Ralph Nader on The Nuclear Power Nightmare'

[BenBurch]

Nader can kiss my ass. Without that tool we possibly would not have had Bush for President.

 

[geni]

Amazingly enough, the industries you use as examples don't require that you buy your fuel from a government agency...

People purchase helium from people other than the US goverment? Quite a few things in the chemical industry where your supply options are limited (oh and you risk getting investigated for breaching the chemical weapons conventions).

If there was any reason to do so I can't see the nuclear industry having any problems being able to purchase from whatever supplier they like.

or they figure the baggage it carries and the delays that obtaining permits from everybody from the county to the Fed isn't worth it--not to mention that more than one plant has been at completion and permits withdrawn in the past.

Problem with that argument is that it appears to be much the same internationaly. Take away goverment support and nuclear loses out to coal. It's hardly suprising. Coal still has advantages of scale and is a far more mature technology.

Most are self insured, using a company as administrator

In other words they are working on the basis that if something goes wrong they will be bankrupt anyway.


Look I like nuclear power but I'm not going to pretend there is a business case for it. Sure goverments can make one by dirrect or indirrect subsidies or by taxing CO2 release but thats needs to be faced up to as a clear decission rather than attempts to hide it.

 

[geni]

How is this a negative?

If you look at some of the early civilian reactors (in particular the UK's magnox reactors) they were pretty clearly designed to breed plutonium.

 

[Xephyr]

I'm still having a helluva time wrapping my brain around the fact that the only energy solution we can come up with is nuclear.

Surely someone can come up with a better one eventually ?
We need the perfect solution... one that's 100% safe and 100% sustainable and makes 100% sense, not some temporary quick fix.

This may not be a popular opinion in this forum, but I for one do not want a friggin' nuclear plant nor its waste product buried underground in my backyard.

I don't give a damn how much "safer" the engineering claims to be today... Mother nature has a way of surprising us with unexpected scenarios that slap us back into the reality of our delusion of being indestructable.

The Titanic was unsinkable too. But today's knowledge of engineering tells us that idea was a ridiculous delusion. Who's to say in 70 years from now that today's so-called indestructable nuclear plants was also just a naive delusion ?

 

[bikerdruid]

I'm still having a helluva time wrapping my brain around the fact that the only energy solution we can come up with is nuclear.

Surely someone can come up with a better one eventually ?
We need the perfect solution... one that's 100% safe and 100% sustainable and makes 100% sense, not some temporary quick fix.

This may not be a popular opinion in this forum, but I for one do not want a friggin' nuclear plant nor its waste product buried underground in my backyard.

I don't give a damn how much "safer" the engineering claims to be today... Mother nature has a way of surprising us with unexpected scenarios that slap us back into the reality of our delusion of being indestructable.

The Titanic was unsinkable too. But today's knowledge of engineering tells us that idea was a ridiculous delusion. Who's to say in 70 years from now that today's so-called indestructable nuclear plants was also just a naive delusion ?

a truly refreshing and far-sighted attitude.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

Nader can kiss my ass. Without that tool we possibly would not have had Bush for President.

Let it go already.

Jesus.

 

[MG1962]

So we are hearing more of his empty catch phrases and scripted one liners.
​

Dont like the message - shoot the messenger

 

[Xephyr]

a truly refreshing and far-sighted attitude.

Yes, we fellow canucks have a tendency to whistle our own tune and go against the grain.

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

I'm still having a helluva time wrapping my brain around the fact that the only energy solution we can come up with is nuclear.

Surely someone can come up with a better one eventually ?
We need the perfect solution... one that's 100% safe and 100% sustainable and makes 100% sense, not some temporary quick fix.

This may not be a popular opinion in this forum, but I for one do not want a friggin' nuclear plant nor its waste product buried underground in my backyard.

I don't give a damn how much "safer" the engineering claims to be today... Mother nature has a way of surprising us with unexpected scenarios that slap us back into the reality of our delusion of being indestructable.

The Titanic was unsinkable too. But today's knowledge of engineering tells us that idea was a ridiculous delusion. Who's to say in 70 years from now that today's so-called indestructable nuclear plants was also just a naive delusion ?

Well, there's fusion. That's still being worked on. However..

Go away NIMBY. Just go away.

Yes, we fellow canucks have a tendency to whistle our own tune and go against the grain.

That's not always a good thing.

 

[Bill Thompson]

Is modern life possible without nuclear power?

 

[PhantomWolf]

Plutonium is good for swords and plowshares both, things in which most modern nation states have an interest.

Isn't there supposed to be a move away from Nuclear Weapons with a Non-proliferation treaty? How is having more plutonium producing reactors a good thing for this? PBRs and TWRs don't produce plutonium that can be used in weapons, so isn't this a good thing?

 

[PhantomWolf]

If you look at some of the early civilian reactors (in particular the UK's magnox reactors) they were pretty clearly designed to breed plutonium.

Which doesn't explain why having reactors that don't is a bad thing. Surely anything that prevents people using the products of the reactors for weapons is a good thing.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Is modern life possible without nuclear power?

It's not possible without high energy density, on-demand type fuel sources. This means oil, gas, coal and nuclear. The first two are running out and the third is messy as all hell.

 

[Skeptic]

Considering the fact that nuclear power is under so many regulations that any power plant is de facto owned by the government, this is perfectly reasonable.

I think most people would agree, except perhaps extreme libertarians, that some things do need government regulation, and nuclear power is one of them. "Joe's nuclear power, family owned since 1993" somehow doesn't inspire much confidence.

Besides, this plays on people's ignorance of nuclear power. People think that a nuclear reactor problem=nuclear bomb. It doesn't. Meltdown is an entirely different process, much slower and much more long-term, and which presents different threats.

Exactly. It would be impossible to have a nuclear reactor explode like a bomb if you tried. Which doesn't mean they don't have their dangers.

 

[Skeptic]

Why is it that would-be environmentalists always have romantic notions of expensive, inefficient sources of energy (like wind power and ethanol), demanding massive government funding for them, while are full of horror of efficient sources of energy (like nuclear power) which actually work?

It seems to me that what matters to them isn't to have energy, but to have a perpetual and unending "energy crisis" so they can demand more and more government intervention in one's life.

Energy is just the excuse. Government control of one's life is the goal.

 

[Skwinty]

Dont like the message - shoot the messenger

Ralph has been saying the same things since the 70's.

So far, he has not convinced the world to stop using nuclear power.

Where was the civil war in 1982 when nuclear power stations were not dismantled?

How many times do we need to hear the "Cry wolf" before we ignore it?

How seriously should we take supporters of 911 Truthers who are convinced that 911 was an inside job?


Ralph Nader has done a lot of good for consumers. He has also led attacks on such evils as Volkswagen cars, the American Automobile Association, whole milk, colored toilet paper, fluoridated water, and the Elvis stamp.

Through it all he has manipulated the press brilliantly and built himself a comfortable and powerful niche without need for election, even within his own consumer groups.

4 years after he unquestionably tipped the 2000 Presidential election to George W. Bush, Nader refuses to admit that or take any kind of responsibility, and he's planning to run again. This time though even the Green party is getting sick of him.

For 30 years, Ralph Nader has proclaimed himself to be "Saint Ralph", the only honest man in Washington, and the only friend of the average citizen. If that doesn't make you puke already, then click on the allegation of your choice:
a HUGE hypocrite -- just another politician -- Anti-democratic
authoritarian -- secret luxury house -- owned by the trial lawyers' lobby -- busted a union among his workers -- abuses workers -- amassing millions of dollars and playing the stock market with it -- secrecy and stonewalling -- vindictive toward critics -- forced "contributions" to his college PIRG groups -- hypochondriac -- Quotes -- Sources.


http://www.realchange.org/nader.htm

ETA:
Nader is no better and no different than Jerry Falwell or Ralph Reed -- nimble but unelected politicians who've made successful careers as self-appointed moralists.

 

[Belz...]

2. Nuclear power is uninsurable in the private insurance market - too risky.

It's interesting that it's "too risky" since there are so few accidents. You'd think car insurance would be non-existent, too.

 

[Belz...]

I'm still having a helluva time wrapping my brain around the fact that the only energy solution we can come up with is nuclear.

Surely someone can come up with a better one eventually ?

Come back to us when you have it. In the meantime we need electricity.

 

[themusicteacher]

Come back to us when you have it. In the meantime we need electricity.

My thoughts exactly. I'm not sure where everyone else is from but Americans are notoriously risk-averse. The thought of having to deal with the consequences of our power-hungry lifestyle are too much for most to bear. Having a nuke site in everyone's backyard might bring home the message that our modern way of life has a price to be paid. If we're serious about lowering greenhouse gases, nuke is about the only available widespread power source that can do that. It is not without it's drawbacks (obviously) but it fits the bill. Until someone can come up with a relatively inexpensive and abundant clean energy source, nuke has to be part of the solution (unless we're all willing to conserve far more than we do now - by about 80% or so I would imagine).

 

[Sunstealer]

Why is it that would-be environmentalists always have romantic notions of expensive, inefficient sources of energy (like wind power and ethanol), demanding massive government funding for them, while are full of horror of efficient sources of energy (like nuclear power) which actually work?

It seems to me that what matters to them isn't to have energy, but to have a perpetual and unending "energy crisis" so they can demand more and more government intervention in one's life.

Energy is just the excuse. Government control of one's life is the goal.

They are known as watermelons; green on the outside, red on the inside.