Why does the left hate nuclear power?

[HankB]

BUT ... the spent fuel rods are still there. They're the elephant in the room -- nobody wants them, so there they sit.

Check them as baggage on American Airlines - no human being will ever see them again.

[230RN]

There are several examples of ships powering towns.

http://www.historylink.org/File/5113

That of course was with conventional fossil power.

There was also a Hawaiian island powere by a nuclear sub.

So apparently it's doable at least for coastal areas.

One thing I'm reminded of is the fact that when steam power first started, there were a lot of accidents with boilers, piping. etc. until we got the engineering down pat.  Just think, nowadays the steam going into a modern turbine is hot enough to heat steel to a red heat.

So, we learn.  I'm all for nuclear power, but I wonder how much domestic uranium is available in the U.S. and its possessions.

[Pb]

This is very interesting.  What about thorium reactors?

[zahc]

I heard good things about Cobalt-Thorium G

[zxcvbob]

Cobalt-Thorium G

Of course, the whole point of a Doomsday Machine is lost, if you keep it a secret!  Why didn't you tell the world?

"It was to be announced at the Party Congress on Monday.  As you know, the Premier loves surprises."  

[markdido]

"Why does the left hate nuclear power? "

Because Jane Fonda told them to.

[just Warren]

Because it can lead to independence. Can't have that.

[Scout26]

So, we learn.  I'm all for nuclear power, but I wonder how much domestic uranium is available in the U.S. and its possessions.

20% less than what we had 8 years ago....

[HankB]

20% less than what we had 8 years ago....

And that is Russian influence worthy of a thorough investigation, not a whitewater . . . errrrrr . . . I mean whitewash.

[just Warren]

Remember a "reset button" was pressed and that grants full immunity to Democrats.

[French G.]

Domestic uranium? Enough in SW Virginia to run this country for a century or so. No digging, lunatics killed that.

[RevDisk]

So, we learn.  I'm all for nuclear power, but I wonder how much domestic uranium is available in the U.S. and its possessions.

We only hold 138,200 tons of reserves. However, Australia is friendly and friendly to mining, they have 30% of the world's known reserves. Enough to hold us over for a century or two. There's enough uranium in the oceans to hold us for multiple centuries. But we also have enough thorium to hold us over for maybe a thousand years or so.

Oh, we also have spent nuclear fuel. Which is only BARELY used before it is discarded. So we could reuse our current nuclear 'waste' stockpile about a hundred times before we needed substantial new fuel. It's not easy, and if done badly is dirty as one can imagine. Only France does a good job of it.

If we can't figure out fusion within the next thousand years, we don't deserve to keep a technological society.

[mtnbkr]

Domestic uranium? Enough in SW Virginia to run this country for a century or so. No digging, lunatics killed that.

I know. I saw the protesting yard signs when this was going on. :(

They'd welcome coal mines and coal burning power plants though. :|

Chris

[just Warren]

So maybe it's Big Rock vs. Big Glow?

[230RN]

We only hold 138,200 tons of reserves. However, Australia is friendly and friendly to mining, they have 30% of the world's known reserves. Enough to hold us over for a century or two. There's enough uranium in the oceans to hold us for multiple centuries. But we also have enough thorium to hold us over for maybe a thousand years or so.

Oh, we also have spent nuclear fuel. Which is only BARELY used before it is discarded. So we could reuse our current nuclear 'waste' stockpile about a hundred times before we needed substantial new fuel. It's not easy, and if done badly is dirty as one can imagine. Only France does a good job of it.

If we can't figure out fusion within the next thousand years, we don't deserve to keep a technological society.

Thanks!  Good info.

[K Frame]

Simple, really.

The left hates anything that might be useful or convenient to humans. Because we're not supposed to be comfortable. Because that's raping the earth mother.

[230RN]

Simple, really.

The left hates anything that might be useful or convenient to humans. Because we're not supposed to be comfortable. Because that's raping the earth mother.

Yes, anthing that tends to destabilize or stress a communist target society, is a good thing.

The less comfort, the better the ground for the collectivists/communist seeds to sprout and grow.

Oh, and as mentioned, Jane Fonda, among other Communists, told them to hate nuclear power, so they believe it.

Incidentally:

All they needed to do was heed the old warnings on stone monuments up in the hills - erected some centuries ago after ANOTHER tsunami - which read something along the lines of "Don't build closer to the ocean than this because of tsunamis."

Ah, but those were OLD - what did the old timers know?
...

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/century-old-warnings-against-tsunamis-dot-japans-coastline-180956448/

[markdido]

It seems to me if one believes that CO2 generation by burning fossil fuels is dangerous, the most effective thing to do would be to replace coal and oil electric plants with nuclear and natural gas electric plants...

The startup cost would be pretty high, but it in the end it would be pretty cost effective I believe.  Much much cheaper than mucking around with wind and solar, I think.

Actually, I said the left hates nuclear power, but it seems like the general public hates nuclear power also...

What is going on?

"Why does the left hate nuclear power?"

Because Hanoi Jane told them to.