[US Election 2016] Democratic Primary Megathread II

[AiliailiA]

Hold the fuck up. What? He does? Why is that being ignored?

If that's true, honestly, that's a colossal problem. Nuclear energy, fission or fusion, is one of the most important tools we have in the fight against climate change and just in general is a great source of power, and the safety of modern reactors is extremely good (unscientific fearmongering about OMG CHERNOBYL FUKUSHIMA THREE MILE ISLAND aside, of course).

You're surprised that Sanders is taking unorthodox left wing positions that go against most reasonable sentiments? Huh.

It's not that unorthodox.

Gallup has a slight majority of the public supporting nuclear energy. But that includes maintaining current levels.

Support for building new plants would be under:

U.S. Should Place "More Emphasis" on Each Source of Domestic Energy Production, by Party ID

	Republicans	Independents	Democrats
	%	%	%
Solar Power	70	83	82
Wind	63	69	81
Natural Gas	66	52	49
Oil	60	38	28
Nuclear Power	47	34	24
Coal	40	24	22
.
March 5-8, 2015

Democrats don't like Nuclear ... the only source Democrats like less is COAL. And Independents aren't much better!

[G-Tech Corporation]

You're surprised that Sanders is taking unorthodox left wing positions that go against most reasonable sentiments? Huh.

It's not that unorthodox.

Gallup has a slight majority of the public supporting nuclear energy. But that includes maintaining current levels.

Support for building new plants would be under:

U.S. Should Place "More Emphasis" on Each Source of Domestic Energy Production, by Party ID

	Republicans	Independents	Democrats
	%	%	%
Solar Power	70	83	82
Wind	63	69	81
Natural Gas	66	52	49
Oil	60	38	28
Nuclear Power	47	34	24
Coal	40	24	22
.
March 5-8, 2015

Democrats don't like Nuclear ... the only source Democrats like less is COAL. And Independents aren't much better!

Sadly, nuclear isn't sexy enough for environmentalists. Thorium fuel cycles deal with literally any concerns with nuclear, save perhaps the environmental impact of their secondary cooling loops.

[Ngelmish]

And I, unlike Sanders, don't want to phase the industry completely out. So sure, in comparison to him I want spend more.

Why's that? Genuinely curious of your vision.

Renewables still aren't able to pick up all the industry slack, although we've made some improvements, I don't want to rely on coal anymore than we absolutely have to (or go back to pre-2009 dependency on crude oil) and Sanders also wants to ban fracking. I'm legitimately torn on that point, human error with fracking has catastrophic implications, but properly handled has a lot to recommend it economically. Nuclear energy is a vital component of our the energy grid for the time being.

Now what I would like to see done is something similar to the urban renewal plan O'Malley was talking about while he was still in the race: Talking specifically about renovating and retrofitting urban buildings with renewable energy. I think a major infrastructure project along those lines would, besides accomplishing good in itself, be a significant push to keep innovating those energy sources. It would also be a good starting place to get clear data about how efficacious renovation on that scale would be (I expect it would be), at which point it would be appropriate to start phasing various outdated sources. But to get even that far, I think nuclear is a key component of being as clean as we can.

[Corrian]

Ugh, a bunch of people on someones post my dad knows on Facebook said their registration was messed up in New York. This is really not a state we need to turn into another Arizona. I can't accept the voting numbers to be what they should be when people who should be able to vote can't even freaking vote.

[Faustian Fantasies]

Why's that? Genuinely curious of your vision.

Renewables still aren't able to pick up all the industry slack, although we've made some improvements, I don't want to rely on coal anymore than we absolutely have to (or go back to pre-2009 dependency on crude oil) and Sanders also wants to ban fracking. I'm legitimately torn on that point, human error with fracking has catastrophic implications, but properly handled has a lot to recommend it economically. Nuclear energy is a vital component of our the energy grid for the time being.

Now what I would like to see done is something similar to the urban renewal plan O'Malley was talking about while he was still in the race: Talking specifically about renovating and retrofitting urban buildings with renewable energy. I think a major infrastructure project along those lines would, besides accomplishing good in itself, be a significant push to keep innovating those energy sources. It would also be a good starting place to get clear data about how efficacious renovation on that scale would be (I expect it would be), at which point it would be appropriate to start phasing various outdated sources. But to get even that far, I think nuclear is a key component of being as clean as we can.

How much do you think putting money into fueling environmental innovation might be beneficial, and especially compared to spending those billions on new nuclear plants? We could possibly have solar and wind catch up as a result, but I don't know. I remember talking to an environmental project salesman about how one proposed photovoltaic cell with the capacity to operate daily can cost hundreds of millions for a single unit. I don't remember the exact name of the project, it's somewhere out in Los Angeles. Point is, there's definitely a gap between renewables and energy in terms of availability and cost. But perhaps, as Sanders suggests, we can remedy this by making fossil fuels incredibly expensive through taxation to make renewable energy economically preferable for companies, and then invest in increasingly efficient wind and solar programs.

I agree with O'Malley's plan, and it might even circumvent the need for more energy efficiency in most households.

[AiliailiA]

You mean we should shit out tens of billions on outdated reactors?

Hardly. We should build new better reactors. Slap tens of billions into breeder reactors, thorium fuel cycle reactors, reprocessing facilities.

That's music to my ears. Particularly reprocessing: France proved decades ago that reprocessing doesn't just cut the amount of intractable waste but it can be profitable too.

Given how much we spend on literally useless projects, we can afford to divert some funds to give us affordable, infinite, clean, power.

It's not infinite nor entirely clean. It's just much better than all the others.

[Faustian Fantasies]

Deaths for who?

Humans

Correct. Does that mean we should ignore the effects on aquatic life from thermal pollution?

[Senkaku]

You're surprised that Sanders is taking unorthodox left wing positions that go against most reasonable sentiments? Huh.

It's not that unorthodox.

Gallup has a slight majority of the public supporting nuclear energy. But that includes maintaining current levels.

Support for building new plants would be under:

U.S. Should Place "More Emphasis" on Each Source of Domestic Energy Production, by Party ID

	Republicans	Independents	Democrats
	%	%	%
Solar Power	70	83	82
Wind	63	69	81
Natural Gas	66	52	49
Oil	60	38	28
Nuclear Power	47	34	24
Coal	40	24	22
.
March 5-8, 2015

Democrats don't like Nuclear ... the only source Democrats like less is COAL. And Independents aren't much better!

I knew this, I'm not honestly that surprised. I just find it intensely frustrating that the media's fearmongering over the incredibly rare nuclear accidents we do have (many of which occurred decades ago with incredibly outdated technology) is preventing politicians from moving us (both America and the entire world) towards a brighter future. Thorium reactors (and also the latest generation of modern and extremely safe uranium and plutonium reactors, too) offer an enormous opportunity for humanity to basically have limitless clean power. The obstinate refusal of environmentalists to even consider nuclear and the way they've alienated not just the left but much of the voting public to it frankly sickens me, because it's one thing where the technology actually exists to allow us to build a brighter world.
Honestly this is something that might make me consider switching my support from Hillary to Bernie, if he were supporting it and she weren't. I'm not sure if it would, but it's a hugely important issue. I should go see what Hillary's position on it- hopefully, since she's more centrist, it'll be more moderate, but given the Democratic Party's preference for token environmentalism when it's convenient for them to bow to the Greenpeace types in their base, I don't have high hopes.

It is at times like this that I remember that America needs to get its shit together.

[Faustian Fantasies]

You mean we should shit out tens of billions on outdated reactors?

Hardly. We should build new better reactors. Slap tens of billions into breeder reactors, thorium fuel cycle reactors, reprocessing facilities. Given how much we spend on literally useless projects, we can afford to divert some funds to give us affordable, infinite, clean, power.

I agree more money should be spent on environmental research. I disagree on where the funds should be directed.

[Senkaku]

Humans

Correct. Does that mean we should ignore the effects on aquatic life from thermal pollution?

No, it means we should take steps to mitigate thermal pollution. Nuclear plants release pretty much zero emissions and their waste products can be minimized and disposed of securely. They are, if we choose to invest in them, far superior to many other green or renewable energy sources. What do you propose as an alternative?

[Faustian Fantasies]

It's not that unorthodox.

Gallup has a slight majority of the public supporting nuclear energy. But that includes maintaining current levels.

Support for building new plants would be under:

U.S. Should Place "More Emphasis" on Each Source of Domestic Energy Production, by Party ID

	Republicans	Independents	Democrats
	%	%	%
Solar Power	70	83	82
Wind	63	69	81
Natural Gas	66	52	49
Oil	60	38	28
Nuclear Power	47	34	24
Coal	40	24	22
.
March 5-8, 2015

Democrats don't like Nuclear ... the only source Democrats like less is COAL. And Independents aren't much better!

I knew this, I'm not honestly that surprised. I just find it intensely frustrating that the media's fearmongering over the incredibly rare nuclear accidents we do have (many of which occurred decades ago with incredibly outdated technology) is preventing politicians from moving us (both America and the entire world) towards a brighter future. Thorium reactors (and also the latest generation of modern and extremely safe uranium and plutonium reactors, too) offer an enormous opportunity for humanity to basically have limitless clean power. The obstinate refusal of environmentalists to even consider nuclear and the way they've alienated not just the left but much of the voting public to it frankly sickens me, because it's one thing where the technology actually exists to allow us to build a brighter world.
Honestly this is something that might make me consider switching my support from Hillary to Bernie, if he were supporting it and she weren't. I'm not sure if it would, but it's a hugely important issue. I should go see what Hillary's position on it- hopefully, since she's more centrist, it'll be more moderate, but given the Democratic Party's preference for token environmentalism when it's convenient for them to bow to the Greenpeace types in their base, I don't have high hopes.

It is at times like this that I remember that America needs to get its shit together.

It's unfair to reduce opposition to nuclear power, or advocacy of policies which phase out nuclear power, to fear of a possible nuclear meltdown.

[Occupied Deutschland]

Humans

Correct. Does that mean we should ignore the effects on aquatic life from thermal pollution?

Ignore? No.
Reasonably accommodate and mitigate in exchange for significantly more efficient power-production on a global scale impacting more life than just that within the downstream impact of thermal water pollution from nuclear plants? Yes.

Particularly considering the lower life-cycle impact of nuclear power in relation to even other renewable options (wind excepted).

Which, to bring it around back to the topic, is one reason Sander's energy plan is odd in that respect. I suspect the dude has consumed WAY too much of the 60s/70s enviro-wackjob drivel on the topic as opposed to seriously considering it, and is stuck in the strain of democratic leftism that sees 'The China Syndrome' as more documentary than thriller. Potentially through little fault of his own (those attitudes have become worryingly widespread and unquestioned within environmental orthodoxy, and they shared some popularity with the economic leftism Bernie trumpets in their birth-years).

[Ngelmish]

Renewables still aren't able to pick up all the industry slack, although we've made some improvements, I don't want to rely on coal anymore than we absolutely have to (or go back to pre-2009 dependency on crude oil) and Sanders also wants to ban fracking. I'm legitimately torn on that point, human error with fracking has catastrophic implications, but properly handled has a lot to recommend it economically. Nuclear energy is a vital component of our the energy grid for the time being.

Now what I would like to see done is something similar to the urban renewal plan O'Malley was talking about while he was still in the race: Talking specifically about renovating and retrofitting urban buildings with renewable energy. I think a major infrastructure project along those lines would, besides accomplishing good in itself, be a significant push to keep innovating those energy sources. It would also be a good starting place to get clear data about how efficacious renovation on that scale would be (I expect it would be), at which point it would be appropriate to start phasing various outdated sources. But to get even that far, I think nuclear is a key component of being as clean as we can.

How much do you think putting money into fueling environmental innovation might be beneficial, and especially compared to spending those billions on new nuclear plants? We could possibly have solar and wind catch up as a result, but I don't know. I remember talking to an environmental project salesman about how one proposed photovoltaic cell with the capacity to operate daily can cost hundreds of millions for a single unit. I don't remember the exact name of the project, it's somewhere out in Los Angeles. Point is, there's definitely a gap between renewables and energy in terms of availability and cost. But perhaps, as Sanders suggests, we can remedy this by making fossil fuels incredibly expensive through taxation to make renewable energy economically preferable for companies, and then invest in increasingly efficient wind and solar programs.

I agree with O'Malley's plan, and it might even circumvent the need for more energy efficiency in most households.

In an either/or scenario, I would favor more innovation. Solar and wind already have made improvements, and if their marketability continues to improve (via infrastructure plans say) we would see that process accelerate. At the same time, however, there's no reason to cut ourselves off at the knees on nuclear energy, the key to that is to put more serious value on reprocessing facilities. When it comes to clean energy, outside of small pockets of geothermal energy, nuclear does most of the heavy lifting, and the risks are manageable.

[Senkaku]

I knew this, I'm not honestly that surprised. I just find it intensely frustrating that the media's fearmongering over the incredibly rare nuclear accidents we do have (many of which occurred decades ago with incredibly outdated technology) is preventing politicians from moving us (both America and the entire world) towards a brighter future. Thorium reactors (and also the latest generation of modern and extremely safe uranium and plutonium reactors, too) offer an enormous opportunity for humanity to basically have limitless clean power. The obstinate refusal of environmentalists to even consider nuclear and the way they've alienated not just the left but much of the voting public to it frankly sickens me, because it's one thing where the technology actually exists to allow us to build a brighter world.
Honestly this is something that might make me consider switching my support from Hillary to Bernie, if he were supporting it and she weren't. I'm not sure if it would, but it's a hugely important issue. I should go see what Hillary's position on it- hopefully, since she's more centrist, it'll be more moderate, but given the Democratic Party's preference for token environmentalism when it's convenient for them to bow to the Greenpeace types in their base, I don't have high hopes.

It is at times like this that I remember that America needs to get its shit together.

It's unfair to reduce opposition to nuclear power, or advocacy of policies which phase out nuclear power, to fear of a possible nuclear meltdown.

It is fair to educate the public and give them the actual facts, rather than squeal about Chernobyl and Fukushima. If people still oppose it once they actually know the full story, then fine. They can oppose it. But I think if more people knew how beneficial nuclear power actually is, what it could do for America and the world, and how safe it is, we wouldn't see many people who had a sufficient lack of vision to not support it.

Edit: wow there were lots of typos in here

[Tahar Joblis]

Ugh, a bunch of people on someones post my dad knows on Facebook said their registration was messed up in New York. This is really not a state we need to turn into another Arizona. I can't accept the voting numbers to be what they should be when people who should be able to vote can't even freaking vote.

It looks pretty massive.

The more I read about this, the more I think this has little to do with Clinton vs Sanders, and much more to do with crooked politics on the state and local level. It's just that the national campaign has cast enough light on what's been going on in New York that we suddenly have an idea of the scope of the problem.

[AiliailiA]

It's not that unorthodox.

Gallup has a slight majority of the public supporting nuclear energy. But that includes maintaining current levels.

Support for building new plants would be under:

U.S. Should Place "More Emphasis" on Each Source of Domestic Energy Production, by Party ID

	Republicans	Independents	Democrats
	%	%	%
Solar Power	70	83	82
Wind	63	69	81
Natural Gas	66	52	49
Oil	60	38	28
Nuclear Power	47	34	24
Coal	40	24	22
.
March 5-8, 2015

Democrats don't like Nuclear ... the only source Democrats like less is COAL. And Independents aren't much better!

Sadly, nuclear isn't sexy enough for environmentalists. Thorium fuel cycles deal with literally any concerns with nuclear, save perhaps the environmental impact of their secondary cooling loops.

Pro-nuclear environmentalist here

The anti-nukes aren't just environmentalists, they're single-issue nutbags. Like the Left's equivalent of pro-lifers except I think even more fanatical. Pro-lifers will respond to issues like gay marriage or adoption rights, but anti-nukes seem to ignore everything in politics until someone mentions the word "nuclear" then suddenly they're yelling at the top of their lungs and chaining themselves to something.

I don't know what they do the rest of the time. I imagine they're trying to find porn on this internet thingy
"Porn"
"Porn new age"
"Porn lovebeads"
"Porn lovebeads in color"
"Porn lovebeads in color under 40"
Bummer. I knew this internet thing wouldn't work ...

*cough*
OK, that's not Democrats in general. Nor is it all environmentalists. But I wouldn't be surprised if Democrats are a bit intimidated by anti-nukes and wary of stirring them up.

[Faustian Fantasies]

Correct. Does that mean we should ignore the effects on aquatic life from thermal pollution?

No, it means we should take steps to mitigate thermal pollution. Nuclear plants release pretty much zero emissions and their waste products can be minimized and disposed of securely. They are, if we choose to invest in them, far superior to many other green or renewable energy sources. What do you propose as an alternative?

What steps should we take to mitigate thermal pollution? Thermal pollution is rather inherent to all of the nuclear power plants we've presently built. They all require water as a coolant and that leads to thermal pollution. Perhaps you could recycle the water, but considering that would require more spending on updates, that's further adding to the cost of nuclear power.

My alternative recognizes the immediate need to reduce carbon emissions and therefore adopts a rapid-paced approach. First, pass legislation to make fossil fuels exuberantly expensive to private corporations, creating an economic incentive to use renewable resources despite their costs. Corporations will invest in more efficient forms of renewable energy if it's their only remaining energy source. We increase spending on the environment (maybe we should look at our bloated defense budget--no point defending land that is uninhabitable) to maximize energy efficiency in all American public buildings. Additionally, private homes could opt in to the program as well, which is financially beneficial given the long-term savings of energy efficiency. We help farmers employ infrared technology to use their water with drastically less waste, helping to offset the financial costs of the technology to farmers and mitigating the stress the effects of global warming will have on our water supply. We create a massive New Deal-esque public work programs to hire millions of unemployed people who can exert the necessary labor for these programs, and they could even begin building infrastructure that will take in more surface water instead of letting it run off.

[AiliailiA]

I knew this, I'm not honestly that surprised. I just find it intensely frustrating that the media's fearmongering over the incredibly rare nuclear accidents we do have (many of which occurred decades ago with incredibly outdated technology) is preventing politicians from moving us (both America and the entire world) towards a brighter future. Thorium reactors (and also the latest generation of modern and extremely safe uranium and plutonium reactors, too) offer an enormous opportunity for humanity to basically have limitless clean power. The obstinate refusal of environmentalists to even consider nuclear and the way they've alienated not just the left but much of the voting public to it frankly sickens me, because it's one thing where the technology actually exists to allow us to build a brighter world.
Honestly this is something that might make me consider switching my support from Hillary to Bernie, if he were supporting it and she weren't. I'm not sure if it would, but it's a hugely important issue. I should go see what Hillary's position on it- hopefully, since she's more centrist, it'll be more moderate, but given the Democratic Party's preference for token environmentalism when it's convenient for them to bow to the Greenpeace types in their base, I don't have high hopes.

It is at times like this that I remember that America needs to get its shit together.

It's unfair to reduce opposition to nuclear power, or advocacy of policies which phase out nuclear power, to fear of a possible nuclear meltdown.

True. But that is a big factor, as you see by the inflexions of the public opinion graph at the two major accidents.

[Corrian]

Ugh, a bunch of people on someones post my dad knows on Facebook said their registration was messed up in New York. This is really not a state we need to turn into another Arizona. I can't accept the voting numbers to be what they should be when people who should be able to vote can't even freaking vote.

It looks pretty massive.

The more I read about this, the more I think this has little to do with Clinton vs Sanders, and much more to do with crooked politics on the state and local level. It's just that the national campaign has cast enough light on what's been going on in New York that we suddenly have an idea of the scope of the problem.

It is pathetic. We shouldn't be getting worse with access to voting, we should be getting better.

And even though I don't believe the "IT IS RIGGED BY HILLARY!", governments being this incompetent does not remotely help the Bernie Sanders crowds view on the whole thing.

Though I dunno if this affects everyone like in Arizona or not.

[Faustian Fantasies]

It's unfair to reduce opposition to nuclear power, or advocacy of policies which phase out nuclear power, to fear of a possible nuclear meltdown.

It is fair to educate the public and give them the actual facts, rather than squeal about Chernobyl and Fukushima. If people still oppose it once they actually know the full story, then fine. They can oppose it. But I think if more people knew how beneficial nuclear power actually is, what it could do for America and the world, and how safe it is, we wouldn't see many people who had a sufficient lack of vision to not support it.

Edit: wow there were lots of typos in here

Yes, people should understand that nuclear energy is unlikely to kill us all. I just noticed a slight trend where critics assume that anybody who opposes nuclear or prefers less of an emphasis of nuclear must believe so because of Chernobyl and Three Mile Island. It's probably detrimental for those critics to typecast a worldview into one stupid reason like that. In contrast to them, you seemed to recognize that many people continue to opposite it once they know more than this.

[Faustian Fantasies]

It's unfair to reduce opposition to nuclear power, or advocacy of policies which phase out nuclear power, to fear of a possible nuclear meltdown.

True. But that is a big factor, as you see by the inflexions of the public opinion graph at the two major accidents.

It is assuredly a large influence on public opinion.

[Senkaku]

What steps should we take to mitigate thermal pollution? Thermal pollution is rather inherent to all of the nuclear power plants we've presently built. They all require water as a coolant and that leads to thermal pollution. Perhaps you could recycle the water, but considering that would require more spending on updates, that's further adding to the cost of nuclear power.

Cooling ponds and cooling towers are both good ways to at least make a start. Siting reactors so that their inevitable thermal pollution (because as you say, they're going to cause some) has minimal effect on the environment is important. However, at some point, we may just have to accept some thermal pollution as the price of zero emissions, huge power outputs, and a basically endless power supply. By building cooling ponds, cooling towers, possibly recycling the water in some reactors, and siting reactors to try and minimize their impact, I feel like you could to a good enough job that it would absolutely make it worth it.

Frankly, even if you didn't do any of that, or maybe just built some cooling towers like many power plants have, I think it'd still be worth it. Thermal pollution, compared to the scourges of smog, global warming, acid rain, and chemical pollution, is more localized and less directly harmful to humans.


Also, your "alternative" seems like it would just create a black market for fossil fuels, but that's none of my business.

[Faustian Fantasies]

What steps should we take to mitigate thermal pollution? Thermal pollution is rather inherent to all of the nuclear power plants we've presently built. They all require water as a coolant and that leads to thermal pollution. Perhaps you could recycle the water, but considering that would require more spending on updates, that's further adding to the cost of nuclear power.

Cooling ponds and cooling towers are both good ways to at least make a start. Siting reactors so that their inevitable thermal pollution (because as you say, they're going to cause some) has minimal effect on the environment is important. However, at some point, we may just have to accept some thermal pollution as the price of zero emissions, huge power outputs, and a basically endless power supply. By building cooling ponds, cooling towers, possibly recycling the water in some reactors, and siting reactors to try and minimize their impact, I feel like you could to a good enough job that it would absolutely make it worth it.

Frankly, even if you didn't do any of that, or maybe just built some cooling towers like many power plants have, I think it'd still be worth it. Thermal pollution, compared to the scourges of smog, global warming, acid rain, and chemical pollution, is more localized and less directly harmful to humans.

I can agree with this.

[Senkaku]

It is fair to educate the public and give them the actual facts, rather than squeal about Chernobyl and Fukushima. If people still oppose it once they actually know the full story, then fine. They can oppose it. But I think if more people knew how beneficial nuclear power actually is, what it could do for America and the world, and how safe it is, we wouldn't see many people who had a sufficient lack of vision to not support it.

Edit: wow there were lots of typos in here

Yes, people should understand that nuclear energy is unlikely to kill us all. I just noticed a slight trend where critics assume that anybody who opposes nuclear or prefers less of an emphasis of nuclear must believe so because of Chernobyl and Three Mile Island. It's probably detrimental for those critics to typecast a worldview into one stupid reason like that. In contrast to them, you seemed to recognize that many people continue to opposite it once they know more than this.

Frankly given that misinformed fear of meltdowns does seem to be a significant factor in public fear of nuclear power, I don't think it's entirely unfair. I think there can be other reasons, but I also think all of those reasons can, thanks to modern technology, now be sufficiently addressed as long as some politician grows a pair.

[Guy]

Anti-nuclear leftist here. Investment in renewables is simply the safer option, and the premium you pay is minimal.

Two massive accidents in a few decades is bad enough, considering we're speaking of an energy form for millennia to come. Right now, the proportion of dangerous US nuclear facilities is ridiculously high.

But the true issue is that the risk of 'nuclear research' yielding weaponry is one that we've gone through way too many times.

The world is moving towards green, not nuclear. Many nations have pledged never to allow nuclear within their borders, while others are moving away from it (Europe, Japan).