Comments on: No Nukes? No Climate Progress

By: Egli Ha

Egli Ha — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 04:39:33 +0000

I’m not an expert but I have read in a usually-trustworthy source that although running the nuclear reaction, when done correctly, is clean and carbon-free, even then, mining and processing the uranium and other necessary chemicals is dirty and CO2ogenic.Anyone better-informed than I am wanna comment?

By: dendup

dendup — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 19:16:28 +0000

Sinz: you have inadvertently cleared up one of my life’s mysteries by pointing out that (a) nuclear proliferation is all Carter’s fault, and (b) the left wrongly blames the West for proliferation. Back in the day I worked in a box factory, and while Ford was Pres. the lunch room activity was penny ante poker and the sandwich of choice was baloney. Then Carter assumed the highest office and suddenly everyone was playing Go and had irresistable cravings for Moo Goo Gai Pan and sushi. I found a better job before Reagan, but I heard poker and baloney instantly became popular again once the hostages were freed.

By: sinz54

sinz54 — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 14:49:12 +0000

The nuclear reprocessing issue is a red herring. President Carter stopped nuclear reprocessing in the forlorn hope that this would prevent nuclear proliferation.

That didn't work. India test-fired a nuclear bomb during Carter's administration. He protested, India told him to stuff it. Then Pakistan developed their own nukes. So did North Korea. And now Iran is busily developing their own nukes. The lack of American reprocessing hasn't prevented ANY nation that wants nuclear weapons from developing them.

When it comes to nuclear proliferation, the Left keeps blaming the West for it. But we didn't tell North Korea or Iran to develop nukes, did we? Just once, just once, I wish the Left would be has strong in its criticism of North Korea or Iran as they constantly are of the United States.

By: JJWFromME

JJWFromME — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 14:41:54 +0000

Although, maybe the rumors I heard are out of date:

"Unlike other Western countries, France generates some 75 per cent of its electricity from nuclear power, the balance coming mostly from various hydro-electric power stations.

This means that Frances electricity is among the cheapest in Europe (it supplies electricity to its neighbours for less than they can produce it themselves and owns nine other European electricity companies, including Seeboard in the UK). Due to the moderate cost of electricity and the high degree of insulation in new homes, electric heating is more common in France than in other European countries."

http://www.justlanded.com/english/France/Articles/Property/Utilities

By: JJWFromME

JJWFromME — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 14:38:17 +0000

Stewardship: I’m not sure they’re a good example to emulate. I’ve heard French electricity is pretty expensive.

By: Stewardship

Stewardship — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 13:10:51 +0000

One would think that if France can depend on nuclear energy, has a long track record of safety, and reprocesses spent fuel, the United States could do it, too.

By: dendup

dendup — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 12:25:04 +0000

“We must acknowledge that waste and proliferation issues need to be dealt with forthrightly.” I don’t care about acknowledging thoses issues. Tell me how to solve them. Then we can talk about the rest. Then we will truly know how to accurately calculate cost.

By: JJWFromME

JJWFromME — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 11:12:07 +0000

It's a hostage situation, eh?

Nice.

Well, if nuclear can compete in terms of price, and do it safely, then fine. (Again, that's "if." And I'd also note that more nuclear waste means more material for nuclear weapons, which conflicts with our goals in the GWOT.)

If it *can't* compete safely at a competitive price, then it's just pork for the extraction industries etc right? Pork can help pass bills, but that doesn't mean we have to like it. But the Kos crowd (as you put it) is nothing if not practical, and will swallow castor oil if it means passing legislation as important as this.

By: Rel

Rel — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 15:47:59 +0000

David,Would any of the policies you propose do more to promote nuclear power than cap-and-trade or a carbon tax, if either of these were coupled to regulatory permission to “temporarily” store nuclear waste on-site? I think not.