this post was submitted on 20 Jun 2024
97 points (94.5% liked)

politics

19144 readers
3414 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News

• World News

• Business News

• Political Discussion

• Ask Politics

• Military News

• Global Politics

• Moderate Politics

• Progressive Politics

• UK Politics

• Canadian Politics

• Australian Politics

• New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
outrageousmatter
aidan
jordanlund
HLMenckenFan
little_cow
97
88-2: Only Markey, Sanders Oppose 'Expensive, Risky' Nuclear Power Expansion (www.commondreams.org)
submitted 5 months ago by jeffw to c/politics
54 comments fedilink hide all child comments
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 87 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (8 children)

This is the one side of the aisle I think Bernie is always on the wrong side of. Nuclear power of some form will be required for a full transition away from fossil sources, and it should be telling how fast other nations like China are dumping money into it. It is cleaner and causes fewer accidents per GWh than any fossil source ever has- it's just been demonized for decades by those who stand to benefit from it being restricted and painted as a "non-green" energy source.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 5 months ago (2 children)

The problem is that humans cut corners for power and profit, and the nuclear industry is no exception.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 5 months ago (11 children)

i’m not sure what you’re talking about… The nuclear energy industry has a track record of safety and extensively regulated engineering that surpasses virtually any other industry

load more comments (11 replies)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago

sure, and you think this isn't also happening in every single other industry right now?

That's a regulatory problem and not a fundamental mechanics problem. the logic of "well it's good but humans will cut corners" means we should never do anything at all.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] Sanctus 8 points 5 months ago

We really need to only allow single issues.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (2 children)

I'd love to see more nuclear power generation. Nuclear power is the densest form of power on earth, it's safer than even renewables and doesn't have the huge e-waste or energy storage problems that come with it. It's very, very safe even compared to windmills depending on where you draw the box. I have never met anybody who actually understands nuclear power safety or waste disposal who is against it. At best, they say "renewables are currently cheaper so let's focus there" but they're not like "Nuclear is bad".

[–] Brkdncr 3 points 5 months ago

Turbines. Windmills are for making flour.

[–] Semi_Hemi_Demigod 1 points 5 months ago

I don't think nuclear is bad. It's really great for deep space and deep sea operations. It's just expensive in terms of both time and money.

[–] njm1314 -1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I'm usually against Sanders on this, but I very much respect the risky part of that sentence. Because I just don't have a lot of faith in the future right now, and I don't know if I trust any nuclear options going forward. I mean after Trump wins the election and implements his project f, or whatever it was called, who's going to be the head of the nuclear regulatory agency? One of his shitty kids friends? Maybe Sanders is right and it's a bad time.

[–] RealFknNito 8 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Would you be surprised that we have dozens of nuclear plants all over the United States? Modern reactors that can withstand the mistakes of the past without the disaster? Media makes the public think the risk is higher than it is when in reality, more people have died per year installing renewables than all the nuclear disasters combined (per GW/H).

Nuclear is simply too energy dense to ignore.

[–] WhatYouNeed -2 points 5 months ago (2 children)

Where do you put the waste? For how long and at what cost?

What about the cost of decommissioning nuclear sites at the end of their life?

[–] [email protected] 9 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (2 children)

Right now the volume of waste is low enough that they store it on-site. Coal ash disposal is far more of a problem, and has led to major contamination incidents.

What figures do you have on decomissioning? How much does a coal or natural gas plant or oil refinery cost to decommission? Do plants need to be decommissioned or can they be incrementally upgraded?

Have you done any background on this or are you sealioning?

[–] noisefree 3 points 5 months ago

I wish it was more widely known by the average person that coal ash is radioactive and contains heavy metals like lead and arsenic due to concentration of elements that were found in trace amounts in the coal and remain once the coal is burnt. It's horrible how poorly coal ash was handled (or purposefully used in construction) in the past and how contamination events still happen with little meaningful consequence to energy companies.

[–] WhatYouNeed -1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

In the UK, the decommissioning plan is to take at least 120 years, at an estimated cost of £126 billion pounds.

£126B would buy a lot of renewable sources... (fuck coal, gas or oil)

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/nuclear-provision-explaining-the-cost-of-cleaning-up-britains-nuclear-legacy/nuclear-provision-explaining-the-cost-of-cleaning-up-britains-nuclear-legacy

[–] [email protected] 5 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

That’s for one plant?

Edit: Oh. 17 of the earliest plants starting from the 50s. This has nothing to do with the construction and maintenance of modern nuclear power infrastructure.

There are 2-3 million abandoned oil and gas wells in the US. https://www.nrdc.org/stories/millions-leaky-and-abandoned-oil-and-gas-wells-are-threatening-lives-and-climate

Solar and wind are cheaper, but are variable, and have geographic limitations or high land use (45,000 acres of solar to equal the output of a modern nuclear plant). There is a place for nuclear, along with other carbon-free generation sources.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

In the ground, very deep, forever, for not nearly as much money as you might think. It takes up very, very little space. It's not green liquid that can spill, it's pieces of glass.

[–] FooBarrington 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

We did that in Germany, and it's now contaminating groundwater, as the very deep hole is flooding with water.

[–] RealFknNito 1 points 5 months ago

You put things around the glass so that groundwater never touches the 'glass'. Again, very different now from the days we started.

load more comments
view more: next ›