Once again, nuclear energy is absent from the Democratic Party Platform and it's gone missing at the same time China is accelerating its nuclear buildout.
The large NGOs are against free market growth in per-capita GDP for advanced countries. This is not new. Doug Bandow wrote about one of the important NGOs being tyrannical in this manner in 1985:
Pronuclear Democrats mistake the example of a "complex" physical system that is a nuclear power reactor for a "non-complex" physical system thus coming to the co the conclusion that anuclear fission is a safe way to energize an electricity generating station and combustion of natural gas is an unsafe way to do so though the opposite is the case..
The beauty of renewables for urbanites is that the generation of electricity is pushed to some place where urbanites don't have to see or experience it every day. It can be placed in the windy plains of the prairie or out of sight offshore, or in some distant sunny desert. And the transmission lines would be built everywhere except where urbanites live. Renewables are all virtue and "costless" in an experiential and aesthetic sense. Shutting down the hulking early 20th century urban coal fired power plants has been a big win for cities in this regard. Nuclear would be built much closer to home.
Motley Fool Money podcast from 8/24/24 has Jake DeWitte. He and Sam Altman are working on Nuclear and sustainable Nuclear. He has had successful ones in multiple states. It’s called Sam Altmans nuclear bet.
Both parties and the entire scientific/medical/engineering establishment are antinuclear. Even the nuclear energy industry is antinuclear!
I say this because everyone accepts the current regulatory limits on what is consider safe for radioactivity released from a nuclear power plant and nuclear waste sites (1 and 0.04 mSv/year, respectively for the general public).
Based on widely accepted metric that a 1 Sv exposure increases mortality by 5.5%, the increase in mortality rate at these safe levels would be less than 0.0055%.
In contrast, the safe limit for the most dangerous form of air pollution, PM 2.5 particles, is 10-20 ug/m^3. The mortality rate at this safe level increases by 0.6%
It follows that universally accepted regulations value a life lost to air pollution at least 100 times more than a life lost to radioactivity from nuclear power plants. It is 2500 times more for pollution from nuclear waste.
Despite this huge difference in the margin of safety, exceeding these radioactivity limits is consider unacceptable, even during an accident. Hence the pressure to prevent any nuclear accident or leak from nuclear waste, an impossibly expensive task.
In contrast exceeding the vastly more lethal air pollution limit is considered perfectly acceptable even under normal operating conditions!
This combination of excessively cautious safety levels and their treatment as inviolable, makes nuclear energy far more expensive than it needs to be.
This result has been a preference for burning fossil and biofuels, even though these are vastly more dangerous to human health.
The fact that all of this is accepted without challenge indicates that everyone is actually anti-nuclear.
I agree it would have been nice to have a specific call out for nuclear power, but I wouldn't read into it too much.
Like Robert said, clean energy is mentioned 44 times. To me that shows that they're trying to use nuclear inclusive language. A decade ago all you'd see was "renewable" the REAL marketing term of concern.
Most importantly *there is nothing negative written about nuclear energy.*
It was the Biden-Harris administration that committed the US to an international pledge to triple nuclear by 2050, and Tim Walz is pro-nuclear, calling to lift MN's moratorium and study advanced reactors in the state.
Party platforms are largely messaging documents. I don't expect nuclear to lose any of the momentum is has been gaining over the last four years, but that doesn't mean advocates should let off the gas.
The climate/insane started out by doing their best to kill nuclear.
And almost succeeded.
Now their nonsensical fixation on “climate emergency” based our emissions is leading to a renaissance of nuclear and they are caught as there is no other solution.
Fuel rods in traditional nuclear power plants need to be changed about every two years. Has there been a solution for this nuclear power plant waste? Or is it still stored on-site at U.S. nuclear power plants? If so, there would be a rather obvious problem here screaming for a solution, rather than continued kicking the bucket down the lane. If so, it would be quite understandable if a more conscious electorate would question such unsustainable practises.
India and China are pursuing the thorium molten salt reactor, lobbies of which tout significant benefits of the TMSR over traditional nuclear reactors. Among the touted benefits are that 99% of the fuel is supposedly burning up, a huge waste reduction, and that fuel changes are only required in decades, not in years. If all this should hold water, a modular TMSR could leapfrog "traditional western" technology, also internationally, as smaller, cheaper and safer than what Big Nuke offers. Generating weapon grade nuclear material based on a TMSR is deemed close to impossible.
The fuel could be extracted from rare earth processing. Thorium waste with of no use is a nagging issue of the rare earth industry - mostly in China, but also coming up in India. Anyone who gets into rare earth based on the most abundant rare earth ores will have a thorium issue anyway.
The original developer of the TMSR technology has been the U.S. It was given up in favour of the light water reactor.
I've been in the Prue nuclear advocacy game for almost 15 years now. Three decades ago, I was cooperating with Greenpeace to shut down nuclear power plants. In doing some research back in the early 90s for GP to kill the industry, I read enough to start to question the organizations opposition, especially in light of global warming speculation that was happening at the time. I'll tell you what I've really noticed a difference when I'm talking to people in the last five years. The nuclear memes and facts have filtered into the general consciousness. I'm not surprised nowadays, how often I run into the sentiments this video provides on how people are thinking about nuclear power: https://www.facebook.com/share/r/LsmYrjaUahanTRPz/?mibextid=qDwCgo
I've heard this from several Democrats, when you read "clean energy" that's code for nuclear power. Party people are trying to maintain the coalition that they will need to defeat Trump and MAGA. There has been a sea change in the party on attitudes towards nuclear power.
I trust you're right Scott. I know there are dems like Booker who will push the nuclear agenda forward. I just hope there's enough of a sea change to push nuclear into a major movement forward.
I find it strange that Democrats don't full on support nuclear energy since it's the most government-intense energy source. Then again, that might be the reason power companies don't insist on support for nuclear. Nuclear makes more business as well as environmental sense. But governmental oversight (control) adds cost without financial benefit. Said oversight is absolutely not about public safety. Instead it is a holdover from the U.S. effort to maintain a monopoly on nuclear technology. That cat got out of the bag soon after we developed the bomb. Public safety is, or would be without government meddling, rather high in the financial interest of business.
If you question their religious dogma it gets kind of personal. So we must keep doing that.
Simply change the approach of selling nuclear to better air and water quality (from not burning coal) would make sense to me. Along with always-on, cheap electricity for industry and households, inflation starts to reduce.
Well gas won’t help decarbonisation, but that’s a separate discussion, and nuclear won’t help costs. The only case for nuclear is to address climate change, so if you’re not bothered about that it’s gas only
That's the way it goes. Those who are terrified of CO2 are even more terrified of nuclear energy, and those who don't believe in AGW don't see the need. So the best energy technology ever developed has no advocates.
Talk to your friends, neighbors and relatives. I think you’ll find that nuclear power is both horribly dangerous and completely unnecessary. The news media, Hollywood and numerous NGOs have successfully sold that story and nuclear is dead in the US and in most of the West. The Democrats were part of that propaganda effort and they certainly aren’t going to back down noise.
Next up are fossil fuels of all kinds. That effort is already well underway.
It's strange that our democratic administration sounded all on board for nuclear at COP28 in December but now seems silent on the subject, and continues to dither away in congress, accomplishing little.
BTW, It's great that you're getting the word out with your public radio interviews and podcasts.
A friend in Minnesota told me their governor Walz is pro-nuclear, so there may be an opening through him. I suggest getting Elaine Luria to have a sit-down with Walz and Harris and clear up any misconceptions they may have.
The large NGOs are against free market growth in per-capita GDP for advanced countries. This is not new. Doug Bandow wrote about one of the important NGOs being tyrannical in this manner in 1985:
https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/pa061.pdf
Disfavoring domestic energy production, fossil fuel or nuclear, is anti-America.
Pronuclear Democrats mistake the example of a "complex" physical system that is a nuclear power reactor for a "non-complex" physical system thus coming to the co the conclusion that anuclear fission is a safe way to energize an electricity generating station and combustion of natural gas is an unsafe way to do so though the opposite is the case..
Terry Oldberg
nuclear Power Engineer/Scientist
Los Altos Hills, California
The beauty of renewables for urbanites is that the generation of electricity is pushed to some place where urbanites don't have to see or experience it every day. It can be placed in the windy plains of the prairie or out of sight offshore, or in some distant sunny desert. And the transmission lines would be built everywhere except where urbanites live. Renewables are all virtue and "costless" in an experiential and aesthetic sense. Shutting down the hulking early 20th century urban coal fired power plants has been a big win for cities in this regard. Nuclear would be built much closer to home.
Motley Fool Money podcast from 8/24/24 has Jake DeWitte. He and Sam Altman are working on Nuclear and sustainable Nuclear. He has had successful ones in multiple states. It’s called Sam Altmans nuclear bet.
Both parties and the entire scientific/medical/engineering establishment are antinuclear. Even the nuclear energy industry is antinuclear!
I say this because everyone accepts the current regulatory limits on what is consider safe for radioactivity released from a nuclear power plant and nuclear waste sites (1 and 0.04 mSv/year, respectively for the general public).
Based on widely accepted metric that a 1 Sv exposure increases mortality by 5.5%, the increase in mortality rate at these safe levels would be less than 0.0055%.
In contrast, the safe limit for the most dangerous form of air pollution, PM 2.5 particles, is 10-20 ug/m^3. The mortality rate at this safe level increases by 0.6%
It follows that universally accepted regulations value a life lost to air pollution at least 100 times more than a life lost to radioactivity from nuclear power plants. It is 2500 times more for pollution from nuclear waste.
Despite this huge difference in the margin of safety, exceeding these radioactivity limits is consider unacceptable, even during an accident. Hence the pressure to prevent any nuclear accident or leak from nuclear waste, an impossibly expensive task.
In contrast exceeding the vastly more lethal air pollution limit is considered perfectly acceptable even under normal operating conditions!
This combination of excessively cautious safety levels and their treatment as inviolable, makes nuclear energy far more expensive than it needs to be.
This result has been a preference for burning fossil and biofuels, even though these are vastly more dangerous to human health.
The fact that all of this is accepted without challenge indicates that everyone is actually anti-nuclear.
The devil you know...
I agree it would have been nice to have a specific call out for nuclear power, but I wouldn't read into it too much.
Like Robert said, clean energy is mentioned 44 times. To me that shows that they're trying to use nuclear inclusive language. A decade ago all you'd see was "renewable" the REAL marketing term of concern.
Most importantly *there is nothing negative written about nuclear energy.*
It was the Biden-Harris administration that committed the US to an international pledge to triple nuclear by 2050, and Tim Walz is pro-nuclear, calling to lift MN's moratorium and study advanced reactors in the state.
Party platforms are largely messaging documents. I don't expect nuclear to lose any of the momentum is has been gaining over the last four years, but that doesn't mean advocates should let off the gas.
Me, I love irony.
The climate/insane started out by doing their best to kill nuclear.
And almost succeeded.
Now their nonsensical fixation on “climate emergency” based our emissions is leading to a renaissance of nuclear and they are caught as there is no other solution.
“Irony can be pretty ironic sometimes”
William Shatner, Airplane 2
Fuel rods in traditional nuclear power plants need to be changed about every two years. Has there been a solution for this nuclear power plant waste? Or is it still stored on-site at U.S. nuclear power plants? If so, there would be a rather obvious problem here screaming for a solution, rather than continued kicking the bucket down the lane. If so, it would be quite understandable if a more conscious electorate would question such unsustainable practises.
India and China are pursuing the thorium molten salt reactor, lobbies of which tout significant benefits of the TMSR over traditional nuclear reactors. Among the touted benefits are that 99% of the fuel is supposedly burning up, a huge waste reduction, and that fuel changes are only required in decades, not in years. If all this should hold water, a modular TMSR could leapfrog "traditional western" technology, also internationally, as smaller, cheaper and safer than what Big Nuke offers. Generating weapon grade nuclear material based on a TMSR is deemed close to impossible.
The fuel could be extracted from rare earth processing. Thorium waste with of no use is a nagging issue of the rare earth industry - mostly in China, but also coming up in India. Anyone who gets into rare earth based on the most abundant rare earth ores will have a thorium issue anyway.
The original developer of the TMSR technology has been the U.S. It was given up in favour of the light water reactor.
Wake up Democrats and read the polls.
I've been in the Prue nuclear advocacy game for almost 15 years now. Three decades ago, I was cooperating with Greenpeace to shut down nuclear power plants. In doing some research back in the early 90s for GP to kill the industry, I read enough to start to question the organizations opposition, especially in light of global warming speculation that was happening at the time. I'll tell you what I've really noticed a difference when I'm talking to people in the last five years. The nuclear memes and facts have filtered into the general consciousness. I'm not surprised nowadays, how often I run into the sentiments this video provides on how people are thinking about nuclear power: https://www.facebook.com/share/r/LsmYrjaUahanTRPz/?mibextid=qDwCgo
Similar stats in the U.K. for nuclear support, but nuclear is the least favoured method of generation with offshore wind being the most favoured
What I notice on socials though is that those who do express a support for nuclear tend to be passionately anti renewables to the point of extremism
Surely the best way for nuclear to succeed is not to be talked about?
Similar stats in the U.K. for nuclear support, but nuclear is the least favoured method of generation with offshore wind being the most favoured
What I notice on socials though is that those who do express a support for nuclear tend to be passionately anti renewables to the point of extremism
Surely the best way for nuclear to succeed is not to be talked about?
I've heard this from several Democrats, when you read "clean energy" that's code for nuclear power. Party people are trying to maintain the coalition that they will need to defeat Trump and MAGA. There has been a sea change in the party on attitudes towards nuclear power.
Surely if Trump wins then net zero is out the window and the whole case for nuclear dies?
I trust you're right Scott. I know there are dems like Booker who will push the nuclear agenda forward. I just hope there's enough of a sea change to push nuclear into a major movement forward.
I find it strange that Democrats don't full on support nuclear energy since it's the most government-intense energy source. Then again, that might be the reason power companies don't insist on support for nuclear. Nuclear makes more business as well as environmental sense. But governmental oversight (control) adds cost without financial benefit. Said oversight is absolutely not about public safety. Instead it is a holdover from the U.S. effort to maintain a monopoly on nuclear technology. That cat got out of the bag soon after we developed the bomb. Public safety is, or would be without government meddling, rather high in the financial interest of business.
I favor nuclear power. That said, since Human Induced Climate Change doesn't exist, why do we need to "decarbonize" the power grid?
If there is no need to decarbonise there is no need for nuclear, just keep burning gas
If you question their religious dogma it gets kind of personal. So we must keep doing that.
Simply change the approach of selling nuclear to better air and water quality (from not burning coal) would make sense to me. Along with always-on, cheap electricity for industry and households, inflation starts to reduce.
That’s a good case to switch to gas, which is super flexible unlike nuclear
A combo of gas and nuclear is the way forward dependent on location/needs.
Well gas won’t help decarbonisation, but that’s a separate discussion, and nuclear won’t help costs. The only case for nuclear is to address climate change, so if you’re not bothered about that it’s gas only
Incorrect
That's the way it goes. Those who are terrified of CO2 are even more terrified of nuclear energy, and those who don't believe in AGW don't see the need. So the best energy technology ever developed has no advocates.
Until they wake up in the dark. Freezing to death and eating raw dog.
Talk to your friends, neighbors and relatives. I think you’ll find that nuclear power is both horribly dangerous and completely unnecessary. The news media, Hollywood and numerous NGOs have successfully sold that story and nuclear is dead in the US and in most of the West. The Democrats were part of that propaganda effort and they certainly aren’t going to back down noise.
Next up are fossil fuels of all kinds. That effort is already well underway.
It's strange that our democratic administration sounded all on board for nuclear at COP28 in December but now seems silent on the subject, and continues to dither away in congress, accomplishing little.
BTW, It's great that you're getting the word out with your public radio interviews and podcasts.
A friend in Minnesota told me their governor Walz is pro-nuclear, so there may be an opening through him. I suggest getting Elaine Luria to have a sit-down with Walz and Harris and clear up any misconceptions they may have.
Walz will straighten out the non-believers! :))