Why are liberals so scared of nuclear power?

How?
Nucleur energy has a higher output per capita than any other source (even fossil fuels)

liberalism is a wholly top down ideology
they believe what they are told to believe
think what they are told to think

So when they are told to hate nuclear, they will hate nuclear, no thought or reason needed. If the media tomorrow decided to promote nuclear, they would all fall in line.

>The primary problem is the lack of investor support.
BULLSHIT the primary problem is that the NRC was formed in the 70's to prevent all new nuclear power plants. And it succeeded.

Nuclear is cheaper and better in every way.

if liberals are so against nuclear power then why is the only company in the US of A seriously working small modular reactors based in Oregon?

CHECKMATE ATHEISTS!

They got programmed to think it was bad

From the left, its mostly mistrust of big government/corporations and profound lack of knowledge about the actual dangers and risks of nuclear power. And confusion about the dangers of radioactive waste.

From the right, its large coal and gas lobbies that try to torpedo it by the ridiculous honeypot that is "renewables".

Renewables just won't ever replace Nuclear as a clean energy source. The chief problems being meeting the demands of changing daily and yearly demand (trivial in Nuclear, very large in renewables), and energy storage.

Because the cooling towers, like in your image, just 'look' industrial and bad.

>left
>mistrust of big government

Maybe in 1776, user. You need to catch up on something called modern liberalism. It's kind of a big deal.

Nuclear is dumb, if it has any use its not for common house hold power, it can do it, its stupid to use it to do it.

And also more explosive

All the Gen 2 reactors in the United States are mostly part of an aging fleet that used U-235 deliberately to generate raw P-239 for nuclear weapons. It very much isn't the only way to build a reactor and its unfortunate that its basically the "standard" because it lets nation states like Iran obfuscate their intentions when they say they want "nuclear energy". Every government in the world has a natural, reflexive response to any potential crisis involving a nuclear power plant. And a large part of that is short sighted secrecy as happened as Chernobyl and Fukushima.

This isn't just "distrust of big government". This is a particular distrust of what appears to be (with good reason) some insidious relationship between big government and big power utilities. And it easily piggybacks off of the hatred generated from Wall Street in the great Recession and the complicity or incompetence of the government to respond to it.

They assume that the plant is going to blow up

France gets 78% of its energy from nuclear plants; your argument is invalid. Make a new thread and replace "liberals" with "people" if you wish to be taken seriously.
>until then

They're a bit risky for big investors to put their money in. There are better alternatives that can take off using less investment with comparable returns.

No one cares much about what people thinks, they're all for getting that sweet investment in their countries and would sell it as a job opportunity to the people.

Also opposition is usually the vocal minority, most people don't care how the electricity they use is generated. It's just that one of the stupid discussions that is never going to conclude ever and will serve as a defining point for a group of people. Because you need to polarize your constituency to make sure they always vote for you no matter what.

this, sadly

Because there are near as many stupid liberals as there are stupid conservatives statistically. It also doesn't help that the average American vacillates between deriding science and mysticizing it.

Why do you guys want nuclear so bad anyways?
Because it sounds cool

Nuclear is literally the only thing we know right now can buy us time to get to something like Fusion without choking the world in oil, coal, and gas emissions.

Solar and Wind simply can't cut it alone. Geothermal would require even more investment than Fusion to get on a large enough scale to work unless you are particularly well gifted with geography/geology such as Iceland.

>Nuclear is cheaper and better in every way.

except for the stack of PhD's and competent engineers you need to run one.

This. The liberal class is a tool of the elite to get the populace at large to move in a given direction, often in a way that's against their own interests.

It's disgusting.

1hour of sun more energy than the entire planet uses in a single year... sounds to me like we should be throwing all the money for nuclear into solar

Now explain how you will extract that energy considering most of it doesn't even hit our planet.

Why do you keep making nuke shilling threads?

I believe thats 1hour of sun hitting the planet not 1 hour of sun floating randomly through space

Solar is a better choice than nuclear hands down for modern day application nuclear may have applications wear solar isn't feasbile, maybe under water cities or deep space colonies with little sunlight

It takes like 8-10 soccer fields full of solar panels to get close to the power output of a single nuclear reactor and that is when its operating at peak. The number is even larger when you realize that you need to overproduce during the day to store for the peak residential usage at night. Which is extremely lossy right now.

There is also the issue that you need to (of course) be in a region with nearly year round sunlight, and most of the cost "benefits" of solar are because of subsidies on both the sale of the panels and the power they produce.

No one in the energy industry realistically thinks that solar and wind will ever be anything except ways to ease power loading during summer months. Its why coal and gas companies spend so much into the research of it, because they know it isn't going to do a damn thing to threaten coal, oil, or gas.

Because even if nuclear power is incredibly safe on paper, in the real world corner-cutting, bribery and ignored maintenance can considerably harm reactor safety.

"Liberals" (by the US definition) generally fear the public health and interests are being harmed by large corporations, particularly due the a lack of government regulation or industry corruption of government regulation. The nuclear power industry makes a great example of those fears, and accidents like Fukushima Daiichi show the potential consequences of failing to address them.

Because it's sucking on the government tit.
no way it would be profitable if they would have to deal with the waste problem.
The only reason they exist is to create raw material for bomb production.

Its only lousy right now cus oil and gas got their foot on the gubments neck and you know it

>no way it would be profitable if they would have to deal with the waste problem.

You can literally dig holes and be done with it. Oklo was a "natural" reactor that ran for billions of years and all of its decay products moved centimeters since that time:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_nuclear_fission_reactor

Any more than Solar and Wind and their MASSIVE subsidies right now?

It's not economical, and it isn't sustainable. It's realistically something geared towards reducing residential and office space power loads but it doesn't fill the meat of what you need.

Only hydro and Geo come close. Both require specific geographic features to take advantage of. The latter requires the added fortune of geologic features.

Nuclear, when done right, is not all that much cheaper than coal or renewables. The majority of the cost goes into maintenance and security. If we cared less about the safety of the reactors, which we actually probably could, it would be far cheaper than anything else. Unfortunately, the history of disasters that has plagued nuclear energy has drowned out most of the rational discussion. Public opinion, not necessarily liberal, is too stubborn.

Renewables like solar are an easy solution in my opinion. Solar manufacturing only causes environmental concerns for China, which they can do something about if they ever give a fuck. Moving from a decentralized power grid where the majority of the power in a given area comes from just a few sources is just not as good as a distributed one, where (whether it's individual homes or entire communities) generate their own power. The technology to do this right now exists and it could yield thousands if not millions of jobs.

You know that money is not the issue with these things right. If the Us was to start a fairly robust program to convert to solar right now, I would bet as panels were being produced you would start to see a fairly drastic increase in efficiency as the years went by.

wew lad

Thanks, saved this brainfart gem.
Couldn't have invented a better anti-nuke
slogan myself.

ok wait a minute can someone on the nuclear band wagon address fukushima isn't that a deterrent that things been spilling into the pacific for 5 years now. Its seems when you screw up with nuclear its a big deal

Population density in cities is what causes solar to have prohibitive space requirements. I think we will always need things like nuclear/coal/gas for cities. However the average 4-person home in the suburbs in a moderately sunny area could power their house year round by covering 1/4 to 1/2 of their roof with a ~$2500 investment in panels, junction boxes, and batteries (provided they have a significant section of their roof that is slanted southwards).

Literally every major study has concluded that "just bury it" works. This is a "natural" reactor. Its not a scientific issue anymore, or an engineering one. It's purely political and 100 percent based on complete ignorable from the public and politicians about the actual dangers of radioactivity.

It's literally one of the many "war on science" fronts.

It hasn't happened anywhere. Solar hasn't replaced the need for oil, gas or coal in anyplace that it has been heavily subsidized. It is an extremely inelastic supply and there are significant periods of time when you are NOT at anywhere near peak supply but have very large night time demand.

It gets dismissed as "just build a battery lol" but that is trying to dump at least half of daily demand into batteries, which are already extremely lossy.

Solar is placed on buildings to reduce their power consumption and reduce costs, provided heavy subsidies exist. It does not replace any of the big power sources- coal, gas, hydro, oil, or nuclear - that can respond to the ebb and flow of power needs.

Some regions are extremely fortunate and lucky like Iceland with Geothermal or large parts of China with Hydro.

It's an egregious waste of time to keep giving more and more sugar to an "industry" that can never come close to what is needed. And undercutting building of nuclear power plants, for example, just serves to keep oil, gas, and coal plants on for longer. Which is the entire reason the "solar" industry is literally subsidized in large part BY oil, gas, and coal energy companies.

Fukushima is bad, but really only locally. There are conflicting reports on the pollution it has caused across the ocean, so I could be wrong.

Fukushima, however, was not fully up to code. Corruption and bribery had resulted in some of the plant's failsafes to not be fully operational in time of disaster. Had the reactor been up to code, the damage would have been vastly minimized.

Entire books could be (and probably will be written) on the massive disproportionate fear of what Fukushima might have done.

I already know that there are studies that have basically concluded that more people will have died from the stress associated with being a "refugee" than will have died from radiation (so far, 0 radiation related deaths reported).

There are industrial accidents all the time that kill many workers all the time. Nuclear has accidents on the order of decades and its notable simply because its SO RARE and because the fear about such disasters are so completely disproportionate to the danger. Like Aircraft accidents, which get far more publicity compared to the relative death traps that are passenger vehicles.

The government response, especially in Fukushima, was by far the most disastrous thing about the entire accident. Reflecting total agency capture in a country already RUN by big business. It wasn't an engineering problem, it was a management one. Fukushima Daini, the sister plant, was CLOSER to the epicenter and experienced a LARGER tsunami wave.

It was actually where relief efforts were coordinated for the earthquake in the region and later to Daichi. Nuclear Power plants are designed to far greater tolerances than almost anything on the planet. In a large scale disaster, you are probably safest THERE.

>plant's failsafes
>needing active failsafes everywhere
>working with high pressure systems
Found your problem :^)

History

I could point out a hundred accidents with hydro or coal that are worse. A few people will get thyroid cancer that wouldn't have other wise and statistically they'll probably all survive it.

Insurance policies for coal plants specifically write in expected number of coal worker deaths.

Also the Shimantan/Banqiao Dam Failure killed as many people as Nagasaki and Hiroshima but you probably have never heard of it.

0 radiation deaths not true at all, ok how often does any news media report on the extent of the damage of massive ecological contamination issue. If the government can't fix a problem they don't talk about it the damage from fukushima is more likely being downplayed than blown out of proportion. Oh yea and chernobyl.

A bad thing happened once and now they're scared forever

Thanks again, you truly are the gift that keeps on giving.

>massive ecological contamination issue

Where? The funny thing about "nuclear contamination" is that the dangerous things have to a) be produced in large quantities and b) have short half lives.

The only two that are even detectable without special instruments are Cs-137 and I-131. The former we have plenty of even now from open air nuclear weapons testing and the latter is really the worrysome one.

But several things. First, Iodine can be blocked by taking iodine tablets (something not done at Chernobyl because of delays and government secrecy) and it literally decays entirely away with weeks.

The problem Fukushima is having is actually the reverse. The government has put such unbelievably heavy handed activity limits on products from the region that many businesses go out of business (like Bq per Kg). Because its even less than background, because surprise, there is literally no such thing as a radiation free zone.

Radon gas will give you more exposure over your lifetime than anything from a nuclear disaster.

maybe Japanese people just like radiation now

You haven't even made an argument. You are entirely part of the problem. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about and are just defaulting to "common knowledge" which happens to be dead wrong on this issue.

And that has disastrous consequences. The Yucca mountain waste site never happened because of political pressure (not scientific) so instead of safely burying the waste it now has to sit on the site at each of these facilities in giant concrete caskets. Which has very serious proliferation and safety risks associated with it.

So instead of dealing with a non problem now we have a bunch of little problems all over the country now.

Because scientists aren't politicians. Never have been.

What if future humans colonize below the earth's surface, idiot.

bellissima, keep it coming

>its a solar or wind would be "finally completely viable" if they just got more subsidies episode

Hey, its that episode that has been playing since the 1980s!

>He thinks this is an intelligent contribution

So basically we can bury radioactive materials and not care where they spell because nuclear is tits

Possible melt downs
Radiation leaks
Radioactive waste has to be buried in underground man made caves

>liberals so scared of nuclear power
I feel like there is some difference in what "liberal" means in US and Europe.
In here, no liberal would go against nuclear power, only pseudo-ecologistfrom green parties and socialists go against them. Liberals say people are free, so even if private company wants to build nuclear power to sell power, it can just do it. And I often see people posting that liberals are connected to LGBT and stuff, but in here it's socialists who bother with this shit, while liberals thinks everyone should be equal from point of law and that's all, no social campaigns, no positive discrimination and other bullshit.
Can someone explain this difference to me?

>and socialists go against them.
Why would a socialist who wasn't a pseudo-ecologist be against it?

American "liberal" means "leftist". Seriously did you just discover the Internet, everybody knows that.

American liberals are socially liberal, think "leftist" whenever you here an American say "liberal".

*hear

Because socialists always pander to lower class, and lower class is afraid of nuclear power because muh Chernobyl. They use pseudo ecologist arguments if any.

I just didn't gave a fuck about America. For me US's politics ends at Clinton vs Trump.

Well, it's kinda weird because when I think "socially liberal" I think about someone who is pro free speech and believes that state shouldn't intervene in what people think, say and feel in social situations.
But I guess it makes sense now.

Because nobody likes cancer.

We should ban radio because it sucks to step on a lego piece barefoot

>2016
>I'll take step down transformers for $500

Nice strawman

You get a C- in self-awareness

>B.. b.. because they dunno nofing bout muh science!
They may don't know how nuclear power works bur they know very well Chernobyl and Fukushima and it could happen again. I'll say more, it'll happen again. It's just a matter of time.

Sure because its literally so rare that it is newsworthy. And the effect of either of those was marginal at best other than psychological.

Can't say the same here:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam

Liberals in Europe it's more used when we talk about econonics, in the US it's more about progressive (gay people rights etc)

A meteor may hit the earth tomorrow so why don't you kill yourself and save yourself the pain? It has happened before and will inevitably happen again so get to it.

This is basically an argument about never building another rocket ship ever again. Or airplane...

What happened in that pic ? wtf plack people-

I like Socialism... Economic Socialism, not the extreme socialism. But liberalism is controlled by Jews... There's no way to have a 100% liberal country.

I like Ecologism and all parties that protect the Nature and Earth life, but we can get a good Centralized party with no fucking extreme Racism. Good for Economy and for some social rights... Not all like Anarchy (that's imature and stupid).
Sorry my bad english :/

So how do you call people who want free market and equality but without abusing non-aggression principle?

Have we found a good place to keep nuclear waste for hundreds of thousands of years yet?

I know China was going to make something in their mountains or something.

Other than that they just ship nuclear waste around and around constantly because nobody wants it, right?

conservative politics usually are the ones who are related with liberal economics and lefties are the ones who want the economy to be more controled by goverments, less private sector and more public stuff.

yeah but there's a little difference, one of those two things doesn't exist (and its risks) if we don't build it. Guess which one.

yeah it's pretty much the same... pfff. Same risks for humanity...

Anarcho-communists.

Not the guy, but I think you're just trolling or pretending to be stupid.

Anarcho-communism has nothing in common with free market.

because they think it will cause another Chernobyl.
The irony being that it's just liberal policies that caused Chernobyl, and the only way we'll ever have another Chernobyl is if enough liberals get into power at once: they'll start to defund nuclear programs and try as hard as they can to slay backups and safety measures because they can't just get rid of it all at once, and then when the liberal policies cause a nuclear disaster, they'll just use that as more justification for dude windmills lmao.
If you think about it, all of a liberal's fears tend to be things that only happen when they collectively gain enough power.
Really makes you think, doesn't it?

>liberal policies that caused Chernobyl
That statement makes as much sense as:
[math]1=\lim_{x\to0}1=\lim_{x\to0}(x\times\frac{1}{x})=(\lim_{x\to0}x)(\lim_{x\to0}\frac{1}{x})=0\times(\lim_{x\to0}\frac{1}{x})=0[/math]

The essential reality of capitalism is, somewhat paradoxically, a series of assaults on the free market. There are clear material incentives for an individual capitalist - and the firms executing his capital - to subvert competition and interfere in product, resource, labor and capital markets, and the modern crises of capitalism may be broadly understood as the sum of these effects.
The drug cartel is archetypal - the full nature and scope of its activities (use of force) cannot possibly be explained by the mere defense of private property against the "official" states. The same phenomenon is at work in the first world, only more efficiently diffused through the matrix of the bourgeois state. Most libertarians will correctly observe that to varying degrees, under the label "cronyism." Limiting government power is certainly not an unsound reccommendation, but coloring it as a solution in its own right is severely utopian and neglects entirely the factors which give rise to states in the first place.

He/you also said "without abusing the NAP" which kind of excludes "propertarian" ideas from the get go

>LIBRULS
sage

this isn't math or science, return to

>ruled by jews
But aren't they superior?
Why don't you let the superior race rule the USA?

Still Anarcho-communism uses common ownership of the means of production and "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" which are opposite of free market.
>drug cartel
Drug cartel exists only because of support from goverment.
>cronyism
In free market, companies that choose employees basing on connections instead of merit underperform and lose.

How propertarian go against NAP? Being free to have property and not allowing state to violate property rights goes well with each other in my opinion.

Captial costs of nuclear power plants are enormous, so is the level of technical expertise needed. You need excellent infrastructure just to consider building it. Nuclear power per kilowatt hour is also just slightly cheaper than coal or oil. Nuclear plant construction and fuel procurement are hamstrung by regulations for safety reasons. And he half life of plutonium is 24 thousand years.

Airplane's pose a far greater risk to humanity as evidenced by the much greater death toll, ban airplanes now or it'll be our doom.

Go be buttmad elsewhere dumb smelly libtard