Unfortunately, we have a more urgent problem. That is climate change. Until
we can go entirely renewable, we need nuclear. I think we should be able to
phase it out, maybe even in the not too distant future, but renewable cannot
completely replace fossil fuels anytime soon.
I do not regard nuclear fission as anything more than a transition power
source. I don't think it will be necessary to use it indefinitely. Being
safer than fossil fuels, and contributing no carbon to the atmosphere makes
it a part of the mix of energy sources we need to use until we can go
completely renewable.
Evan
-----Original Message-----
From: Carl Jarvis
Sent: Friday, November 09, 2018 6:30 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Public Support for Nuclear Power Grows
My major concern regarding returning to nuclear energy has to do with
the disposal of the waste. As I write this, the sludge from the huge
storage tanks deep underground at Hanford, Washington, are eating
through the tanks and oozing toward the Columbia River. The federal
government has stalled in efforts to "clean up" the leakage to the
point of the State of Washington having to sue their own federal
government to force them to do their job of protecting American
citizens. The never ending problems stemming from the 2011 Fukushima
accident should be enough of an alarm that until we have the know how
to do the cleanup, we should put the lid back on that Aladdin's Lamp.
Carl Jarvis
On 11/9/18, Evan Reese <mentat1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Never heard of Don Moore.
Hmmm, a list where blind right wing people hang out. Too bad this list
cannot be combined with that one. Might create some stimulating discussion.
There are always risks in life. The risks of nuclear accidents, as the
evidence shows, are greatly overstated. As Fukushima shows, one confirmed
death by radiation cancer, a heck of a lot of deaths, from the PANIC about
the radiation. Chernobyl was not as bad as was made out either. That does
not preclude future accidents of course. The point is to do one’s best to
prevent them or mitigate their consequences. The nuclear record over the
past several decades is pretty good on that score.
Every rational person knows about the possibility of accidents. And there’s
an issue of waste from making solar panels. We have to store nuclear waste
sensibly. But we do not have to figure out how to store it sensibly for all
eternity. If future generations do not know more about how to deal with it,
then they will likely either not be hear, or will have bigger problems than
nuclear waste to worry about.
There’s also the issue of the large amounts of land that need to be given
over to wind and solar farms. Environmentalists should be talking about that
as well.
I think perhaps the ultimate solution would be to send solar panels into
orbit and then beam down the energy. More efficient collection of solar
energy above the atmosphere, and much less land use down on the surface.
Don’t hear much talk about that lately though.
And then there’s nuclear fusion, which even Michio Kaku is a fan of, but
that keeps receding into the future.
Evan
Evan
From: Miriam Vieni
Sent: Friday, November 09, 2018 4:36 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Public Support for Nuclear Power Grows
There are people who are way right wing today, who used to be way left wing
in 1970. I’m not sure how that relates to the issue of the very real danger
of accidents occurring in nuclear plants or the problem of disposing of
nuclear waste. Do you know who Don Moore is? He now runs a very right wing
email list where blind right wing folks hang out. He worked for Senator
McGovern’s Presidential campaign back in the 70’s. McGovern was left of
center and the party was so upset about his candidacy that they instituted
the system of super delegates.
Miriam
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Evan Reese
Sent: Friday, November 09, 2018 3:39 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Public Support for Nuclear Power Grows
In fact, he used to be an antinuclear activist. he changed his mind based on
the evidence.
If you had read the first article I sent by him, you would have known that.
Besides, what would you consider an objective source? Have you changed your
mind about anything recently based on an objective source presenting you
with evidence that caused you to reconsider a longstanding view and modify
it? If so, I haven’t seen it. I can’t help but entertain the notion that it
is quite possible that you would define an “objective source” as one that
agrees with what you already believe. I hope I am wrong about that.
Evan
From: Miriam Vieni
Sent: Friday, November 09, 2018 3:07 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Public Support for Nuclear Power Grows
Thank you for the article sent to you by a Nuclear energy advocate who
writes for a business oriented publication. Sounds like a truly objective
source!
Miriam
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Evan Reese
Sent: Friday, November 09, 2018 1:08 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Public Support for Nuclear Power Grows
Hey Guys, thought I’d pass this along.
Not only is public support for nuclear power growing, but the Union of
Concerned Scientists is changing its tune as well.
Evan
From: Michael Shellenberger
Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2018 11:50 AM
To: Evan Reese
Subject: Top Climate Scientists Warn Governments Of "Blatant Anti-Nuclear
Bias" In Latest IPCC Climate Report
Dear Evan,
Below is my latest column for Forbes on the rising pro-nuclear tide — please
share!
Michael
As Renewables Drive Up Energy Prices, Voters In U.S., Asia & Europe Are
Opting For Nuclear Power
Voters in the U.S., Asia, and Europe are increasingly opting for nuclear
power in
response to rising electricity prices from the deployment of renewables like
solar
panels and wind turbines.
By a more than
two-to-one margin
(70% to 30%), voters in Arizona on Tuesday rejected a ballot initiative
(proposition
127) that would have resulted in the
closure of that state’s nuclear power plant
and in the massive deployment of solar and wind.
In Taiwan, momentum is building for a repeal of that nation’s nuclear energy
phase-out.
Grassroots pro-nuclear advocacy inspired a former president to
help activists gather over 300,000 signatures
so voters could vote directly on the issue on November 24.
And after
a coalition of grassroots groups rallied in Munich, Germany
last month to protest the closure of nuclear plants, a wave of mostly
positive media
coverage spread across Europe, inspiring
a majority of Netherlands voters
, and the nation’s ruling political party, to declare support for building
new nuclear
reactors.
Now, in the wake of rising public support for nuclear energy, a longstanding
foe
of nuclear power, the U.S.-based Union of Concerned Scientists, has
reversed its blanket opposition
to the technology and declared that existing U.S. nuclear plants must stay
open
to protect the climate.
These events have surprised mainstream journalists, politicians, and energy
analysts
who, over the last three years, have dismissed and derided the world’s 454
operating
nuclear reactors as antiquated given the declining cost of solar panels and
wind
turbines.
But the declining price of solar panels and wind turbines has not made the
technologies
more reliable, and the inherent unreliability of sunlight and wind — along
with their
huge material and land use requirements — have helped
drive up electricity prices
in places like California and Germany,
even at a time of lower natural gas prices
.
Notably, growing voter support for nuclear energy comes both from
progressives who
tend to be more concerned about climate change and from conservatives who
tend to
be more concerned about the cost of electricity.
In Netherlands, grassroots advocacy for nuclear energy, and favorable
coverage by
the mainstream media — including long segments (
in English
) by two of the nation’s most
influential TV journalists
— has shone a light on the inadequacy of solar and wind to address climate
change.
In Arizona, the campaign against proposition 127 focused heavily on avoiding
the
mistakes made by California, where
electricity rates rose five times faster than the rest of the country
thanks in large measure to the closure of nuclear plants and the rapid
deployment
of solar panels.
“Proposition 127 is a recycled version of California’s failed energy
initiatives
being exported to Arizona courtesy of Tom Steyer, California energy hedge
fund billionaire,”
wrote
an Arizona state Senator.
Steyer, who
made his money
building coal plants in Asia, and has heavily invested in natural gas and
renewables,
spent a record $18 million
of his own money in the doomed effort to pass 127.
In Taiwan, it appears that it is the combination of environmental, economic,
and
energy security concerns that has moved voters to overcome their fears of
nuclear
in the wake of the 2011 Fukushima accident and panic.
Taiwan imports 98% of its energy and, due to the nation’s nuclear energy
phase out,
suffered a devastating electricity shortage last year that
resulted in one death
,
threatened
the nation’s semiconductor industry, and contributed to the declining
approval of
the nation’s president.
Economics and environment are two sides of the same coin. Had California and
Germany
invested $680 billion into new nuclear power plants instead of renewables
like solar
and wind farms,
the two would already be generating 100% or more of their electricity from
clean
(low-emissions) energy sources.
These aren’t the first pro-nuclear victories in recent years. In 2016, state
governments
in
Illinois
and
New York
acted to prevent nuclear plants from closing. In 2017, a
South Korean
“citizens jury” went from 60% opposed to 60% in favor of nuclear. That
victory was
quickly followed actions in
Connecticut
and
New Jersey
to save their nuclear plants.
Increasingly pro-nuclear advocacy is grassroots. In places like South Korea,
Taiwan,
and Europe, where the electric utilities that own nuclear plants are often
government-owned,
and thus unable to engage in politics, it has been up to independent
environmental
groups — and
outspoken climate scientists
— to advocate for nuclear power.
The impacts of their work has stunned and thrilled pro-nuclear activists.
“We Dutch
have been anti-nuclear since the 1970s,” said Olguita Oudendijk, co-founder
of Ecomodernism
Netherlands. “What turned us around is the high cost of renewables, the
Nuclear Pride Fest
, and serious media attention to the issue turned the public around.”
A poll of 18,000 Dutch voters released yesterday found that
54% favored the use of nuclear energy
while just 35% opposed it. “Achieving climate goals weighs heavier than
their objections
to nuclear energy for voters,” the pollster said.
In Taiwan — where pro-nuclear activists went on hunger strike, and to court
— to
overturn the government’s attempt to keep the referendum off the ballot, a
former
president
said
, "Opposing nuclear energy is now outdated. What has become a trend is how
to reduce
emissions of carbon dioxide to tackle global warming."
In most places, activists have focused heavily on
debunking the many myths
about nuclear power promoted by organizations like Greenpeace, including the
notion
that cheaper solar panels and wind turbines will translate into lower
electricity
prices when
the opposite is usually the case
.
The inadequacy of solar panels and wind turbines was highlighted by
Arjan Lubach
— the John Oliver of Dutch TV — last Sunday, who in a 20-minute segment
educated
viewers on nuclear power’s necessity and safety while making sly, sexual
puns. (The
segment
was translated into English.)
A telling moment in the segment came when Lubach cut to a Greenpeace
spokesperson
who acknowledged that with nuclear energy “There are no carbon emissions,
that’s
true, so it doesn’t contribute to global warming, but there are other
disadvantages.”
“Whoa whoa, wait a minute,” Lubach interrupted. “It doesn’t contribute to
global
warming but there are
‘other’
disadvantages? You can’t state a huge advantage and then say, “It becomes
even worse.”
Asked about the difference in attitudes between the Dutch and the nation’s
famously
romantic, antinuclear German neighbors, Dutch ecomodernist Oudendijk said,
“We Dutch
are basically very rational people. We just want to solve the problem.”
Said TV comedian Lubach to an on-air correspondent, “I say we take nuclear
energy
out of the taboo-sphere.” The correspondent in the "taboo-sphere" is dressed
in protective
gear to protect himself, he explains, not from nuclear but rather from
STDs.
Michael Shellenberger, President, Environmental Progress. Time Magazine
"Hero of the Environment."
