Another nuclear phase out biting the dust: Wisconsin working to end ban.

[NNadir]

But opponents have an unexpected and ironic foe: Global warming. Greenhouse gas emissions from coal and oil fired power plants have people like liberal Democratic Representative Frank Boyle of Superior switching sides in favor of nuclear power. "If you had told me 10 years ago that I would be here advocating for the lifting of the ban on nuclear construction, I'd say you were crazy." Boyle says the danger of climate change has future generations facing catastrophe. "The time has some for nuclear proliferation in terms of energy plants versus continuing to fire up those generators with coal and gas and oil and produce a climatic effect of carbon loading the upper atmosphere that could ultimately kill us and destroy the earth."

http://www.businessnorth.com/kuws.asp?RID=1885

As usual, the reflexive antinuclear slow learners get to mutter all of their usual trivial and meaningless, mindless bullshit, but the fact is that the climate change wolf is at the door, and it is time to be rational.

[hobbit709]

1. What we need is fusion, not fission

[Systematic Chaos]

2. Well, since there is no fusion yet...

...let's be thankful for what we do have. Fission is safer and cleaner by far than coal and there is NO "alternative" that's going to take up enough of the slack quickly enough to make a difference.

On edit: This Mr. Boyle sounds a lot like me. I never in a million years would have thought myself a nuclear proponent 10 years ago either.

[NNadir]

3. The anti-nuclear case has always been drastically overstated but 20 years ago...

I wouldn't have realized that. The nature of public reporting on the subject of nuclear energy is so poor, so distorted, so illiterate that many urban myths persist.

Until Chernobyl happened the nature of the worst case remained unknown.

If you'd asked me in 1984 what an event like that would have entailed, I would have told you "the death of the city of Kiev."

Kiev lives.

The antinuclear industry has lost all credibility, and deservedly so.

Coal kills continuously, vastly. Coal is suicide. It would take 50 Chernobyls to do what coal does in a year and there will never be 50 Chernobyls.

[RC]

4. Chernobyl doesn't count in the United States because we have never

built anything close to the way Chernobyl was built. That argument is a non-starter.
A better argument is that coal emits more radio activity in a year that all of our nuclear power plants combined.

[NNadir]

7. I am only pointing out that the consequences of the release of a nearly full inventory

or radionuclides at the end of its fuel cycle are known.

Chernobyl is thus the worst case for any type of reactor if one could disperse such an inventory. In the nuclear exceptionalist case however, it is normal to pretend that we must examine what could happen (even in a stretched imagination) while we ignore what is happening with everything else.

Chernobyl is the only reactor in history that cost more lives than it saved. Thus it is the focus of the antinuke religion.

I agree that Chernobyl is atypical. Given that LWR have performed so spectacularly well, there is no good reason to build a Chernobyl type reactor and no similar reactor will be built.

[macllyr]

24. yes, but Chernobyl is not the worst possible case

Dear NNadir,

First, let me tell you that I am a supporter of nuclear fission power for multiple reasons. I live in France and I appreciate the reliability and security that nuclear energy gives us. I am proud of the example France is giving to the rest of the world in carbon-free electricity generation...

However, I think that your statement is incomplete when you write that Chernobyl is the WORST case of accident a nuclear fission reactor could cause. I remember reading a vulgarization article in the French edition of Scientific American, in the eighties. The article was about the consequences of an attack on European and/or American soil by soviet thermonuclear weapons. More precisely, it was about what would happen if the weapons (each in the hundreds of kilotonnes range) were detonated at ground level ON CIVILIAN NUCLEAR POWERPLANTS. The paper described the vaporization of hundreds of tonnes of irradiated combustible, the formation of vast amounts of new fission products, and their spreading over large areas of European and American soil. Some of the fallout ellipses, resulting from an attack on only one nuclear power plant were spread over most of central Europe (and even reaching Ukrainian and Russian land). In short, the effect of a nuclear weapon can be multiplied many times, in terms of monstrosity, if it is used on a nuclear fission power plant (or on a retraitment plant, or on a spent combustible storage pool...).

May I remind you that more than 20,000 nuclear weapons (10,000 to 40,000?) are still in the hands of military people in various parts of the Earth. I can admit that nuclear weapons will probably be forever a part of Humanity's "arsenal", and that they can have a kind of stabilizing effect in some situations (only if you do not use them...). But I think that an advocate of large-scale development of power generation by nuclear fission, like you, should also be in strong support of nuclear disarmament. In addition, while not a threat for the existence of humanity, the possible presence of thousands of nuclear fission reactors on earth will multiply the opportunities for catastrophic terrorist acts.

Could you please tell us how you, NNadir, can reconcile on one hand, the necessity for humanity to avoid an energy and population bottleneck by developing nuclear energy on a really large scale, and on the other hand, the increased risk of harm made to humanity in the event of nuclear war or terrorist acts ?

Sincerely,

Mac L'lyr

[hunter]

27. There's no good reason to protect a species that resorts to nuclear war.

If we are the sorts of creatures that drop nuclear weapons on nuclear power plants, then the civilized universe will probably breathe a deep sigh of relief if we exterminate ourselves before we achieve interstellar space flight. It saves them all those difficult ethical questions they must face whenever a plague species breaks loose of its home planet. The decision to drop a big rock on sentinent beings is never an easy one, no matter how nasty and racist they've demonstrated themselves to be.

I always like to think of the bigger picture. :)

[eppur_se_muova]

8. We've been hoping for fusion for over half a century.

The first fission reactor was built well before the first fission bomb, and fission reactors for power followed within a decade or so -- in contrast, the first fusion bomb was tested in 1951 but a working fusion reactor for power is still years away, even in an optimistic estimate.

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

[jpak]

5. It hasn't passed the assembly yet and it was a party line committee vote (repugs for dems against)

<snip>

Another relevant point: The federal government considers the geography of northern Wisconsin between Ashland and Hayward and the Wolf River ideal for nuclear waste storage. Today, a committee narrowly voted to lift the restrictions on a party line vote with only one Democrat voting for the lifting. The measure may go to the full Assembly next.

<more>

nice try though...

[NNadir]

6. Well, if Wisconsin doesn't remove the restrictions, they'll burn fossil fuels, like Maine.

That would be a disaster for all humanity.

[jpak]

9. Not likely - Wisconsin has one of the most aggressive RPS in the country

http://www.getreallist.com/article.php?story=20070412195857567

<snip>

Wisconsin Raises the Bar

Among states with RPS, Wisconsin used to bring up the rear with its measly little 2.2% by 2011 target. But on April 5, Governor Jim Doyle announced a bold new "Declaration of Energy Independence," his plan to make Wisconsin a leader in energy independence and global warming mitigation.

"With our vast agricultural and forestry resources, our strong research institutions, and our strong manufacturing base, I want the Midwest to become the Saudi Arabia of renewable energy--with Wisconsin at the forefront," Governor Doyle said. "The fact is, if an oilfield in Iran has to compete against a farmfield in Wisconsin, that's a very good thing for the environment, for our economy, and for the world."

Among the governor's goals are:

* A "25 by 25" goal (generating 25% from renewables by 2025). But this wasn't your usual 25 by 25 goal--it applies to not only electricity, but transportation fuels! As far as I am aware, this is a first, and a very notable first at that, because as any reader of my columns knows, the most pressing problem we face due to peak oil is a shortfall of liquid fuels, not electricity.
* To take a 10% market share of renewable energy generation by 2030, bringing some $13.5 billion into Wisconsin's economy every year. This is a very ambitious target.
* "To become a national leader in groundbreaking research that will make alternative energies more affordable and available to all."

<more>

Furthermore, Maine generates 61% of its in-state electricity demand with renewables - and much more when the hundreds of MW of new wind capacity comes on line in the next few years.

[NickB79]

10. With global warming and peak oil coming together into the perfect storm of trouble

Do you honestly believe producing ONLY 25% of a state's energy by 2025 is enough? Frankly, I do not. If we're not producing well over 50-60% of our energy from carbon-neutral sources by 2025, we're pretty much screwed.

[jpak]

11. If that's the case, then nuclear power cannot save us either.

You can build in conservation and new renewable energy systems far faster than you can build in new nuclear capacity - and the US doesn't have the uranium resources to support an expanded nuclear program anyway.

25x25 is more than doable and could be 50x25 if the problem is taken seriously.

[Dogmudgeon]

14. Not enough uranium?

Uranium is plentiful.

Certainly, we should develop renewable non-nuclear resources and make efficient use of our energy. Using uranium is one such practice. And if our knuckleheaded laws were changed to permit breeding and transmutation technologies, it would be fully renewable, too.

We already blow over 20 tons of uranium and thorium into the atmosphere for every gigawatt of power we get from burning coal.

The sea itself contains a huge amount of uranium.

Just because we don't have a uranium mine on every block producing it at a buck per ton doesn't mean we're running out of it.

You wouldn't happen to be trying to wish it away, would you?

--p!

[jpak]

16. Not enough uranium??? Yup - but don't take my word for it...

Lack of fuel may limit US nuclear power expansion

http://www.physorg.com/news93631246.html

Limited supplies of fuel for nuclear power plants may thwart the renewed and growing interest in nuclear energy in the United States and other nations, says an MIT expert on the industry.

Over the past 20 years, safety concerns dampened all aspects of development of nuclear energy: No new reactors were ordered and there was investment neither in new uranium mines nor in building facilities to produce fuel for existing reactors. Instead, the industry lived off commercial and government inventories, which are now nearly gone. Worldwide, uranium production meets only about 65 percent of current reactor requirements.

That shortage of uranium and of processing facilities worldwide leaves a gap between the potential increase in demand for nuclear energy and the ability to supply fuel for it, said Dr. Thomas Neff, a research affiliate at MIT's Center for International Studies.

"Just as large numbers of new reactors are being planned, we are only starting to emerge from 20 years of underinvestment in the production capacity for the nuclear fuel to operate them. There has been a nuclear industry myopia; they didn't take a long-term view," Neff said. For example, only a few years ago uranium inventories were being sold at $10 per pound; the current price is $85 per pound.

<snip>

Currently, much of the uranium used by the United States is coming from mines in such countries as Australia, Canada, Namibia, and, most recently, Kazakhstan. Small amounts are mined in the western United States, but the United States is largely reliant on overseas supplies. The United States also relies for half its fuel on Russia under a "swords to ploughshares" deal that Neff originated in 1991. This deal is converting about 20,000 Russian nuclear weapons to fuel for U.S. nuclear power plants, but it ends in 2013, leaving a substantial supply gap for the United States.

<more>

Uranium shortage poses threat

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/industrials/article555314.ece

The dearth of uranium will be discussed at the World Nuclear Association’s symposium in London next month and could prove to be a major stumbling block in the nuclear industry’s attempt to have old nuclear power stations replaced with modern reactors.

While Britain has no plans to begin building a new generation of nuclear reactors, pressure has been growing to take a decision to restart a nuclear programme as a way of cutting carbon dioxide emissions that lead to climate change and reducing Britain’s reliance on imported gas.

However, a recent report by the Asia Pacific Foundation of Canada said that there was likely to be a 45,000-tonne shortage of uranium in the next decade, largely because of growing Chinese demand for the metal. Prices for uranium have almost tripled, to about $26/lb between March 2003 and May 2005, after being stable for years.

According to the Organisation for Economic Co- operation and Development’s Nuclear Agency’s “red book” — its statistical study of world uranium resources and demand — the world consumed 67,000 tonnes of uranium in 2002. Only 36,000 tonnes of this was produced from primary sources, with the balance coming from secondary sources, in particular ex- military sources as nuclear weapons are decommissioned.

<more>


On edit: here's a table of US uranium production, consumption and stockpiles...

http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:G89SyixLCZ0J:www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/txt/stb0903.xls+uranium+1949+2004&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us

In 2004, the US produced 2.60 million pounds of uranium.

In 2004, US reactors consumed 62.3 million pounds of uranium.

US uranium stockpiles have fallen every year since 1997 - from 106 million pounds to 85 million pounds in 2004.

That's not much more than one year's demand.

The numbers ain't pretty...

[Dogmudgeon]

17. And it's all for existing supplies and mining operations

Neff (from the Physorg citation) is discussing underinvestment, not raw resource scarcity.

"Just as large numbers of new reactors are being planned, we are only starting to emerge from 20 years of underinvestment in the production capacity for the nuclear fuel to operate them. There has been a nuclear industry myopia; they didn't take a long-term view," Neff said. For example, only a few years ago uranium inventories were being sold at $10 per pound; the current price is $85 per pound.

(Your ref.)

The second article you posted is about the same issue -- it's from the World Nuclear Association, and it's nearly two years old. Again, it's about underinvestment and deals with on-hand stock. The WNA has been strongly advocating nuclear resource development.

The table you cited, likewise, says nothing about development. It's all about what we have on-hand and how we're using it. I notice that you never cite figures about investment, planning, and new construction in the nuclear energy industry. Yet with non-nuclear energy, you even count press releases (from defunct corporations occasionally) as substantive signs of growth.

If I looked at my pantry that way, I would conclude that I would starve to death in early June.

Again, you have singled out nuclear energy development and applied misleading and one-sided arguments to condemn it for reasons that have not been supported by reality. Most people don't care whether or not you "dislike" nuclear energy or I "like" it. The issue is economic and ecological health, with the word "health" soon to be replaced with "survival" if we don't start developing our entire energy-resource base.

--p!

[Dead_Parrot]

12. Ignoring 3/4 of the problem is "aggressive"?

In case you missed it, Sweden announced they want to be rid of all fossil fuels by 2020. Regardless of whether or not they manage it, that's an "aggressive" approach.

But then, it's not much of a competition. "The most aggressive RPS in the USA" rates alongside "The most decorative dog turd in Belfast" and "The most intelligent piece of cheese in Reykjavík" in terms of nail-biting tension.

[jpak]

13. If you recall, I posted the Swedish thingy here a long time ago

With "aggressive" energy efficiency and "aggressive" public/mass transportation programs, 25x25 could be 50x25 (or more) - easily.

[Dead_Parrot]

23. Which still leaves 50x... whenever.

And doesn't address any of the off-grid industrial use like cement, steel, agriculture - or for that matter, silicon production.

25% of grid and liquid fuels is pissing into the wind. If they manage 50% of grid and liquid fuel, it's pissing into a stiff breeze: You still wind up in a mess.

[NNadir]

19. You continually talk about "goals." "Goals" are pathetic in Maine, and pathetic in Wisconsin.

I have posted Maine's production figures from the EIA site many times, and still you pretend they are not real.

Here they are again:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/st_profiles/sept04me.xls

I believe you the way I believe George W. Bush when he announces "progress in Iraq."

In Wisconsin - like every fucking other place on the planet - when the percentage of nuclear power went down, the percentage of energy produced by fossil fuels rose:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/st_profiles/sept04wi.xls

Renewable energy, just like every other fucking place on the planet is trivial in Wisconsin.

You are in pure denial. If the majority of the planet believed the horseshit you hand out - even if it is methane digester horseshit - every fucking mountain in West Virginia could be ripped to shreds and carbon dioxide would hit 500 ppm and still you'd be talking about "goals."

Here's some news bub: Climate change isn't going to start in 2050 when you and your Greenpeace buddies have sobered up from your delusional drinking match. Climate change is happening now.

[jpak]

28. dupe post, self delete

n/t

[jpak]

29. Maine has exceeded its 30% RPS

and generates 47% of its total electricity from renewable sources.

So Maine has achieved its "pathetic" goals and then some.

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/state/state_energy_profiles.cfm?sid=ME

As Maine generates and exports more electricity than it consumes, renewables satisfy 61% of in-state consumption.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/st_profiles/e_profiles_sum.html

BTW Maine's state-owned buildings use 100% renewable electricity...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x96240

Pathetic indeed...(not)

[RestoreGore]

15. Nuclear Power Is Not The Answer To Climate Change

Expensive, dirty, and dangerous is what it is, and it is a threat to our national security. But it sure works well to line the pockets of those in government who are using this climate crisis for their own political ends.

http://www.nirs.org/climate/climate.htm

"In November 2000 the world recognized nuclear power as a dirty, dangerous and unnecessary technology by refusing to give it greenhouse gas credits during the UN Climate Change talks in the Hague. The world dealt nuclear power a further blow when a UN Sustainable Development Conference refused to label nuclear a sustainable technology in April 2001."


http://www.peakoil.org.au/nuclear.co2.htm

CO2 used in the nuclear process

[Dogmudgeon]

18. They have GOT to be kidding

NIRS is an international (Holland and America) group of bourgeois anti-nuclear "activists" whose "factsheets" contain hundreds of unsupported -- and often just-plain-silly -- statements. I must have looked at 20 of the site's pages, and they were all rhetoric, devoid of supporting citations. I am not a "citation warrior," but when a group of self-appointed fighters for Truth, Justice, and the Dutch-American Way make outrageous statements, I would expect them to have more "ammunition" than just their say-so.

If I were to post something that was laden with even half as much spin, I'm sure that the criticism would be immediate, sarcastic, and gleeful.

Here is an example of what NIRS considers to be "fact":

Nuclear reactors are pre-deployed weapons of mass destruction and pose an unacceptable risk. We need to eliminate, not proliferate them (sic). An attack could render a city like Manhattan a sacrifice zone and kill hundreds of thousands within weeks.

(source)

Note the use of the terrorism scare. Where have we seen that trick used before?

Here's an example of the clear thinking present in NIRS literature:

Every dollar spent on nuclear power (1) instead of fossil fuels (2) results in releasing six times more carbon than if the same dollar is spent on efficiency (3). (Numbering is mine. --p!)

(source)

What are they comparing? Nuclear to fossil fuel? Fossil fuel to efficiency? Nuclear to efficiency? It seems to be a three-way fraction that results in something being six times as big as something else. No supporting evidence is provided for ANY element of the impossible fraction. And the same "fact" sheet ALSO pimps fear of terrorism.

Yet even NIRS can't deny that "Nuclear power has indeed resulted in significant foregone emissions of S02, NOx and CO2, since nuclear plants generally displaced the construction of baseload coal plants in the 70s and early 80s." (source) But the rest of the "fact" sheet then goes on to explain why coal (with scrubbers) is even better.

Yes, NIRS is advocating for COAL. They seem to be ignorant of the magnitude of the risks coal poses (either that, or they're secretly working for The Man).

I did not read every paper at the NIRS site, but nowhere did I see the issue of airborne particulate uranium and thorium from coal waste mentioned, let alone other toxic metals and organic pollutants. Since this amounts to hundreds of Chernobyls' worth of real nuclear waste per year, I would expect to see it given prominence. If it's there, it's not well-publicized. But they want us to believe that coal is safer than nuclear energy.

The next link leads to Dave Kimball's photo essay about how nuclear energy is all about big machines and terrorists. The ONLY citation he gives is to a paper by Storm and Smith that proves that nuclear energy is responsible for the emission of greenhouse gas. It sets up the strawman argument that the pro-nuclearists claim that nuclear development is carbon-free. (Unlike the solar and wind power advocates, who would NEVER say such a thing about their favorite forms of power.)

And to the reality-based student of our energy problems? All energy production directly or indirectly generates "carbon" gas. Even collecting sticks of wood puts CO2 into the air. All greenhouse gas output, however, can be measured -- which Storm and Smith didn't really do, either.

I have NEVER seen a pro-nuclearist claim that nuclear power didn't have environmental costs. If any did make such a claim, they were wrong. Perhaps some wise-ass Freeper, keen on "making the Libbrul morans go ballistic" may have said so, but environmental impacts for all energy projects are not exactly well-kept secrets. The impact of nuclear energy is not zero, but it is LOW. Even the much-accursed NNadir has posted recent (2004), measured, widely-accepted figures for the environmental costs of different forms of energy production from the ExternE (external cost of energy) study from 1996-2004. They show nuclear and wind energy to incur similar per-kilowatt costs.

The advantage of nuclear energy is scale. A 10 MW wind plant (at 25% utilization) is considered to be a major, Earth-shaking breakthrough; a nuclear reactor TEN TIMES the size (at 75% utilization) is small-peanuts.

If there is a case to be made against nuclear energy, neither NIRS nor Kimball have made it.

--p!

[RestoreGore]

20. If it were so silly you wouldn't have used so much space trying to refute it

Nuclear power is dirty, dangerous, and expensive, and I will keep saying that because that is what I know based on thinking for myself. It is not a renewable or alternate enrgy source. It is also a threat to national security no matter how you try to spin it otherwise with innuendos regarding the links posted here. And I will tell you this, if any plants are slated to be built in my state I will fight it tooth and nail as well as any coal plants because they are both in the same category to me...counterproductive to the sustainabilty of this planet.

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[RestoreGore]

25. It's no wonder you get no other responses

You are one miserable person. And you can bet I care about this Earth, and that is why I speak out against the nuclear industry that surely doesn't care for the Earth it buries it's TOXIC waste in. You couldn't build enough nuclear monstrosities to fight this in the time it will take to do it. This is only a ruse to make MONEY operpetuated by a movement using this crisis to try to resurrect something that died out a longtime ago...and thank God for that.

[phantom power]

30. If I may be so bold...

he isn't "miserable," he is angry. And I presume he is angry because, like me and others, he is afraid, because he is paying attention, and he sees that climate change and peak fossil are fixing to come down on us all like the fucking left and right fists of god. The fists are already swinging. Not, as he correctly points out, in 20 years, or 50 years.

I, for one, don't frequently reply to his posts because saying "I agree n/t" is a waste of DU server resources. I briefly considered using "megadittos," but that seemed in poor taste even for me.

[Dead_Parrot]

31. I agree n/t

[RestoreGore]

33. Anger is different than outright nastiness

And believe me many of us have been paying attention and see those fists coming down, and also see that for all of the years nuclear power has been around it has done nothing to counteract those fists coming down and won't do so now. Nuclear power is not a renewable energy source and it is a source I will fight tooth and nail against seeing increased in this world along with other fossil fuel based sources BECAUSE I am paying attention.

[phantom power]

35. It's frustrating...

to see well meaning people like yourself fighting (tooth and nail) against what I believe is the best tool we have to save ourselves with.

It serves nobody for us to question each other's good intentions, but you are wrong, and in this coming crisis, we can ill afford to be wrong. It's going to be so bad, even if we got everything right starting tomorrow. It is frustrating, and the weight of consequences also makes it frightening.

[Dogmudgeon]

22. So, why did I post?

The same reason you did. I was thinking for myself.

I'm certainly not trying to convince you. But when you post something that other people disagree with, you may find that they answer you. That's what a discussion forum is. It's not a place for a bunch of people who all agree with each other to make each other feel good.

And if you post links to support you position, those who answer you will probably read the links. So you should post good links.

What you posted was mindless rhetoric posing as "fact". It wasn't even very good anti-nuclear literature. Not to put too fine a point on it, it was crap.

And, yes, I've seen some pro-nuclear crap, too. There are morons everywhere. But most of the crap seems to be produced by the anti-nuclearists, who often can't even explain why nuclear power is bad, other than to simply say "It is! It IS bad!" They are those "unsupported assertions" you hear about in rhetoric and argumentation classes and discussions.

Here are yours:

Nuclear power is dirty, dangerous, and expensive ...
It is not a renewable or alternate energy source.
It is also a threat to national security ...
(It is) counterproductive to the sustainability of this planet.

You didn't explain a single assertion. And you can't even tell me why, or how, nuclear energy is so bad. No evidence. No rationale. No epidemiology. No corpses. No mutant creatures. Just a link to an HTML screed and another to a self-important group trying to re-live their glory days 30 years ago.

Just ... "It's bad, I tell you!"

Tell me ... who is supposed to believe that? All we know about you is your screen name and your previous posts. The same applies to ME. I spend time on what I write because my texts are all that exist of me on-line, and they're likely to outlive me, no matter how unimportant they may be.

When it comes to nuclear energy, will anything persuade you otherwise? I don't think so. But if evidence comes along to prove that nuclear energy is the worst thing since Satan, I'll gladly change my mind. My ego is not in it.

For 30 years, the Left has been in the thrall of a small group of mainly-rich loudmouths who would shout down anyone who even murmured that nuclear energy might be useful. But the world is hitting a brick wall with respect to energy resources. Nuclear energy is getting a second look. The self-acclaimed noble crusade has withered for lack of reality. And I'll refute it if for no other reason than to let others know that they can't be shouted down again.

--p!

[RestoreGore]

26. I don't speak as one"from the left"

I speak as someone with a moral conscience who will not have my child growing up in a Nuclear world that poisons his world when there are more viable options available. Simple as that.

[Dogmudgeon]

32. Yes, and I have a moral conscience, too

So now you're the only one who has a moral conscience?

I don't think so.

And I don't want MY children to grow up in stark poverty, ignorance, worshiping UFOs and cats, and scrounging in the ruins of our civilization. On the other hand, that doesn't give me the right to say "if you're anti-nuclear, you're eeevil!"

Haven't we had enough of the "if you disagree with me, you're a bad person" nonsense from Rush, Hannity, Ann, Billo, the Boy-King, etc.? (And Ralph Nader, Christopher Hitchens, Alexander Cockburn, Eleanor Fulani, etc. ... ?)

Believe what you want to believe. You've been implying that pro-nuclearists are anti-freedom-of-thought since this sub-thread started. I don't see how that is, when every reactor company has been targeted by anti-nuke SLAPP suits, but if you want to believe that you're persecuted, too, fine, whatever floats your boat. Just don't blame it on me.

And if, as you say, there really are more viable options available, I hope they show up soon. We can't afford to wait another 40 years for options we should have had at the turn of the 20th century -- but still don't.

--p!

[RestoreGore]

34. You assumed I spoke from " the left "

When you know nothing about from where I speak, so I was simply telling you. Your defensiveness is then of your own making.

[Dogmudgeon]

36. Are you still talking about me?

So this is about my psychological processes now?

:eyes:

Incidentally, check the name of this website. Are you taking offense to being a liberal, or just pretending you have transcended such mundane and vulgar concerns as politics?

But keep kicking this thread. Nuclear energy needs all the visibility it can get!

--p!