Opposition to nuclear power generation is still тАЬa thingтАЭ. Rachel Carson published тАЬSilent SpringтАЭ in 1962 which was one of the first alarms that began to make people aware of the harm humans were doing to the planet.
Not a problem. EVs will mostly be charged overnight when demand for electricity is lowest.
That assumes of course that we don't replace fossil fuel heating of buildings with electric heat, which the nutty far left wants to do. Electric resistance heating works great -- at multiple of the cost of gas or oil heating. Or, how to impoverish the poor and middle class. Atmoshperic heat pumps do not work well in the Cold Belt. Geothermal heat pumps are too expensive and can't work in dense urban environments.
Could you please cite an instance of тАЬthe nutty far leftтАЭ credibly arguing that we should all switch to electric heating? It seems to me that most of that is coming from electricity-producing companies which is so not the тАЬnutty far leftтАЭ. And could you also name at least two examples of what or who is the тАЬnutty far leftтАЭ of which you so glibly speak?
There are, indeed, practical existing alternatives to fossil fuels - geo-thermal, solar, wind, passive heating, proper insulationтАж these work on the individual level. If homes were built or retrofitted to these existing technologies, we could drastically reduce total national fossil fuel consumption. Offices, factories, most work places could also retrofit. We could stop the crazy consuming of stuff we use three times or once and throw out. There is no one innovative solution that will тАЬsaveтАЭ us. We have to work together with what we have.
In the late seventies and early eighties there was a concerted effort to educate people about the dangers of nuclear technologies and the radioactive waste that has a toxic half-life of 125,000 years. Since then, the nuclear energy industry went quiet for a couple of generations and now is making a big campaign to greenwash nuclear energy as an answer to the climate crisis when, in fact, nuclear energy is part of the problem.
Are you aware that the previously-secure nuclear plant in Ukraine is being bombed by Russia even as we speak? How will that play out, do you think? Nuclear plants are only as safe as the humans allow them to be and in this world that isn't much. It is not disingenuous to worry about death with a Putin or Xi or Trump on the planet.
You still have not addressed the problem of nuclear waste. And there is not death until there is. Nevertheless, there are strong arguments for nuclear, but you have not made them.
Speaking both as a lefty and somebody who's done hands-on work involving both radioactive and other hazardous waste streams, I can speak from a 'been there, done that, worn the plastics and masks on a tanker gantry in July' perspective.
Human activity generates waste. A lot of this waste will go on to be hazardous for generations, if not properly disposed of. And for various forms of this waste, 'disposal' entails long-term storage. I've been on work processes that dealt with some decently smoky rad material (not 'kill you if you look at it' material, but 'give you the lethal dose if you spend an hour or so next to it' variety.)
I've also dealt with materials like mercury, for which we... just stick it in cans and let it sit, because mercury is mercury and it's not going to become less dangerous any time soon.
There are hazards for any sort of material generation and chemical processes. There are hazards for every form of power generation, and problematic waste streams associated with those products.
Nuke right now offers the best bang for the buck in terms of energy density and reliability vs. social/ecological cost. And, to be quite honest, there were things I preferred about working with nuke over other chemical hazards. "Lethal dose you in a couple of minutes" level of rad hazards are loud things for the proper equipment. But arsenic just looks like powder, and the way you find out that it's the bad stuff is to gather a sample, send it to a lab, and wait two months for them to get back and say "Oh hey guys don't snort that stuff."
Doubling down on your conspiracy theory doesn't give you more credibility. There has been a huge amount of research on Three Mile Island and the best estimate for number of deaths is zero. I do cancer epidemiology research for a living. There is junk science from the Right and there is junk science from the Left. You are promoting it from the Left.
Their opposition to nuclear power shows that their agenda is something other than addressing climate change.
When opposition to nuclear power was a thing, climate change wasn't yet--other than among some climatologists.
Opposition to nuclear power generation is still тАЬa thingтАЭ. Rachel Carson published тАЬSilent SpringтАЭ in 1962 which was one of the first alarms that began to make people aware of the harm humans were doing to the planet.
Burning fossil fuels has done more damage to people and the environment than nuclear power has or could, even using 60's technology.
Not a problem. EVs will mostly be charged overnight when demand for electricity is lowest.
That assumes of course that we don't replace fossil fuel heating of buildings with electric heat, which the nutty far left wants to do. Electric resistance heating works great -- at multiple of the cost of gas or oil heating. Or, how to impoverish the poor and middle class. Atmoshperic heat pumps do not work well in the Cold Belt. Geothermal heat pumps are too expensive and can't work in dense urban environments.
Could you please cite an instance of тАЬthe nutty far leftтАЭ credibly arguing that we should all switch to electric heating? It seems to me that most of that is coming from electricity-producing companies which is so not the тАЬnutty far leftтАЭ. And could you also name at least two examples of what or who is the тАЬnutty far leftтАЭ of which you so glibly speak?
There are, indeed, practical existing alternatives to fossil fuels - geo-thermal, solar, wind, passive heating, proper insulationтАж these work on the individual level. If homes were built or retrofitted to these existing technologies, we could drastically reduce total national fossil fuel consumption. Offices, factories, most work places could also retrofit. We could stop the crazy consuming of stuff we use three times or once and throw out. There is no one innovative solution that will тАЬsaveтАЭ us. We have to work together with what we have.
In the late seventies and early eighties there was a concerted effort to educate people about the dangers of nuclear technologies and the radioactive waste that has a toxic half-life of 125,000 years. Since then, the nuclear energy industry went quiet for a couple of generations and now is making a big campaign to greenwash nuclear energy as an answer to the climate crisis when, in fact, nuclear energy is part of the problem.
Glass vitrification.
The alternatives are fossil fuels which actually kill people, unlike civilian nuclear power plants in the US.
Not in the US. The number of deaths from civilian nuclear power plants in the US is zero.
It is spectacularly disingenuous to compare Soviet nuclear plants to American ones.
Are you aware that the previously-secure nuclear plant in Ukraine is being bombed by Russia even as we speak? How will that play out, do you think? Nuclear plants are only as safe as the humans allow them to be and in this world that isn't much. It is not disingenuous to worry about death with a Putin or Xi or Trump on the planet.
"as far as we have been told"
Yes, the nutty far left is also into conspiracy theories.
You still have not addressed the problem of nuclear waste. And there is not death until there is. Nevertheless, there are strong arguments for nuclear, but you have not made them.
You are the one who posted a conspiracy theory in a comment, not me.
Speaking both as a lefty and somebody who's done hands-on work involving both radioactive and other hazardous waste streams, I can speak from a 'been there, done that, worn the plastics and masks on a tanker gantry in July' perspective.
Human activity generates waste. A lot of this waste will go on to be hazardous for generations, if not properly disposed of. And for various forms of this waste, 'disposal' entails long-term storage. I've been on work processes that dealt with some decently smoky rad material (not 'kill you if you look at it' material, but 'give you the lethal dose if you spend an hour or so next to it' variety.)
I've also dealt with materials like mercury, for which we... just stick it in cans and let it sit, because mercury is mercury and it's not going to become less dangerous any time soon.
There are hazards for any sort of material generation and chemical processes. There are hazards for every form of power generation, and problematic waste streams associated with those products.
Nuke right now offers the best bang for the buck in terms of energy density and reliability vs. social/ecological cost. And, to be quite honest, there were things I preferred about working with nuke over other chemical hazards. "Lethal dose you in a couple of minutes" level of rad hazards are loud things for the proper equipment. But arsenic just looks like powder, and the way you find out that it's the bad stuff is to gather a sample, send it to a lab, and wait two months for them to get back and say "Oh hey guys don't snort that stuff."
Doubling down on your conspiracy theory doesn't give you more credibility. There has been a huge amount of research on Three Mile Island and the best estimate for number of deaths is zero. I do cancer epidemiology research for a living. There is junk science from the Right and there is junk science from the Left. You are promoting it from the Left.