|
CommieGIR posted:.....other countries are doing more in US Nuclear development....so, yes. Like China, France, Russia, etc. "other countries are doing more in US Nuclear development" doesn't parse, come again?
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 21:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 7, 2024 04:22 |
|
|
Radbot posted:"other countries are doing more in US Nuclear development" doesn't parse, come again? I mean't to type Nuclear development. Phone posting.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 21:32
|
|
|
The best hope for pioneering nuclear technology is almost certainly China, IMO. Largely because they have the greatest need to switch their baseline to something else ASAP, and their space program has demonstrated they have no qualms with accidents wiping out small cities in the name of advancement.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 21:34
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:I mean't to type Nuclear development. Phone posting. I was talking about US nuclear development, I'm aware other countries are different. In the US, "greens" have literally zero responsibility for the lack of nuclear development. Based on what this thread says, though, you'd think Greenpeace had more power than the US Government.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 21:55
|
|
|
Radbot posted:I was talking about US nuclear development, I'm aware other countries are different. Had more power? No. Have done a lot to make sure there is as much opposition as possible that they can generate combined with the Sierra Club and others? Yes.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 21:57
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Had more power? No. Have done a lot to make sure there is as much opposition as possible that they can generate combined with the Sierra Club and others? Yes. I think the point is just that unless the issue is a really minimal lifestyle change that also no or a positive impact on profit margins (see, say, cutting up six pack rings or switching to reusable grocery bags), nobody gives a gently caress what "the greens" say. It's the equivalent of saying that grandmas everywhere have been opposed to nuclear power so we can't get any political will for it. Grandmas have about the same amount of impact on this scale as environmental groups.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 22:22
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Had more power? No. Have done a lot to make sure there is as much opposition as possible that they can generate combined with the Sierra Club and others? Yes. And if those groups had any political power at all, that'd mean something. The real answer is that nuke plants are expensive, and because of the way utility companies are organized (and paid) in many states, they have no incentive to invest in nuclear. tuyop posted:I think the point is just that unless the issue is a really minimal lifestyle change that also no or a positive impact on profit margins (see, say, cutting up six pack rings or switching to reusable grocery bags), nobody gives a gently caress what "the greens" say. It's the equivalent of saying that grandmas everywhere have been opposed to nuclear power so we can't get any political will for it. Grandmas have about the same amount of impact on this scale as environmental groups. I strongly disagree, elderly American women exert far more political power than American "greens".
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 22:31
|
|
|
Radbot posted:The real answer is that nuke plants are expensive, and because of the way utility companies are organized (and paid) in many states, they have no incentive to invest in nuclear. Agreed. I've pointed this out three or four times now. Its part of why I'm not a fan of privatized power companies.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 22:33
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Agreed. I've pointed this out three or four times now. Its part of why I'm not a fan of privatized power companies. I'm not talking solely to you, more to the other folks that repeatedly point out how climate change would be solved if only it weren't for those meddling greens, much like the problems with capitalism would be solved if only it weren't for those Trotskyist Marxists (a group with similar political strength to American greens)
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 22:46
|
|
|
Living in a major economy where those meddling greens get to sit in various governments gives another perspective  , but even in the US where greens are less of a factor and have yet to complete the transition to bleeding heart neoliberals, it's never not funny to see them take the same side as coal companies or be turbo conservatives of a different shade.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 23:24
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
You misunderstand, greens are not "less of" a factor, they are a literal, objective nonfactor into why nuclear isn't being developed in the US. There are no "greens" in the US Congress, nor would any American know who you were talking about if you asked them who "greens" were.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 23:27
|
|
|
The green party doesn't need its own congresscritters for wacky paleoenvironmentalism ( ) to have nonzero effects on derailing actually sustainable things. Poll people on "nuclear power is environmentally friendly, yes/no?" and the reason that at least a good proportion of people will answer no is not entirely unrelated to every environmentalist organisation ever decrying nuclear as the worst thing since sliced bread for a good long time. Of course, every fossil fuel company ever also wants less nuclear to sell more coal and gas fired power stations, but it's silly to suggest that environmentalist hysteria doesn't make their job easier by making anti nuclear everything look better and by providing talking heads on TV and as advisors.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 23:39
|
|
|
Nuclear power is uneconomical without public support. Public support is low. This is one reason we do not create incentives to develop it. In contrast, renewable energy is uneconomical without public support. Public support is high. This is one reason we create incentives to develop it. The yapping of environmentalist idiots contributes to the low public support, but that is a problem that is trivially solved just by throwing money at it. Nobody is going to change their votes based on this. The issue would not be drowning out the yappy environmentalist idiots, but the money that spills in from the rest of the energy sector to combat expansion of nuclear energy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 01:05
|
|
|
BRAKE FOR MOOSE posted:Nuclear power is uneconomical without public support. Public support is low. This is one reason we do not create incentives to develop it. In contrast, renewable energy is uneconomical without public support. Public support is high. This is one reason we create incentives to develop it. You underestimate the hysteria of the uninformed, and everyone (including all of us smugging about the mighty atom on the internet) is uninformed about most things because time is limited and people do things besides reading the news and educating themselves about technical details.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 01:16
|
|
|
blowfish posted:You underestimate the hysteria of the uninformed, and everyone (including all of us smugging about the mighty atom on the internet) is uninformed about most things because time is limited and people do things besides reading the news and educating themselves about technical details. The uninformed do not have serious positions about nuclear power and would be swayed by forceful campaigning. The entire debate over energy policy w/r/t global warming in the US shows that reality has little bearing on opinions; when facts and economics are on the same side, then there is absolutely no difficulty in bringing people over.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 01:48
|
|
|
BRAKE FOR MOOSE posted:The uninformed do not have serious positions about nuclear power and would be swayed by forceful campaigning. The entire debate over energy policy w/r/t global warming in the US shows that reality has little bearing on opinions; when facts and economics are on the same side, then there is absolutely no difficulty in bringing people over. No and because of two words nuclear weapons
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 01:59
|
|
|
BRAKE FOR MOOSE posted:Nuclear power is uneconomical without public support. Public support is low. This is one reason we do not create incentives to develop it. In contrast, renewable energy is uneconomical without public support. Public support is high. This is one reason we create incentives to develop it. Where do you get the idea that public support has any meaningful impact on the economic viability of nuclear, renewables, or other electricity generation technology? The price of wind and solar hasn't been falling because of public support its been falling because the manufacturing processes and equipment has been improving. Likewise, the rise and fall of nuclear in the public eye hasn't really impacted the price of operating or building new plants.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 02:21
|
|
|
So eliminating subsidies (or more relevantly, going back in time and never introducing them) would have no impact on development? I also think you misread my point; the profitability of the technology is all that matters, and public support can influence that, but it's not a major factor.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 03:08
|
|
|
BRAKE FOR MOOSE posted:I also think you misread my point; the profitability of the technology is all that matters, and public support can influence that, but it's not a major factor. No it isn't
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 03:15
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:No it isn't Why is coal power still in use?
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 03:16
|
|
|
BRAKE FOR MOOSE posted:Why is coal power still in use? Because its cheap and profitable. Maybe I misunderstood your point: But it SHOULDN'T matter, and its why for profit power companies are a problem. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 03:22 on Dec 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 03:17
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Because its cheap and profitable. Ah, yeah, I see how I was unclear. I agree.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 03:20
|
|
|
That also depends on what you mean by "profitable." The problem with coal is that it's actually kind of expensive to clean it up. The issue is that it is not immediately expensive. The effects get felt later by people dealing with the pollution or paying to clean it up. It's cheap to burn coal if you ignore the other costs related. It does serious environmental damage that can gently caress up the profitability of other things.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 03:21
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:That also depends on what you mean by "profitable." The problem with coal is that it's actually kind of expensive to clean it up. The issue is that it is not immediately expensive. The effects get felt later by people dealing with the pollution or paying to clean it up. It's cheap to burn coal if you ignore the other costs related. It does serious environmental damage that can gently caress up the profitability of other things. Yeah, that is the biggest issue: Its cheap RIGHT NOW, but its a mess in reality.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 03:22
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Yeah, that is the biggest issue: Its cheap RIGHT NOW, but its a mess in reality. It's incredibly difficult to explain that to people, though. "Those people down stream" don't exist. The corn industry is just another example; it's loving up the fishing industry in the Gulf of Mexico by washing nitrates down the river, but who cares? We need that loving corn. Power generation is the same. All the lead and mercury end up in the food supply but gently caress it. Drill, baby, drill! Burn everything!
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 04:16
|
|
|
BRAKE FOR MOOSE posted:Nuclear power is uneconomical without public support. Public support is low. Support for nuclear power is surprisingly high given that pretty much no one is campaigning for it or pushing for it:  You're right, though, that relative to other power generation methods, it doesn't do so well:  Source: http://www.gallup.com/poll/182180/support-nuclear-energy.aspx Uranium Phoenix fucked around with this message at 02:37 on Dec 19, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 05:00
|
|
|
Uranium Phoenix posted:You're right, though, that relative to other power generation methods, it doesn't do so well:
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 05:27
|
|
|
PERPETUAL IDIOT posted:The company's CEO (in regulated states) would love more than anything to build nuclear if he could justify it to the comission. It would greatly increase short term profits in absolute terms. Rates are set by giving a rate of return on capital investment and nothing is more capital intensive than nuclear. I think you underestimate the political power of Big Fossil.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 10:17
|
|
|
cheese posted:This is a pointless poll question. You might as well also add in "Generate power by rubbing the tummies of puppies" and note with interest when 99% of Americans want to put more emphasis on it. It would be really odd if the green, friendly energy sources like wind and solar did not win the popularity contest, but power grids are not maintained by happy thoughts. Nuclear is the greenest base load generator that we know of, and it is insane that we are not building more nuclear plants. Well now hold on a sec, don't just discount your Puppy Tummy Rubbing initiative here. That's a green, renewable source of energy right there!
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 15:16
|
|
|
It's truly amazing how environmentalists can't get anyone to do poo poo (go vegan, buy electric cars, etc.) but somehow they're murderously effective at preventing nuclear power. Maybe we have something to learn from them? Of course there's zero evidence that environmentalists are the drivers behind American anti-nuclear sentiment, but who cares, it FEELS right. Surely PETA and Greenpeace are bigger influences than, say, hysterical MSM reporting of what happened in Fukushima or Three Mile Island. Radbot fucked around with this message at 21:11 on Dec 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 21:09
|
|
|
hey now the proportion of vegans is increasing and whole foods of all things rakes in as much money as ~monsanto~ also note the distinction between "nonzero negative effect" and "sufficient as a sole driver"
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 21:18
|
|
|
blowfish posted:hey now the proportion of vegans is increasing and whole foods of all things rakes in as much money as ~monsanto~ Considering vegans make up 0.5% of the US population I'm firmly comfortable saying they have a zero negative effect. The link between veganism and Whole Foods is pretty odd, though - you are aware they sell plenty of animal products there?
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 21:23
|
|
|
Radbot posted:Considering vegans make up 0.5% of the US population I'm firmly comfortable saying they have a zero negative effect. The link between veganism and Whole Foods is pretty odd, though - you are aware they sell plenty of animal products there? Whole foods is about organic farming, a thing that people usually care about because
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 21:25
|
|
|
blowfish posted:Whole foods is about organic farming, a thing that people usually care about because Sure thing, champ. Now tie that back to the issue at hand.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 21:27
|
|
|
Look we are splitting hairs here, "dumbass regressive wannabe-greens are bad" and "media hysteria and fossil fuel lobbying are larger contributors to anti-nuclear sentiment" are not mutually exclusive.Radbot posted:Sure thing, champ. Now tie that back to the issue at hand. Greens don't have congresscritters in Amerikkka but environmentalism has a nonzero influence on society and should thus make sure it's a good influence.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 21:28
|
|
|
blowfish posted:Greens don't have congresscritters in Amerikkka but environmentalism has a nonzero influence on society and should thus make sure it's a good influence. Well when that "nonzero influence" amounts to a dozen smelly people nobody listens to, compared to lovely MSM journalism about the NUCLEAR DISASTER IN FUKUSHIMA!!, the comparison is in bad faith at least.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 21:31
|
|
|
 I'd take having an anti nuclear green party congresscritter over having every environmental NGO screaming at the top of their lungs that nucular is bad any day. The former is one more dumb congresscritter (but I am repeating myself), the latter tells everyone that nuclear power is bad for the environment, gives everyone on the planet cancer, and hates freedom In addition, there exists a world outside Amerikkka where nuclear reactors can also be built and where greens actually get elected on top of anti nuclear wannabe-environmentalist screeching.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 21:39
|
|
|
Radbot posted:Well when that "nonzero influence" amounts to a dozen smelly people nobody listens to, compared to lovely MSM journalism about the NUCLEAR DISASTER IN FUKUSHIMA!!, the comparison is in bad faith at least. I hate to join this horrible argument but in the United States Environmental Nonprofits easily mobilize 10,000s of people funded by hundreds of millions of dollars and while they may not have a huge role in setting national energy policy they are definitely important at local scales.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 22:20
|
|
|
People are afraid of nuclear because of high media profile events like fukushima Chernobyl and three mile. And also whenever Israel blowd one up in the ME. Green politics have little to do with it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 22:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 7, 2024 04:22 |
|
|
Uncle Jam posted:People are afraid of nuclear because of high media profile events like fukushima Chernobyl and three mile. And also whenever Israel blowd one up in the ME. That's not to say there are no rabidly anti-nuclear greenies.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 22:40
|
|
