Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

RobertEarl

(13,685 posts)
Sat Jun 9, 2012, 01:47 AM Jun 2012

Nuclear Power is anti-earth power

Nukes are as anti-environment as any thing we have ever developed.

Sure there are a few things about nukes that have helped humans, but no way that nukes are good for the rest of life on the planet.

Indeed, nukes have the capability of ending all life as we know it.

Just wanted to make that clear.

12 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Nuclear Power is anti-earth power (Original Post) RobertEarl Jun 2012 OP
Uranium is a natural product of the earth XemaSab Jun 2012 #1
Yep RobertEarl Jun 2012 #2
And the funny thing about it veganlush Jun 2012 #3
WRONG!!! WRONG!!! WRONG!!! PamW Jun 2012 #4
the amounts you cite veganlush Jun 2012 #6
Your qualifications are... PamW Jun 2012 #7
My qualifications are common sense. veganlush Jun 2012 #8
By the way, veganlush Jun 2012 #9
Case in Point, veganlush RobertEarl Jun 2012 #5
yes indeed veganlush Jun 2012 #10
Having the smallest per MW foot print of any energy source is not environmentally friendly? zeaper Jun 2012 #11
Back to your caves? RobertEarl Jun 2012 #12

veganlush

(2,049 posts)
3. And the funny thing about it
Sat Jun 9, 2012, 03:16 AM
Jun 2012

most right-wingers defend nuclear power 24/7 but i guess they don't know or care that is it always a socialist endeavor. I have pointed this out to many and it leaves them without an answer it actually shuts them up when i point out that Nuclear power relies on socializing all of the risk, thereby subsidizing the industry's insurance costs. How many businesses do you know of that can just forgo insurance and pass off all risk to the surrounding community and beyond, if their operation goes bad?

PamW

(1,825 posts)
4. WRONG!!! WRONG!!! WRONG!!!
Sat Jun 9, 2012, 04:14 PM
Jun 2012

Evidently you''ve fallen for the anti-nuclear propaganda without bothering to check out the facts.

You've probably heard that there are no insurance companies that insure nuclear power plants. That is WRONG:

http://www.amnucins.com/

American Nuclear Insurers (ANI) is a joint underwriting association created by some of the largest insurance companies in the United States. Our purpose is to pool the financial assets pledged by our member companies to provide the significant amount of property and liability insurance required for nuclear power plants and related facilities throughout the world.

You've probably heard that the Price-Anderson fund is paid for by taxpayers; which is another LIE:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price%E2%80%93Anderson_Nuclear_Industries_Indemnity_Act

Power reactor licensees are required by the act to obtain the maximum amount of insurance against nuclear related incidents which is available in the insurance market (as of 2011, $375 million per plant). Any monetary claims that fall within this maximum amount are paid by the insurer(s). The Price-Anderson fund, which is financed by the reactor companies themselves, is then used to make up the difference. Each reactor company is obliged to contribute up to $111.9 million per reactor in the event of an accident with claims that exceed the $375 million insurance limit. As of 2011, the maximum amount of the fund is approximately $12.22 billion ($111.9m X 104 reactors) if all of the reactor companies were required to pay their full obligation to the fund. This fund is not paid into unless an accident occurs.

The above monetary values are based on calculations by scientists at Brookhaven National Lab as to the worst possible consequences of an accident in a US-type plant.

The only people that say the insurance costs have been "socialized" are those that don't know what they are talking about.

PamW

veganlush

(2,049 posts)
6. the amounts you cite
Mon Jun 11, 2012, 03:38 AM
Jun 2012

Are. a pittance. they simply protect investors ability to socialize the real risks. how far would.that change go if a big earthquake causes a meltdown in a populated area?

PamW

(1,825 posts)
7. Your qualifications are...
Mon Jun 11, 2012, 10:20 AM
Jun 2012

The amounts codified in the law were determined based on studies of worst case scenarios by scientists at Brookhaven National Lab.

They have very intelligent highly trained scientists at Brookhaven to make these calculations.

...and your qualifications to discredit them are what???

I'll take the Brookhaven scientists' calculations as being more credible.

PamW

veganlush

(2,049 posts)
8. My qualifications are common sense.
Wed Jun 13, 2012, 07:24 PM
Jun 2012

Do you know what it costs to build a nuclear plant? And the costs of the fuel? The amounts you describe are designed to protect investors and wouldn't come close to dealing with the liability from the surrounding communities which in the case of a meltdown or even just a Fukishema style disaster would bring. Are you thinking this through? In a worst case scenario you are talking about thousands or tens of thousands of wrongful deaths, many slow growing cancer deaths too, private property of all kinds, for miles around, rendered useless for many, many decades. Please re-calculate and reconsider your assertions.

veganlush

(2,049 posts)
9. By the way,
Wed Jun 13, 2012, 07:48 PM
Jun 2012

I didn't even BEGIN to get into the other ways that society subsidizes nuclear energy, thereby making it socialist. I started with the socialising of all risk because it is the biggest single hand-out we give the industry, and by no means the only one.

 

RobertEarl

(13,685 posts)
5. Case in Point, veganlush
Sun Jun 10, 2012, 10:38 PM
Jun 2012

Japan now has to take over the insurance costs from TEPCO. TEPCO {Tokyo Electric Power Company} is going or already is bankrupt. The same thing that will happen here in America one day.

You are right, when the operation goes bad, the companies will not have enough money to properly fix the 'bad'. Laws like P/A were meant as a low threshold lever to get funding from shareholders and the like, but no big private investors have been convinced to take a chance.

So it will be socializing the costs.

zeaper

(113 posts)
11. Having the smallest per MW foot print of any energy source is not environmentally friendly?
Thu Jun 14, 2012, 09:42 AM
Jun 2012

Anyone that claims nuclear power is not environmentally friendly does not understand what it takes to make and harness energy. Go back to your caves.

 

RobertEarl

(13,685 posts)
12. Back to your caves?
Thu Jun 14, 2012, 10:26 PM
Jun 2012

Where the sun don't shine?

Tell us more about this supposed smaller footprint. And harnessing energy. You obviously know more than anyone. Don't be shy.

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Environment & Energy»Nuclear Power is anti-ear...