Why do global warming 'skeptics' support nuclear power so strongly?

Question

This has always puzzled me, because most AGW deniers are 'skeptics' because they're afraid of the economic costs of carbon regulation.

But you would think if that were the case, they would mostly favor the status quo of relying on cheap fossil fuels such as coal and natural gas. Yet most 'skeptics' seem to wholeheartedly support an increased use of nuclear power.

This seems to contradict their economic motivations, because new nuclear power is extremely expensive. One of the few new nuclear power plants proposed to be built in the US in the last 30 years - in San Antonio - was originally estimated to cost $13 billion for 2 reactors. The price tag just went up another $4 billion.
http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/Nuclear_cost_estimate_rises.html

The same story can be applied to proposed nuclear plants in Florida, North Carolina, and abroad in Canada and Finland. Due mainly to increased construction costs, nuclear power is an expensive alternative.

Yet we constantly hear questions from deniers about why "alarmists" don't support nuclear power more strongly.

What's the deal? Do they not understand the reality of nuclear costs? Do they support it just because environmentalists used to object to nuclear power? Are they just parrotting what they hear from the right-wing media?

Answer 1

I think history plays a role in this. Most global warming deniers are on the political right. In the 1970's-1980's, many environmentalists had concerns over nuclear power, which eventually lead to stricter regulation. Environmentalists had been supporting renewable energy. Many on the right were angered that environmentalists were successful at influencing policy and blamed them for slow growth of nuclear power, even though much of the reason for that was rising nuclear costs, and plunging fossil fuel prices. So U.S. Republicans believe they "own" nuclear power and see renewables "owned" by liberals. Their support for nukes is like cheering for a team. The fact that nuclear power is quite expensive eludes them. They want to push nuclear power so they can feel like they finally beat those pesky environmentalists that thwarted them in the 1970's. In other words, they are living too much in the past.



Nuclear power is an effective global warming solution and independent of that, has much fewer environmental problems than coal. If they can get the costs down and economically compete with renewables such that they are clearly and consistently cheaper (nukes no doubt have more environmental and national security costs than renewables), more "power" to them.

Answer 2

It is indeed baffling. But the fact that nuclear power, bio fuels or hydrogen are often promoted over renew ables such as solar or wind energy is because they fit the current infrastructure of energy distribution, industrial infrastructure or investment structures.



Coal mining is a lot different from mining uranium, but it is still mining. The large companies or governments that have built expertise in mining, seek to keep on employing this expertise, rather than starting up a whole new business. Mining companies think in terms of extraction and refining, not renewing. Same thing for bio fuels or hydrogen. Save for some niche applications, they do not make sense energy-wise, but oil companies would like to retain their retail-networks they took some much care building.



Windmills and solar energy can provide power at a much smaller scale, on smaller grids, or can be casually connected to larger grids. Small investments can make you an energy supplier instead of an energy consumer. This challenges the top-down, large-business large-crowd model of energy delivery that has determined our society in the last 100-150 years. The new energy-economy will not provide cheap energy anymore, and it will demand consumers to generate some energy of their own.



I guess that's where the answer lies... nuclear power plants are not to much a break from the corporatist-capitalist system that was so comfortable for a long time, whereas real renewable energy will start a transition in the way we produce and consume energy.

Answer 3

We are simply aware of the fact that France and Japan are able to produce nuclear power at a far cheaper price than we currently are. That it has been demonized in the US so much that it is nearly impossible to find a location and get through the red-tape necessary. Because of these false reasons for an increased price of nuclear power, caused mainly by the very people who are now supporting getting away from CO2 production, ie environmentalists, the price for nuclear power in the US is far higher than it should be. This can be more easily remedied by losing the red tape and the fear, than getting any of the current "green" technologies to provide power at a reasonable rate. The one good example you have given, Dana, You know very well would only work in a select few environments, it certainly couldn't be used to power the entirety of the US, nor serve as an adequate replacement of coal.



The environementalists have created many more problems than they have solved. They have frequently used scare-mongering tactics to increase costs. They have actually hurt the environment by such tactics as shutting down our lumber production so that we have to get lumber from locations that are far less regulated. Or stopping all forest fires so that no underbrush can be cleared out, causing later forest fires that are much larger. These political environmentalists also take away credibility from the true environmentalists that suggest changes like increasing recycling.



Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.



Blindly following the politics behind what everyone knows is scare-mongering tactics is once again falling for the political environmentalists lies, instead of listening to true environmentalists.



You yourself know that there is no way to justify the lies told by the gorical. These type of scare-tactics always underlie a con job.



The con job is placing a heavy tax on people to institute a policy that will have very little true effect on the climate during a recession.



I'm all for making sacrifices, but (I know its crazy) I like to know what the effects of my sacrifice will be.

Answer 4

One of the reasons that Nuclear power costs so much is because of all of the added safety measures and other costs that are put on this to try to prevent this form of energy.



How come people like you Dana who are for green energy don't like nuclear energy since it is a green source of energy. Also, how do you propose to build solar farms when the one being proposed in the Sonora desert is running up against environmentalists against this farm? And for the other alternative sources of energy such as wind and solar, how will you store the energy created for times when the sun is not shining and the wind is not blowing?

Answer 5

The answer is all in some of Bucket's answer



"In the 1970's-1980's, many environmentalists had concerns over nuclear power, which eventually lead to stricter regulation."



It is these regulations that have driven up the costs of nuclear energy.



He then says



"Environmentalists had been supporting renewable energy."



Bingo. My contention all along. Global warming is not about fears of climate, but concerns that we have to adopt to renewable energy. You claim that we are paranoid, that you are only about concerned about the earth heating up. What we are saying is 'prove us wrong' by supporting co2 reduction means that does not fulfill another agenda. If you are really concerned about global warming, then why do you not support nuclear energy? That is our (or at least my point)



But you do not do that. It seems that any time a proposal is put forward (like nuclear power and geoengineering like co2 scrubbers) you immediately shoot that down. You are only interested in policies that also fulfill another agenda.



Where I live everybody uses solar powered water heaters. It has nothing to do about concerns about the environment, but because they are cost effective. The money you save on energy more than pays for the solar panels. No subsidies are necessary. But there is one problem, no sun, no hot water (we then have to switch to electricity).



It does not matter what the cost comparisons are. Renewable energy cannot deliver a base load. That is what many experts say. No wind or sun means no power, which in turn means blackouts.

Answer 6

...also picking up on bucket's theme...



1) They don't understand the reality of much of anything, apparently.



2) They absolutely automatically reject anything the left suggests without any consideration of merit, as the source is irretrievably corrupt.



3) The right wing propaganda machine has been feeding this vile anti-American hatred of anyone or anything that doesn't agree with the reactionary nationalist agenda - for decades. It started with the equating liberalism with communism earlier in the 20th century. Then they were handed a great gift in during the American cultural revolution of the 1960's - a clear dividing line between progressives and reactionaries. Henceforth anyone who agrees with them is a red-blooded, gun tote'n, God fear'n, Christian, apple pie & baseball lovin, straight, True and Perfect Patriot. And anyone who doesn't is a degenerate hippy dope smoking atheist homosexual traitor neo-Malthusian genocidalist bent on destroying the American way of life.



They live in pathological fear of change. They would rather demonize the opposition and polarize an entire nation / would rather have failure than any attempt at change or progress - rather than face that fear.



And you can quote the chief dopehead Rush on this verbatim. Oh, dittohead, right.



When we refuse to confront our fear of change, confront the truth of our environmental problems, we condemn humanity to a future of strife, suffering and death.



History will decide who are the suicidal / genocidal and who are the rational.

-----------------------------------------------------------------



With the current nuclear fuel cycle we will mine out all the uranium within decades. After 50 years we still have no solution for the waste, the spent fuel that still has 98% of the potential energy still in it. We could re-process nuclear fuel and get power for (sorry only) 10's of thousands of years. But the problems with nuclear power outweigh the benefits. The UK and now France have abandoned their reprocessing efforts, mainly due to cost. But cost is only one of the problems.



And now we have the technology to supply all our energy from renewables, and cheaper too. We can skip the nuclear "bridge" to sustainability and move straight to renewables now.



http://www.sciamdigital.com/index.cfm?fa=Products.ViewIssuePreview&ARTICLEID_CHAR=7232617C-237D-9F22-E8D11BD75EC6B0D5



Sorry, it appears this article is only in print.

Answer 7

The 1st reason is to call their bluff -- IF you were serious about clean energy and the planet, then nuclear power is the answer. Since most GW believers are against nuclear power it shows us they are not serious about reducing carbon footprints.



Second - it is a lot cheaper than wind and solar power over the long run. What makes them expensive to build is the unnecessary litigation by environmental groups who do all they can to prevent them from being built



Third - We need more energy in this country.



Finally - You have one group that "claims" to want to save the planet yet refuses to live that lifestyle personally, and will not allow the cleanest form of energy to be used. Then you have another group who doubts that there is a "crisis" but is in favor of building new clean energy sources even if they are expensive at first.



Which group is being unreasonable?

Answer 8

The assumptions that those that push for more nuclear power operate under are basically:

-that nuclear power produces "zero CO2 emissions", which isn't true...since the mining of uranium produces plenty of CO2.

-that uranium resources are basically "never-ending", which they aren't...since the vast majority of readily available uranium resources will be running out in well less than 100 (and that's if we don't increase the number of nuclear plants).

-that nuclear power is "clean" (as it produces "zero pollution"), which is false...since every nuclear power plant in the USA is basically a permanent nuclear waste dump (moderate & high-level nuclear waste is radioactive for around 100,000 years).

Answer 9

But what makes nuclear so expensive is all the red tape.



We think that there should be a wide range of electricity sources, because in most cases there is a finite amount of the fuel, and there are competing uses (e.g., natural gas for heating), and because those factors increase cost.

Answer 10

I rarely encounter a denier who has any idea what he's talking about. Of course theyre parroting what their leaders tell them to. Have you ever seen the people who support Glenn Beck get asked questions by media at their rallies? Theyre clueless. Out there bashing czars. None of them knew Reagan coined the term for a US position. Or that Bush had them too.

Answer 11

How do you reconcile the fact that the originator of the global warming movement started it to promote nuclear energy?

Answer 12

The warmers - the radical Malthusian environmentalists/genocidalists - want to halt human development, destroy industrial civilization, and radically reduce the population.



However, because skeptics don't buy into the warming hysteria and the neo-fascist neo-Malthusian nonsense behind it, we appreciate the potential nuclear energy has in uplifting the world's poor and developing all of the nations of the world.



It's really a matter of values: skeptics generally tend to have human values, while the environmentalists/genocidalists tend to have anti-human values (if any at all).



As for the hand-wringing about accounting costs, that's nonsense. Anyone who thinks that decisions regarding energy policy ought to be made based on monetary concerns is in no way competent to discuss such matters. Nuclear power is by far the most physically efficient method of generating electricity.



Monetarily, this is evidenced when you use a 0% discount rate in calculating the costs of various alternatives. The only reason new nuclear plants are relatively and superficially expensive is because of the usury of the financiers.



*Edit*



"@ NEW DEAL DEMOCRAT



How much were you paid?"



$0.00. How about yourself?

Answer 13

Uhhh, What right wing media??

Nuclear power is supported because it is clean fuel and will provide power cheaper and more efficiently without polluting the planet. Yes, it cost money to build plants, but that would provide jobs won't it?

No matter the cost, it is insignificant compared to the benefits. And 14 billion dollars?? That's chicken feed to this new 'Administration" that provides multibillions of dollars to research what makes a pig stink--

I can tell him for I million bucks--'cause it is a pig!!!

Answer 14

The reason nuke power plants are so expensive to build is because of superstitious nonsense about nuke power to begin with. Contractors have to deal with legal issues at every step of the building process. With anyone else, this would be extortion and money laundering, but since it's lawyers hired by the EPA, the extortion is okay.



And this is where environmentalists and AGW mavens get it twisted. There are few carbon emissions with a nuke plant. Now that makes people like Al Gore upset because he can't tap into the vast "carbon credit" scam he wants all of us to pay into.



And Obama can't constrain nuke plants with his stupid "climate change" BILLS as if now, people think he can control the weather. He can't, too busy playing golf, or signing health care bills without looking at them.



We should of had nuke plants 30 years ago. That is of course, if climate change caused by man is true.

Answer 15

I would just like to say that Bill A. nailed it. Square on the head. Clear thinking is so refreshing.

Answer 16

A good many of them are just 'anti environmentalism', and since they think environmentalists oppose nuclear power, they feel obligated to support it. At least that's the impression I get from the ditto heads.



...and I now see that bucket has already said this, albeit much better : P

Answer 17

'skeptics' support nuke plants because they are cleaner and more cost effective than other fuel sources. 1 plant provides more power, more reliable power, than 2,000, 30ft tall wind turbines. compared to solar and wind energy, it is more cost effective. and fossil fuels let of harmful gases into the atmosphere.

Answer 18

Who?

As always with you peddlers of puerile piffle you make statements with absolutely no proof, or did you computer model it?

Answer 19

No pollution, will last for millions of years and most important of all your boss David Rockefeller will not make a single penney off of it.

Answer 20

individual and collective response to global warming has its positive and negative implications. global warming is affecting nations most especally the poor ones, this could be the focus of the world's resources protecting lives of people not only their investments and profits.

Answer 21

Giant hamster wheels Dana, that's the answer. Giant hamster wheels connected to generators. We get a bunch of you underemployed hippies, feed you some granola and then you get in your wheel and start walking.