Agnostic.com

3 1

The Green New Deal proposes elimination of nuclear power in 5 years. The area I live in (Chicago) gets most of its current power from nuclear sources.
What are your opinions on the attached link and the energy policy proposed in the Green New Deal?

[forbes.com]

Spongebob 7 Feb 17
Share

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account

3 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

0

Firstly, I think we need to look at the Green New Deal as a discussion point. The discussion has started and when the hysteria dies away some progress will be made.
All power generation has a price; as a society we have to decide and accept how we are going to pay.
The sources of electricity need to be diversified and a commitment made to eliminating the use of coal. European countries have made a start on this.
Nuclear power is not the easy panacea that the article gives. Construction is massive, location is defined by the need for cooling water (as are all thermal generators),the waste is long lasting (to put it mildly), in this day and age security is a concern. I believe its use in Europe is contracting, the French were always the greatest proponents.

0

I’m going to be honest. It’s an incredibly optimistic plan. Obviously it would never be feasible given the country as it is. We have many community’s that don’t have clean drinking water and safe infrastructure. I would hope something like this would be a few decades out. I also didn’t know the plan was to go away from nuclear power. I apparently need to read more about it. Europe relies on nuclear without issue.

They also propose not using biofuels

1

I agree that it is not a good idea to panic and shut currently functioning nuclear plants, but I disagree with Mr Michael Shellenberger that concern about nuclear power is irrational. Humans are fallible and the earth is geologically unstable. Has Mr Shellenberger never heard of Chernobyl and Fukishima? Apart from those well-known disasters that made significant areas uninhabitable, it would seem that nuclear power is not economical without taxpayers assuming the excess risk. In the USA that risk assumption is known as Price–Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act of 1957. If nuclear plants in 2019 still cannot be privately insured, then why build any more? Private industry wants to take us back to the moon and then to Mars; but no one wants to insure a nuclear power plant against all risks.

I am skeptical that CO2 emissions are bad for humanity. The earth is greening, and the mild warming that occurs due to more CO2 in the atmosphere has been greatly exaggerated. Burning fossil fuels is a recycling program that turns coal, oil, and natural gas into trees and other photosynthetic plants. [nasa.gov]

Effects of climate change are expected to be mostly bad, although some good things might happen coincidentally

@Spongebob Since CO2 is the basic food of photosynthetic plants, the greening of Earth that has been observed is no coincidence. And as for the bad effects that atmospheric CO2 will supposedly bring, the method of science is to observe evidence, not rely on apocalyptic predictions that never come true.

You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:291546
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.