Are there any green nuke groups?

[Dead_Parrot]

Here's two thoughts:
firstly, are there any really green groups who support nuclear power?
secondly, if not, should we set one up?

Thoughts please...

[DODI]

1. I would join. I don't believe nukes are the only answer -- but

it should be part of the solution. I wish people would understand how far the industry has come since TMI. I have been working in the industry for 10 years -- I started about the time they were basically about to close up shop and now we have 10 proposals in the works for new plants.

[benburch]

3. Absolutely.

"Part of this complete breakfast."

[Dead_Parrot]

5. That's kind of the point...

There are so many "anything but nukes" groups, that we need a counter-counter-group just to keep them at bay....

[Tesha]

13. Have you figured out where to put the waste yet?

Or is that still a problem to be solved sometime in the
future, after even more of it has piled up in the spent
fuel pools at the reactor sites?

Tesha

[Dead_Parrot]

16. Used fuel needs to be recycled...

other waste needs to be disposed of. You tell me where the exhaust from coal, gas and oil goes, and where the waste from the manufacture of wind turbines, PV panels, wave generators and solar thermal goes, and I'll let you into the secret.

(Hint: you're not breathing it)

[NNadir]

23. Yes. Have you figured out what to do with coal waste yet?

Or is that a problem that is just best solved by dumping it in and on the air, water and land?

What about petroleum waste?

Natural gas waste?

[benburch]

2. I am unaware of any.

And we ought to.

We would need to be careful in how we did it though, so we won't be accused of being nuclear industry shills.

[Dead_Parrot]

4. Hey, Ben...

In the absence of any existing group, would you help us organise, should this be popular? I'm guessing you have some experience from WRS...

[benburch]

6. Yes I'll help!

And I can even host the web site.

One thing we need to avoid; The LaRouchies. They are pro-nuke, and used to publish a rag called "Fusion". But they are to a man and woman insane.

[Dead_Parrot]

7. Got a link?

never heard of them...

AbE: You do realise you could be the next Lovelock for this...

[benburch]

8. Here...

EIR is a LaRouche publication; http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2004/3147_hit_men_vs_fef.html

[bananas]

9. Nuclear energy attracts all the crazies.

You guys will be in good company.

[Dead_Parrot]

19. This from a guy who admits he's bananas

:P

[bananas]

10. Nuclear power is not a "green" techology

By "green", most people mean renewable resources.
And it won't make a dent in global warming.

[Dead_Parrot]

14. Depends on your definition...

I mean "green" as in "saving the fucking planet". The same way Lovelock is "green".

And it already makes a dent in emissions. Look at France.

[Tesha]

15. Actually, nuclear power could eliminate man-made CO2

Actually, nuclear power broadly applied could eliminate
man-made CO2 as we made nuclear-generated electricity
stand in for nearly all fossil-fuel consumption.

But right now, fission power still has two teeny little problems:

1. Nuclear waste. In human terms, it lasts essentially forever
(which is to say, longer than any of our civilizations have
lasted).

2. Weapons proliferation. Nuclear power is a necessary
predecessor for any of the more-advanced nuclear weapon
designs. If we had no fission power plants in the world, it
would be far easier to detect weapons development
activities.

Nuclear *FUSION*, not fission, is the correct answer.
'Shame Reagan zapped most of the US funding for that,
ehh?

Tesha

[Dead_Parrot]

17. You're right, they're teeny.

The reason nuclear waste is a problem is because we actually deal with it, which makes it fairly unique as a power source.

That fission power precedes fission weapons is a bit like saying the wheel precedes the tank: It's true, but one does not automatically lead to the other. Look at South Africa...

Fusion isn't going to be a solution in my lifetime, even though I plan to live to a ripe old age. I studied astrophysics, so I actually know more about fusion than I do about fission: Trust me, it's damn tricky :(

(:hi: and apologies if I'm being snappy - I'm pissed off today :))

[Tesha]

20. Piling nuclear waste up at the power plants isn't "dealing" with it.

Whether kept in cooling pools or dry-casked, nobody is
"dealing" with the waste in any sort of long-term survivable
way. Right now, it's just piling up with no place to put it.

Tesha

[Dead_Parrot]

21. Depends on the definition of waste...

Used fuel rods are already reprocessed at La hague or Sellafield, and the Japanese are just finishing a reprocessing plant. That the US wants to bury it after one use is, it must be said, a fucking dumb idea.

Non-fuel waste has a number of options - if it's hot enough, it could be a fuel source for a candu-type reactor. Transuranics can be transmutated in an IFR, and any 'useless' actinides could be shoveled into a tokamak.

Anything that really is just useless radioactive crap can be disposed of geologically - but again, you have to look beyond the US to places like Sweden to see how that can be done without the brouhaha of Yucca mtn.

That the stuff is still in storage is actually a good thing, in some ways - it means a valuable resource hasn't been destroyed (yet).

Maybe "we deal with it" was a little enthusiastic. But "we can deal with it" certainly isn't, and it's still a hell of a lot better than just pumping crap into the air and hoping it will go away.

[dcfirefighter]

28. Rooikat?

is this the odd reference?

[AndyTiedye]

11. The are Some, But They Are Really Shills for the Nuclear Industry

[NNadir]

12. There's one called EFN.

The website is www.ecolo.org.

It features references to Bernard Cohen, which is how I came across it. Cohen is a widely published scientist on the subject of radiation risk, especially with respect to natural radon. His papers on risk comparison are considered seminal. He has been retired from the University of Pittsburg for some time, but he still publishes. He has powerfully influenced my thinking on energy more than any single person. He wrote a fabulous book called The Nuclear Energy Option parts of which he makes available on line.

http://www.nvnuclearenergy.org/nuclear_option_dr_cohen.htm

As a website, the ecolo.org is not particularly slick. The group seems to be headed by one Bruno Comby who markets a whole lot of stuff not connected to nuclear energy.

I am not a member of this group, but occassionally I visit their website.

I don't know that we need another environmentalist organization, even one devoted to nuclear power. Organizations such as these tend to become rather bureaucratic and distractable and caught up in all kinds of class based bullshit much of which ends up involving the exchange of money. For my money, they get caught up in a lot of sterile posturing and the sort of activism that is more about self congratulation than action. The internet, including sites like Democratic Underground, offer an avenue for word of mouth.

Many people have come to the correct conclusion about nuclear energy without recourse to organizations. I know I did. I was once a member of the Sierra Club, and get this, "The Union of Concerned Scientists." In spite of my membership in these organizations, I came to my own realization independently. To do so, I had to contradict official policies. My personal opinion is that group membership just leads to distractions of the particular type represented by the logical fallacy of "guilt by association." One will inevitably hear things like "Bruce Comby markets books about eating bugs, therefore nuclear energy is bad."

[Dead_Parrot]

18. Wow...

You were a member of the The Union of Unconcerned Scientists? Christ on a pogo-stick, I thought being a member of Greenpeace was bad...

:D

Thanks,I'll look around the EFN site for a bit, it might be what I've got in mind - They seem to have Lovelock involved so it can't be that bad, even if it makes my eyes bleed...

[Schema Thing]

22. I could swear I recently saw an op-ed

by someone claiming to be a founding father (?) of Greenpeace that was asking people to take another look at Nukes.

[Odin2005]

24. I'd really wish there was one.

We pro-Nuclear Greens are few and far between. When the founder of Greenpeace attacks his own organization for not supporting nuclear energy it becomes obvious that something has gone terriblly wrome within the enviromentalist movement. The thing that has gone wrong is an obsession with naive utopianism over pragmatism.

[Dead_Parrot]

25. Ain't that the truth

out of 90,907 DUers, we've got maybe 10 vocal supporters of nuclear energy. Although there's about the same number of persistent anti-nike posters, so I guess it's fair :)

[Nihil]

26. Yep

> ... there's about the same number of persistent anti-nike posters,

Damn those running shoes!
:P

[NNadir]

30. We need to differentiate between vocal and non-vocal.

My experience is that everywhere I go, not just DU, it is easier and easier to discuss nuclear energy.

Even as recently as 5 years ago you would not have had an even divide, especially in the vocal category between supporters and die-hard opponents. This is a website for people who identify themselves with the political left. Not so long ago a de rigeur aspect of such a self identification was opposition to nuclear power. People like Hans Bethe, highly educated about the subject, and pro-nuke power but leftist in sentiment otherwise, were isolated from many people who shared their position otherwise on the political spectrum. Of course, as a Nobel Laureate, Bethe was free to speak his mind and say what he thought. Others were not so fortunate.

My impression is that there are several types of people involved today. There are classes of people who have not thought much about the matter, and this class is further divided into opponents and supporters and people who have no opinion. There are classes of people who have a cursory understanding of the subject and, again this class can be divided into supporters and non-supporters and people who do not feel that they know enough to decide. Then there are a class of people who have spent a great deal of time considering the issue of nuclear energy. Subclasses here include people who are nuclear engineers or other types of nuclear professionals. There is a class of people who are concerned about global climate change and have seriously investigated the issue - I include myself here - in technical terms, and there is, obviously, a class of people who have spent a great deal of time collecting information that will seem to reproduce their preconceived notion, the preconceived notion being immutable.

I have been gratified in recent years with a number of private and public communications from people who have told me that they have changed their position in response to my arguments. As reality sets in - and let's face it, the matter is becoming very stark - I think that the number of people who grow comfortable with the vast environmental benefits of nuclear energy can only grow. I suspect that the fraction of people who actively support nuclear energy will also grow.

Hatrack offered us a thread containing another one of these "Manhattan Project" proposals from an environmentalist website:

http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Looming_Energy_Crisis_Requires_New_Manhattan_Project.html

Scientists said that to keep up with demand, the country must diversify its energy portfolio by developing technologies in natural gas, biofuel and nuclear, wind and solar power.

Madhukar stressed the urgent need for a concerted state-led effort at diversification.

"Clearly, all possible sources must be pushed to their limits," he said, emphasizing the need for expansion of solar energy in the country's mix.

(Note I am not comfortable with the inclusion of natural gas, here, but that's my problem. I think the "developing technology" in this case is combined cycle stuff - better, but not good enough.)

Even if we ignore the choice of identified project, the choice of "Manhattan" over "Apollo," we can see how easily the word "nuclear" slips into the message. Of course there is the usual elevation of the "solar" dream, and of course, pictures of solar cells, but the word "nuclear" flows, no choking involved. This would not have been the case even a short while ago.

My personal suspicion is that once people really, really, really push hard against the solar promise, once we begin to see the real environmental implications - including batteries - nuclear is going to get a whole lot more popular. This is not to say that solar energy is not to be preferred to any fossil fuel - clearly it is much, much better. However there is a reality connected with solar energy that is not immediately obvious on a vast public scale.

[conning]

27. By reading regularly in this forum over several years,

I have changed my mind about nuclear energy. I am particularly indebted to NNadir. Thank you very much.

[phantom power]

29. Another avenue would be to "convert" the existing groups.

In a way, it all amounts to the same task: changing the public's mind. Existing green groups are just one more segment of the public.