Nuclear is big and scary because we're so inured to the dangers of other power sources. Without taking any climate considerations into account, coal kills tens of thousands a year in the United States alone, and perhaps hundreds of thousands a year in China (where regulations and accurate data are sketchier). The worst nuclear accident on record, which was the result of ancient technology and trademark soviet incompetence, killed fewer people all told as coal kills in a year. We also have new reactor designs with passive safety measures built in; we've learned quite a lot since the early days of nuclear power. We have a site at Yucca Mountain that is capable of storing large amounts of waste indefinitely and is only being held back by political actors in Nevada. You are right that nuclear is not without its risks, but given the clear and present dangers of climate change, we don't have the luxury of proceeding completely without risk. If you can kill coal, oil, and natural gas without relying on nuclear, that's great, and we should go full steam ahead. If the choice is between nuclear and fossil fuels however, I'm choosing nuclear every time.
The power plant down here south of Houston not only helps to power Houston, but also Austin and San Antonio. The main reactor housings are strong enough to withstand the impact of a fully loaded 767 with its fuel without compromising the reactor core. It’s a good system that has gone through some very unfortunate growing pains.
A lot of Ontario power is from nukes. Bruce Power. It’s way fucking safer than people think, mostly because of the fear of radiation and lack of education. The “no nukes” campaigns in the 70’s have left a huge, negative legacy behind.
I did a paper in college and one of the sources I found was a paper from the 70s on what the consequences of a 30 year nuclear moratorium in the US would be. A few years later Three Mile Island occurred, the moratorium followed, and the consequences predicted in the paper came true almost to the letter. It was a depressing realization.
Fear is a powerful thing, especially fear of the unknown. You see a lot of fear mongering going on today in politics... it's nothing new, it's just getting more precise and better controlled.
Final midterm predictions - Democrats gain somewhere in the neighborhood of 25-30 seats, and just squeak by to gain control of the House. Republicans keep the Senate and pick up a few seats.
That depends on which section of the bible you use as a reference. In one part you shave their heads, lock them in a room for a month where they cry it out and then rape them. In another section you kill all the males, and all the females, and all their kids, and you kill their cows, AND you set their corn on fire. And they say I learned nothing from my time in bible study. Psh. Do you know how they calculated the cost estimate? Is that the cost for the end user? That's about $35/mo for the average American, which is substantially less than most people pay right now. Even if they're not factoring in the costs for the infrastructure and start up, that's really promising news.
The figure came from a 2006 MIT feasibility study funded by the DOE, so it probably represents a best case scenario. Still, it'd be economically viable at twice the price.
I don't want anyone to think I'm anti-nuclear, and I'm certainly not afraid of the technology. Let's say that my opinions on this, and many other topics, are more nuanced than a simple yea or nay vote. No one has to sell me on the dangers of air pollution or climate change - hell I've posted on here regarding climate change years back, to a response of crickets. But the approach to dealing with this issue has to be multi-faceted, to include, in my opinion, a carbon tax, development of new technologies, refinement of old technologies, a complete phase out of coal and oil (there are still plants that burn #6 oil). Nuclear has a role in this as well, but it has to be approached in an intelligent manner that includes addressing the issues i raised. The nuclear industry is heavily subsidized and there has been no political will to force research to address these issues. Kicking the can down the road doesn't serve us - look at how well that has worked out for fossil fuels and climate change.
As they should be. A good idea can be ruined by a bad plan or implementation. I think in the case of nuclear power, though, there's way more of an emotional fear that causes it to become a simple "no way" reaction and remove all nuance... people are too afraid of the 3 Mile Islands or Chernobyls to even consider it. I find it interesting that nuclear is a major part of the US Navy (weapons and ship power), and yet it carries none of the stigma that the same technology used for civilian power generation does.
My brother in law is a naval engineer on a nuclear sub and I've asked him about it before. He said that the chances of a meltdown or leak are incredibly remote, at least in the US, but the downside of one actually occurring are so horrible that people have a hard time tolerating the risk. Nuclear power plants are forever tied to the concept of nuclear weapons just based on the name alone. Hell, both Republicans and Democrats have issues with even spending money on research for managing spent fuel. Burying it in a mountain for a few thousand years just isnt a sexy use of funds I guess.
FiveThirdyEight is now giving the dems a little over an 87% chance at winning control of the house. Anyone think these polls will pull a 2016 again and leave us all shaking out heads?
Out of curiosity I checked out the AL amendments on the ballot. In case anyone else would like to see, I'll save you a google. Spoiler: Currently on the ballot Amendment 1 Ten Commandments Would authorize the display of the Ten Commandments on public property, including public schools. The Ten Commandments would be required to be displayed "in a manner that complies with constitutional requirements," including being mixed with historical or educational items. The measure would prohibit the state from using public funds to defend the constitutionality of the amendment. Amendment 2 Abortion Policy Would declare that the state's policy is to recognize and support "the sanctity of unborn life and the rights of unborn children, including the right to life," and state that "nothing in this Constitution secures or protects a right to abortion or requires the funding of an abortion." It is seen as a way to ensure that nothing in the state constitution could be used to argue for a right to abortion in the event that Roe v. Wade is overturned. Amendment 3 University of Alabama Board of Trustees Would remove the State Superintendent from the UA Board, and remove the 70-year-old age limit. Amendment 4 Legislative Vacancies Would change the law so that if a vacancy in the House of Senate occurs in the fourth year of the quadrennial, the seat would remain vacant until the next regular election. Currently, the Governor must set a special election.
I don't think it's nearly as likely because it's spread over so many toss up races. Even if the polling is less comprehensive Trump was well within the error margin. 538 had Trump winning at over 30%. I know places like Huffpo had Hillary at 98%, but I think that had more to do with them being shitty at analyzing polls. That said, 13% doesn't equate to no chance. One of the odd things is that while climate change consequences feel more and more imminent, nuclear energy is becoming less popular in recent years. Kind of surprised too that over half of republicans are in favor of it, but only 1/3 of democrats. That might be part of the problem. No environmental solution is environmentally friendly enough for some.
Sanctimonious religious bullshit Sanctimonious religious bullshit Make Nick Saban God of Alabama Don't ever let a Democrat win an election in this state again
My worry this that Democrats have been oversold on wind and solar. Yes they are clean, yes they are effective, and yes they are cheap, but there is more to the power grid than those three considerations. 1 GW of wind capacity is not the same as 1 GW of Coal/Gas/Nuclear capacity. I think a lot of Democrats don't want to consider nuclear because they think they could just spend the money on wind and solar and get the same results without the risk, which unfortunately isn't the case.
I’m not paying attention to polls anymore until I understand more how polling works. I don’t know how they poll, who they poll, how many people, etc. I can’t imagine many people changing their minds based on the latest TV ad. This election will come down to voter turnout and never-Trump GOPers voting D. Anyone still on the fence at this point is fucking insane.
I’m not paying attention to polls because they are irrelevant. I’m going to vote for who I want to regardless of the polls, and I wait to see who won the next day. People who make their decision on whether or not to vote (e.g. it looks like my candidate will win so I won’t bother) are morons.
Is that really a thing though? People who base their personal decision to even vote based on the strength of a poll? Or is it more of a paranoia that people might do this?