't need breakthrough technologies we need to deploy wind and solar. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
GliderGuider (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Nov-23-10 12:25 PM Response to Reply #54 |
59. And a whole lot faster than you are at this point... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
kristopher (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Nov-23-10 12:29 PM Response to Reply #59 |
61. Wind and solar technologies are here and now, Gen IV is 30 years away from commercialization |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
GliderGuider (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Nov-23-10 01:23 PM Response to Reply #61 |
69. I agree that Gen IV is a long way off |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
kristopher (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Nov-23-10 02:17 PM Response to Reply #69 |
74. So you are using nnad's logic - we haven't built it yet so we can't/shouldn't build it? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
GliderGuider (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Nov-23-10 03:33 PM Response to Reply #74 |
76. No, I'm saying we should build it. And we should build a shitload of nukes while we're at it. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
kristopher (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Nov-23-10 04:56 PM Response to Reply #76 |
78. Except you STILL HAVE NOT JUSTIFIED NUCLEAR'S INCLUSION. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
GliderGuider (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Nov-23-10 05:40 PM Response to Reply #78 |
80. Nothing I can say will be accepted as a justification by you. You are against nuclear power. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
kristopher (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Nov-23-10 06:09 PM Response to Reply #80 |
83. In other words you accept anything the nuclear industry says at face value |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
GliderGuider (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Nov-23-10 06:56 PM Response to Reply #83 |
88. You mean rather than rejecting it out of hand? :-) |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
kristopher (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Nov-23-10 11:49 PM Response to Reply #88 |
96. You prefer to accept unsustantiated nuclear industry propaganda over independent researchers |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
GliderGuider (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Nov-24-10 07:26 AM Response to Reply #96 |
99. No, I prefer to come to my own conclusions, no matter who does or doesn't support them. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
kristopher (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Nov-24-10 11:31 AM Response to Reply #99 |
101. Thinking for yourself isn't the same as making shit up. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
wtmusic (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Nov-22-10 12:09 PM Response to Reply #1 |
7. Because then we're dependent on the sun going down |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
kestrel91316 (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Nov-22-10 11:42 AM Response to Original message |
3. If we had an iron-clad safe method for disposal of nuclear waste, |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
GliderGuider (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Nov-22-10 12:01 PM Response to Reply #3 |
4. Relative risks |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
zipplewrath (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Nov-22-10 12:03 PM Response to Original message |
5. Making the case |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
GliderGuider (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Nov-22-10 12:10 PM Response to Reply #5 |
8. Making the case starts even further back than that. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
wtmusic (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Nov-22-10 12:21 PM Response to Reply #5 |
11. The problem is one of perception only. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
kristopher (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Nov-22-10 12:26 PM Response to Reply #11 |
13. No it isn't. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
joshcryer (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Nov-22-10 07:59 PM Response to Reply #13 |
45. Substantiate. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
kristopher (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Nov-22-10 12:19 PM Response to Original message |
10. Your text does not address your header. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
GliderGuider (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Nov-22-10 12:29 PM Response to Reply #10 |
14. Actually, it does. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
kristopher (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Nov-22-10 12:45 PM Response to Reply #14 |
17. So environmental organizations are greedy, stupid and irrational panderers? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
GliderGuider (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Nov-22-10 12:58 PM Response to Reply #17 |
20. No, they are politically astute. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
kristopher (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Nov-22-10 01:07 PM Response to Reply #20 |
23. "Jacobson" isn't the "last word" but the data in his study is. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
GliderGuider (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Nov-22-10 01:29 PM Response to Reply #23 |
25. I like to see all data confirmed by independent sources. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
kristopher (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Nov-22-10 01:42 PM Response to Reply #25 |
27. The data HAS BEEN confirmed by independent sources - multiple times. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
joshcryer (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Nov-22-10 07:57 PM Response to Reply #27 |
43. I actually think Jacobson's review fares very well for Gen IV reactors. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
joshcryer (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Nov-22-10 07:55 PM Response to Reply #23 |
41. Actually, science is fully open to scrutiny, and since it was a review and not a study... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
stray cat (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Nov-22-10 01:03 PM Response to Original message |
21. And why don't environmentalists offer a real alternative? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
GliderGuider (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Nov-22-10 01:07 PM Response to Reply #21 |
22. They believe they have offered one, with wind power. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
kristopher (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Nov-22-10 01:19 PM Response to Reply #22 |
24. What group has suggested wind power is the solution to climate change? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
GliderGuider (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Nov-22-10 01:31 PM Response to Reply #24 |
26. Not as a solution to climate change, as an alternative to nuclear power. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
kristopher (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Nov-22-10 01:49 PM Response to Reply #26 |
28. No, I do not since I'm aware that we need no substitute for nuclear power. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
joshcryer (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Nov-22-10 07:51 PM Response to Reply #28 |
38. We are building "entirely different systems" at 50x less than what we need to. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
txlibdem (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Nov-23-10 11:42 AM Response to Reply #38 |
53. Failing to grasp it? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
kristopher (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Nov-23-10 12:01 PM Response to Reply #53 |
55. You are the one saying we need to wait for "breakthrough technologies" |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
txlibdem (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Nov-23-10 01:40 PM Response to Reply #55 |
72. Where did I say that? At least about renewable energy. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
joshcryer (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Nov-22-10 07:49 PM Response to Reply #21 |
37. They're convinced by liars who say market alternatives are "enough." |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Kennah (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Nov-22-10 02:57 PM Response to Original message |
29. One of the biggest lies and misconceptions perpetuated ... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
GliderGuider (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Nov-22-10 03:05 PM Response to Reply #29 |
30. Can you name one major environmental organization that takes a pro-nuclear stance? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
kristopher (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Nov-22-10 04:24 PM Response to Reply #30 |
34. Mostly the debate seems to be coming from ecologically conscious individuals ... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
joshcryer (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Nov-22-10 07:51 PM Response to Reply #30 |
39. An NGO advancing nuclear would lose a lot of deluded supporters. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
ladjf (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Nov-22-10 03:12 PM Response to Original message |
31. No problem. A nuclear meltdown on the East Coast could render |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
GliderGuider (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Nov-22-10 03:16 PM Response to Reply #31 |
32. Low probability. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
ladjf (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Nov-22-10 03:48 PM Response to Reply #32 |
33. I can think of several rebuttal points to your "cute and well scripted" |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
NNadir (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Nov-22-10 05:59 PM Response to Reply #31 |
35. On the other hand, submersion of huge parts of NY city, no more or less a certainty will produce not |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
ladjf (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Nov-22-10 06:19 PM Response to Reply #35 |
36. Mr. Nadir, you don't know anything about me other than I fear the |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
joshcryer (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Nov-22-10 07:52 PM Response to Reply #36 |
40. ladjf, you've been misled about Chernobyl. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
txlibdem (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Nov-23-10 12:42 PM Response to Reply #40 |
62. The Chernobyl design was NEVER built anywhere else but the former USSR |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Confusious (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Nov-22-10 07:56 PM Response to Reply #36 |
42. Please give the two major reasons why Chernobyl happened then. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
NNadir (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Nov-22-10 08:05 PM Response to Reply #42 |
46. A positive void coefficient. A flammable moderator/core. Even WITH these design |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Nihil (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Nov-23-10 05:16 AM Response to Reply #46 |
48. I note, with due contempt, that you were blindly attacking someone who was not talking to you ... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
joshcryer (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Nov-23-10 05:54 AM Response to Reply #48 |
49. The "unnecessary, repetitive and disruptive flaming" wasn't to him. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Nihil (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Nov-23-10 08:10 AM Response to Reply #49 |
50. Correct: In this case it was *by* him |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
GliderGuider (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Nov-23-10 09:06 AM Response to Reply #48 |
51. Thanks for collecting those Chernobyl points into a succinct list |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
txlibdem (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Nov-23-10 12:56 PM Response to Reply #48 |
64. Add one more to the list of deficiencies |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
kristopher (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Nov-23-10 06:13 PM Response to Reply #64 |
86. And then... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
txlibdem (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Nov-23-10 08:33 PM Response to Reply #86 |
91. I have no time for your "link as post" posts |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Nihil (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Nov-24-10 04:03 AM Response to Reply #91 |
98. Agreed - I ignore them as most point back to prior spam (MZJ or similar) |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
kristopher (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Nov-23-10 12:16 PM Response to Reply #36 |
56. The best term to use is "Chernobyl scale nuclear event" |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
GliderGuider (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Nov-23-10 12:22 PM Response to Reply #56 |
58. The root cause of Chernobyl was NOT "operator error." |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Name removed (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Nov-23-10 12:26 PM Response to Reply #58 |
60. Deleted message |
GliderGuider (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Nov-23-10 01:09 PM Response to Reply #60 |
66. Oh? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
kristopher (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Nov-23-10 01:16 PM Response to Reply #66 |
68. Did humans design the system? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
GliderGuider (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Nov-23-10 01:23 PM Response to Reply #68 |
70. Are humans capable of learning? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
kristopher (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Nov-23-10 04:57 PM Response to Reply #70 |
79. Judging by your performance the answer is an unequivocal no. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
GliderGuider (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Nov-23-10 06:19 PM Response to Reply #79 |
87. Actually, thanks to you I've learned a lot. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
XemaSab (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Nov-23-10 06:56 PM Response to Reply #87 |
89. . |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Confusious (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Nov-23-10 05:57 PM Response to Reply #66 |
81. Don't forget, no containment building. nt |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
GliderGuider (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Nov-23-10 06:10 PM Response to Reply #81 |
84. Good point. Thanks. nt |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
madokie (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Nov-23-10 11:10 AM Response to Original message |
52. Nuclear energy is hardly green |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
GliderGuider (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Nov-23-10 12:16 PM Response to Reply #52 |
57. You say "nuclear energy barely breaks even co2 wise" |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
kristopher (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Nov-23-10 12:54 PM Response to Reply #57 |
63. So you are confortable answering a critical question with anecdotal evidence from the industry? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
GliderGuider (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Nov-23-10 01:04 PM Response to Reply #63 |
65. More comfortable than I am with SLS's prognostications, for sure. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
kristopher (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Nov-23-10 01:14 PM Response to Reply #65 |
67. What is wrong with his paper? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
GliderGuider (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Nov-23-10 01:26 PM Response to Reply #67 |
71. Read Sevior's rebuttals. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
kristopher (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Nov-23-10 02:15 PM Response to Reply #71 |
73. I have read the rebuttal |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
GliderGuider (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Nov-23-10 03:27 PM Response to Reply #73 |
75. Ah. so you seem to be saying that while current CO2 emissions from nuclear power may be low |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
kristopher (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Nov-23-10 04:53 PM Response to Reply #75 |
77. I prefer to give independent analysis greater weight than that sourced to any industry |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Confusious (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Nov-23-10 06:00 PM Response to Reply #77 |
82. Vantenfall operates everything |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
kristopher (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Nov-23-10 06:11 PM Response to Reply #82 |
85. Nuclear industry data. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Confusious (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Nov-23-10 09:20 PM Response to Reply #85 |
92. Just out of curiosity, if you get your power from a nuclear plant, |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
XemaSab (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Nov-23-10 08:15 PM Response to Reply #77 |
90. You work for the wind industry |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
kristopher (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Nov-23-10 11:10 PM Response to Reply #90 |
94. I am an independent energy policy analyst. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
XemaSab (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Nov-23-10 11:58 PM Response to Reply #94 |
97. You need a degree in order to do that |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
GliderGuider (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Nov-24-10 07:29 AM Response to Reply #94 |
100. Your analysis hasn't been showing many signs of "independence" thus far |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
joshcryer (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Nov-23-10 09:57 PM Response to Reply #63 |
93. Are you debating Jacobson's numbers? It rates better than Coal-CCS. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
kristopher (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Nov-23-10 11:44 PM Response to Original message |
95. Union of Concerned Scientists |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) | Wed May 08th 2024, 04:48 AM Response to Original message |
Advertisements [?] |
Top |
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy |
Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators
Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.
Home | Discussion Forums | Journals | Store | Donate
About DU | Contact Us | Privacy Policy
Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.
© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC