Environmental Anti-Nuclear Movement Question
- Thread starter Warringer
- Start date
Cook
Banned
I take it you mean the environmental anti-nuclear movement rather than the Nuclear disarmament movement?
Not have them make tons of money selling scare stories is a good start. Frankly those at the top are more interested in getting their face in the paper, going on TV, having a high standard of living while disparaging those who make less and do less damage to the environment than they do than actually doing things that are good for people. The DDT ban has mostly helped spread malaria in Africa, the asbestos scare increased fire hazards and nuclear energy is the only viable alternative to fossil fuels. However they make tons of money scaring people so it won't change.
I don't think the movement was influential at all.
The problem for the nuclear industry was twofold:
1). Massively oversold with extravagant promises on every front.
2). It just wasn't economic for the time. And even the half assed business models were junk.
In the end it was a combination of speculative and poorly implemted investment based on unrealistic assumptions, and economic failure.
The problem for the nuclear industry was twofold:
1). Massively oversold with extravagant promises on every front.
2). It just wasn't economic for the time. And even the half assed business models were junk.
In the end it was a combination of speculative and poorly implemted investment based on unrealistic assumptions, and economic failure.
Untrue.
The health hazards of asbestos are very real. And the asbestos industry actually did cover it up. No scare. Just risk and fraud.
Very true, malaria is spread by misquitos and DDT is a very cheap, very effective means of killing them.
Even if true (Something I don't grant) the deaths by increased number of fires far outweigh the number dying of cancer.
Simplistic. There is no credible evidence to assert that ddt management has increased malaria. That is tinfoil hat stuff.
Prove it.
Is Scientific America good enough to you? http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ddt-use-to-combat-malaria/
or malaria.org http://www.malaria.org/DDTcosts.html
Even Worldwatch institute http://www.worldwatch.org/node/517
All of them recommend using DDT at least in some circumstances.
@Johnrankins @DValdron
Question:
Did you see THIS?
Question:
Did you see THIS?
If you want to argue about something not covering the OP, do it elsewhere!
As a matter of fact.... No. My post was in process. I didn't see yours until I hit send
Delta Force
Banned
That's a popular misconception, but at least in the United States public opinion was in favor of nuclear energy until the early 1980s.
Delta Force
Banned
There is significant overlap between the anti-nuclear power, anti-nuclear weapons, and environmental movements. The Sierra Club was a conservative leaning conservationist group most known for its opposition to hydropower and an officially neutral stance towards nuclear power until a new leader took over and made it anti-nuclear power. Greenpeace was established in opposition to the Cannikin nuclear test in Amchitka, Alaska.
There is so much overlap and such an irrational fear of nuclear energy by environmentalists in general that some psychologists argue they are displacing fears of nuclear weaponry onto everything nuclear. For example, Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) was originally known as Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Imaging before the name was quietly changed (this website even cites some academic articles on the subject):
It's interesting to note that the nadir in public opinion towards nuclear energy came at the height of the nuclear arms race in the 1980s, especially since it was in the early 1980s, a few years after Three Mile Island and a few years before Chernobyl.
Better power plant designs to reduce waste, the longer nuclear material can be used before it has to be thrown away the better. Even spent rods kept in a pool are hot enough to boil water, so could be producing power.
Once they are fully spent though the fact wherever they'd put will be uninhabitable for hundreds or thousands of years is a problem that really can't be gotten around.
Once they are fully spent though the fact wherever they'd put will be uninhabitable for hundreds or thousands of years is a problem that really can't be gotten around.
Delta Force
Banned
The issue is that nuclear was riding along in a market that had experienced an average of 7% growth every year since the 1890s. 1973 was actually a temporary system shock that slowed demand growth for a few years, but 1979 really grabbed everyone's attention and changed the demand curve forever. Energy demand was almost stagnant for a few years before picking up again. By the late 1990s electricity demand growth in the United States was totally stagnant. There has been almost no demand growth for close to a century and a half.
This impacted nuclear power back in the 1970s because even back then the facilities took longer to build than fossil fuel facilities. That means that had more interest fees during construction because outside the South, no public utility commissions allow ratepayers to be charged for facilities that aren't online yet. Even if that wasn't an issue, due to the demand growth issues there is significant uncertainty regarding future demand patterns. A nuclear facility can take up to a decade to go from first plans to first criticality. Then there are the historical issues with safety and environmental retrofits (cooling towers are expensive) and the investment economics start to look concerning. The nuclear power bond defaults of the 1980s were the largest the industry has ever seen, with the Washington Public Power Supply System (or "Whoops") bond default of 1983 being the largest municipal bond default until Detroit. The WPPSS default is so big that if you search Whoops into Investopedia you get a page about the nuclear defaults.
Delta Force
Banned
Also see this study. The cost escalation for nuclear power seen in the United States was unparalleled anywhere else in the world due to a combination of many manufacturers and many different designs and a constantly shifting regulatory framework. For example, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission had five years to issue fire safety regulations at nuclear power facilities following the Browns Ferry Fire, and yet they issued two different versions of 10 CFR PART 50.48 (fire safety regulations) back to back on 29 October, 1980 and 19 November, 1980.