Liberals and Nuclear Power

[Screensaver]

So I am wondering what liberals think about nuclear power for electricity generation. I have met many liberals (mostly poorly informed about the facts of nuclear power) that outright oppose nuclear power. I am in favor of nuclear power because it is much cleaner than Coal, Oil, and Natural Gas and despite popular misconception it is actually safe. After all in the 50 year history of nuclear power there have only been 3 nuclear power plant incidents and only one of them (Chernobyl) resulted in fatalities. Chernobyl and 3 mile island could both have been prevented by following safety regulations and the Fukushima incident could have been prevented building nuclear power plants to handle a higher amount of stress. While I welcome non-liberals to this thread I really want to know what liberals think about nuclear power.

[Conserative Morality]

I'm pretty far left by US Standards (Which, admittedly, puts me pretty close to the center or center-right by international standards), and I fully support nuclear power.

[Screensaver]

I'm pretty far left by US Standards (Which, admittedly, puts me pretty close to the center or center-right by international standards), and I fully support nuclear power.

In my experience the difference in political spectrum's isn't really as large as a far-left american being considered center-right in other countries.

[The Archregimancy]

Can we define "liberal" here?

Are we using the American definition of "left of centre by American standards", or are we using a broader definition?

If the former, then I know many liberals who support nuclear power. Including my father, who, before he retired, was responsible for writing many of the international private sector's nuclear power plant safety protocols; when he was working in the US, his co-workers often referred to him as the 'token office commie'.

[Screensaver]

Can we define "liberal" here?

Are we using the American definition of "left of centre by American standards", or are we using a broader definition?

If the former, then I know many liberals who support nuclear power. Including my father, who, before he retired, was responsible for writing many of the international private sector's nuclear power plant safety protocols; when he was working in the US, his co-workers often referred to him as the 'token office commie'.

In my experience there really isn't that much a difference between an american and european liberal (I have had experience with both) other than a few minor differences on a few trivial issues.

[Conserative Morality]

In my experience the difference in political spectrum's isn't really as large as a far-left american being considered center-right in other countries.

Dunno about that. I'm pretty sure the Tories would get drummed out for being socialists out where I live.

[Hathradic States]

I am not a liberal by any standards (in Europe I am probably an demonic reactionary), and I support nuclear power.

[Wamitoria]

I'd be considered far-left by international standards, and I'm moderately supportive of nuclear power. Do I get a taco or something?

Many American liberals and European center-leftists have legitimate concerns regarding safety standards and storage of nuclear waste, and admittedly I hope that nuclear power is eventually replaced completely by wind, solar, and fusion power.

In my experience the difference in political spectrum's isn't really as large as a far-left american being considered center-right in other countries.

Dunno about that. I'm pretty sure the Tories would get drummed out for being socialists out where I live.

Aren't you from Maryland?

[Conserative Morality]

Aren't you from Maryland?

Western Maryland. Important distinction when discussing the politics of the area.

[The Archregimancy]

In my experience the difference in political spectrum's isn't really as large as a far-left american being considered center-right in other countries.

Dunno about that. I'm pretty sure the Tories would get drummed out for being socialists out where I live.

And all of us Gladstonian liberals might raise an eyebrow at the characterisation too.

[The Archregimancy]

<puts mod hat on>

Before this little derail goes any further - and accepting my own complicity - let's remember to focus on nuclear power, not how to define 'liberal'.

It seems that the OP means to use the American definition, so I'd recommend working with that.

[Baiynistan]

Social democrat, here. Fairly far Left globally, though I often see 'Liberal' as about as much of a dirty word as many Conservatives - I protest their being labelled as 'Left'. Anyway, I am all in favour of utilising nuclear power and I'd actually wish more countries (my own, the UK, included) would make a more conscious effort to switch to more nuclear energy dependence, away from relying on fossil fuel reserves, while there is still enough left to make the transition less frantic and difficult. Something like 80% of France's domestic energy is provided by nuclear power and I haven't heard of any French people mutating and literally becoming 'frog'-men or anything because of it (playful jib)!

Considering we still don't have any other viable replacement for fossil fuels yet, I think its pretty much inevitable that we will have to (and quite soon) rely on nuclear energy. Especially with ever-growing big economies like China, Brasil and India.

[Rereumrari]

The main concern is probably with the buildup of nuclear waste, which would create problems 1000 times worse than CO2 emissions do.

[Screensaver]

The main concern is probably with the buildup of nuclear waste, which would create problems 1000 times worse than CO2 emissions do.

1000 times worse? Do you have a source for that?

[Grenartia]

Why are you so concerned with liberals' opinions of nuclear power? Isn't political ideology irrelevant to the issue?

Anyways, yes, I am a liberal, and I'm in favor of responsibly handled nuclear power.

[New Octopucta]

I'm fairly liberal, and I support nuclear power. As I understand it, the issue of nuclear waste is what turns off a lot of environmentally interested liberals. Many would rather pour money into solar and wind power that don't produce as much. if any, waste.

[Indira]

By US standards, I'm a liberal. On this side of the pond, I'm moderately conservative. And I do find a LOT of the opponents of nuclear power are irrational to say the least. But maybe I haven't met the right ones. Either way, I'm FOR nuclear power

[Durustdan]

I am a moderate leftist and authoritarian, and I support nuclear power. I feel the energy produced and the opportunity of using Uranium outweighs the cons of nuclear pollution.

[Samozaryadnyastan]

The main concern is probably with the buildup of nuclear waste, which would create problems 1000 times worse than CO2 emissions do.

Well, no.
Because the two affect the environment in vastly different ways. This is very much apples and oranges.

Waste fuel can be reprocessed and recycled as additional fuel for breeder reactors, even when 'spent' - used in nuclear warheads (though this option's often heavily opposed, for some reason) or just buried.
And if you bury it properly (ie, expensively), then it poses no threat whatsoever.

[Toronina]

I think that Nuclear Power is dangerous, one Meltdown and a lot of damage could happen, Nuclear Power leads to more nukes, America gets a bad President and the nukes may be launched at 'Dirty pink commies', can you really trust Nuclear Power, talk about Wind Power being a eyesore, I'm Australian where we have no nukes but i'd hate to have to look out my window and see a Nuclear Power Plant, Solar Power is very nice, collect enough electricity and companies have to pay you, plus it's not a eyesore

[Toronina]

The main concern is probably with the buildup of nuclear waste, which would create problems 1000 times worse than CO2 emissions do.

Well, no.
Because the two affect the environment in vastly different ways. This is very much apples and oranges.

Waste fuel can be reprocessed and recycled as additional fuel for breeder reactors, even when 'spent' - used in nuclear warheads (though this option's often heavily opposed, for some reason) or just buried.
And if you bury it properly (ie, expensively), then it poses no threat whatsoever.

How many supporters of Nuclear power do you see wanting to bury it expensively, America is a Free Market Country, how many people who work in power plants want it to be burried expensively, and the DANGER to your employes, one acidental rip in a suit and they are not gonna like it

[Samozaryadnyastan]

I think that Nuclear Power is dangerous, one Meltdown and a lot of damage could happen, Nuclear Power leads to more nukes, America gets a bad President and the nukes may be launched at 'Dirty pink commies', can you really trust Nuclear Power, talk about Wind Power being a eyesore, I'm Australian where we have no nukes but i'd hate to have to look out my window and see a Nuclear Power Plant, Solar Power is very nice, collect enough electricity and companies have to pay you, plus it's not a eyesore

lol

Despite what I said, for basically the reasons I said (political opposition and a little thing called the NPT) using reactor waste for nuclear warheads isn't actually done anymore.
In fact, a lot of fourth generation reactor designs are looking into finding ways to prevent the waste being used for such purposes. Breeder reactors are a good one, since it burns the uranium completely out of the fuel, to a point where it'd be useless in a weapon.
Fourth generation designs also seek to reduce the risk of damage from meltdowns and other catastrophes. Recently a Chinese(?) 4th Gen design known as a Pebble Bed was deliberately deprived of coolant to see how it would perform in meltdown conditions. End result? No meltdown.

[CTALNH]

Can we define "liberal" here?

Are we using the American definition of "left of centre by American standards", or are we using a broader definition?

If the former, then I know many liberals who support nuclear power. Including my father, who, before he retired, was responsible for writing many of the international private sector's nuclear power plant safety protocols; when he was working in the US, his co-workers often referred to him as the 'token office commie'.

They probably didn't know what a Commie is.

[Samozaryadnyastan]

Well, no.
Because the two affect the environment in vastly different ways. This is very much apples and oranges.

Waste fuel can be reprocessed and recycled as additional fuel for breeder reactors, even when 'spent' - used in nuclear warheads (though this option's often heavily opposed, for some reason) or just buried.
And if you bury it properly (ie, expensively), then it poses no threat whatsoever.

How many supporters of Nuclear power do you see wanting to bury it expensively, America is a Free Market Country, how many people who work in power plants want it to be burried expensively, and the DANGER to your employes, one acidental rip in a suit and they are not gonna like it

Radiation isn't like bioweaponry or fucking sarin gas.

Pretty much the entire industry wants it buried expensively, if that's what it takes to get the public opinion back on the nuclear side. It's just not economically viable at present, because everyone's opposed to the construction of new waste storage depots.

[Samozaryadnyastan]

Can we define "liberal" here?

Are we using the American definition of "left of centre by American standards", or are we using a broader definition?

If the former, then I know many liberals who support nuclear power. Including my father, who, before he retired, was responsible for writing many of the international private sector's nuclear power plant safety protocols; when he was working in the US, his co-workers often referred to him as the 'token office commie'.

They probably didn't know what a Commie is.

They're probably having an office in-joke and are well aware of what Communism is.