Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
How do we put "no nukes" in a song?
Posted by: McQ on Saturday, October 13, 2007

Yup, I often take all my energy advice from Bonnie Raitt, Jackson Browne, Graham Nash and Harvey Wasserman (co-founders of Musicians United for Safe Energy). Of course CNN graciously provided them a forum for their propaganda. I especially liked this part:
When we first launched our anti-nukes campaign in the 70s, many of these green technologies were just beginning to take off. But in the nearly 30 years that have followed, green power has become one of the world's great growth industries. It has brought us to the brink of a technological revolution that could hold the key to stopping global warming while bringing us long-term prosperity based on safe, secure energy supplies.

With renewable energy, conservation and efficiency, we can end our dependence on polluting fossil and nuclear fuels and create true energy independence.

But these nuclear industry loan guarantees could make that all but impossible. These "new" reactors are the same as the old ones, with a few bells and whistles, and a proven 50-year track record of catastrophic failure.

On the brink of winning a green-powered planet, we intend to do all we can to avoid another radioactive dead-end. We hope you will join us.
On the "brink" of technology and on the "brink" of a "green-powered planet". Seems to have been on these "brinks" for about 30 years now. Why is it we're always on the "brink" when these things are talked about but for some reason never seem able to move past that?

In the meantime energy demand continues to grow and will soon outstrip supply.

If we're on the brink of new technologies (but yet to realize them any time soon) and our power demand is increasing dramatically and this crew doesn't want nukes, then what?

Ah, more coal fired plants of course.

Wonderful. Because even the most naive should understand the demand for energy will be met one way or the other.

Oh. About the "50-year track record of catastrophic failure" for nuclear power.

Where? We've had one fail and a few that have had to be shut down, but in the meantime they've provided millions in megawatts of power to millions upon millions of people in those 50 years.

BTW they do have "no nukes" (or words to that effect) in a song and if you really want to see it, you can find it here.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
over 80% of electric power generated in Europe comes from nuclear power plants, Nearly all of Japan’s electricity is generated by nuclear. This has been going on for nearly 40 years now. But of course, its all Americas fault.
 
Written By: Jimmy the Dhimmi
URL: http://www.warning1938alert.ytmnd.com
In the long run its all about hamstringing the US. Period.
 
Written By: jpm100
URL: http://
I guess they never heard of pepple bed reactors. The pebbles are fireproof and almost impossible to use for weapons production. As Dale noted in a post last year. If only Iran would agree to these types of reactors!
 
Written By: tonto
URL: http://
We’re about to turn the corner on energy, coal is in it’s last throes...heheh.

Jimmy the Dhimmi wrote:
over 80% of electric power generated in Europe comes from nuclear power plants, Nearly all of Japan’s electricity is generated by nuclear. This has been going on for nearly 40 years now. But of course, its all Americas fault.
This has always been the most amusing element for me. Environmentalists say the US should follow along with the rest of the enlightened world and sign Kyoto, etc...but we shouldn’t also follow their enlightened example of nuclear power. Our worst accident resulted in no deaths, yet for some reason environmentalists like to recall Chernobyl (because US nuclear plants would only adhere to Soviet standards? Maybe they just assume if the worker’s paradise of the USSR couldn’t do it safe, a lesser nation like the US certainly couldn’t do any better.)
 
Written By: James O
URL: http://
Hm.

Fermi-1 was closed in 1972 because of "reactor problems." It was replaced by Fermi-2.

http://ishgooda.org/nuclear/fermi2.htm

Fermi-2 was left to "idle" a few times while they repaired some issues during the 1990s. Not really much of a catastrophe.
 
Written By: jows
URL: http://
50 years of catastrophic failure indeed. Chernobyl- the poster case for this crap- was due to craptastic Russian design flaws and building standards.

 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
...due to craptastic Russian design flaws and building standards.

I would even take issue with that assessment. If you will pardon a pun, the design of the reactor and facilities was not the core reason for the Chernobyl disaster. The Economist recently printed a letter that summed it up nicely:
SIR – You describe the causes of the Chernobyl disaster to be “a combination of operator errors and inherent flaws in the plant’s design” (“Nuclear dawn”, September 8th). The real cause was not operator- or even industry-related. Soviet scientists were authorised to carry out experiments that required the reactor to be pushed to or beyond its limits, with safety features disabled. Consequently, meltdown occurred. This is documented by both Western and Soviet sources. All reactors have elaborate safety features to guard against similar disasters; proof lies in there having been no other Chernobyls. It is hard to imagine any nuclear power plant owner allowing the same misuse to occur again.
 
Written By: Wulf
URL: http://www.atlasblogged.com
Anyone know the number of coal mining related deaths in 2006 versus the number of nuclear reactor related deaths in 2006?
 
Written By: Linus
URL: http://
%$#@^*( filter.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
Interesting question, Linus. China alone is estimated to have about 5000 coal-mining deaths every year. That is more than the UN estimate for the total number of deaths directly attributable to the Chernobyl accident.

Cue thoughtful music.
 
Written By: Wulf
URL: http://www.atlasblogged.com
By the way, I see the anti-nuclear energy movement on the left as similar to the global warming deniers on the right. Each can find science that supports their view, each overlooks the majority of scientists who say either global warming is real and partially caused by humans or that nuclear energy is extremely safe, and each side is ideologically driven.

 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
Here’s my two cents. Having worked in the operation and testing of nuclear reactors, coal fired plants and associated equipment for over 40 years, I have much faith in the existing equipment with the new designs being much safer and green. I think is obvious that unless we wish to reduce our standard of living, we must build more power plants and we should move towards nuclear plants (supposedly 30 are now planned with most on existing sites and one is in the process of licensing) but we must resolve the nuclear waste issue (which is more a political than an engineering problem), and start taking severe criminal actions against those who cover up mistakes and knowingly evade regulations.

Many forget/don’t know that the TMI accident resulted in a partial core meltdown, as it turned out, and the primary containment performed much better than expected; no hole towards China. The new designs theoretically can not meltdown and I have heard but not read anywhere that there was a test performed to verify that contention. Standardization in nuclear facilities has been perfected by the French, which I believe improves safety in the long run and would be good for the US industry, but that is almost un-American to suggest.

I have always worried about the human end of the equation. Operational training teaches one to believe the instruments regardless; to place safety over production. However, unlike air flight controllers who are fairly well protected from retaliation because of their decisions that may negatively impact airports and airlines, those in similar positions in the nuclear power industry are direct employees of the utility with little protection other than possibly unionization. Therefore safety and production can battle for supremacy in the nuclear field and career ending decisions can be made when one errs on the side of safety.

I once forced an evacuation of a faculty based on instruments indicating an unintentional chain reaction was taking place in the nuclear fuel pool storage area which was in a safe but unusual configuration. I knew that welding in the area could cause such an instrument indication but was not told that welding had started nor could I get confirmation. I therefore had to believe my instruments, hit the evacuation siren and caused one hell of a situation to develop. Fortunately my management had come up through the ranks and understood why I had done what I did so no career problems developed for me. But there is always that thought in the back of your mind that if you shutdown production with an error in the safety direction, you will pay the price, eventually.

Unfortunately there are always those that worry more about their bonuses or their jobs than about the safety implications of their decisions. The operators at Chernobyl allowed officially approved testing to compromise the safe and proper control of their reactor. At least they had the excuse that more than their jobs might have been on the line and I’m not talking about bonuses. I would prefer that those in the control room at a nuclear power plant worked for the NRC. I have thought that in my later years, and have told politicians that having independent operational control beyond the reach of utility management in this industry would increase the likelihood of greater public acceptance of nuclear power; but I doubt that that the former will ever happen.
 
Written By: AMR
URL: http://
One of the biggest purchasers of the 1979 movie, "The China Syndrome", was the U.S. nuclear industry.

If you remember the plot, in the end the reactor is sent into a shutdown, that while the one pump in question did fail, the nuclear plant shutdown safely.
What better advertisement than that could they ask for ?
 
Written By: Neo
URL: http://
So, fifty years or so of practical experience with hundreds of reactors is the equivalent of 20 years of a couple of dozen mathematical models? In what world? And why conflate those who are dubious about AGW with ’global warming deniers’? If I assume the reported data is correct (and that’s not a given, since there is a paucity of *actual* [as compared to surrogate] data outside of the US for any extended period of decades, *AND* since NASA apparently is/has been playing games with the data), then the atmosphere is warming slightly, but is still quite a bit below historical highs.

The anti-nuke people are in the situation of being a ’heavier-than-air flight is impossible type when DC-3s are carrying people all over the world. Those who are insistent that mathematical models aren’t the equivalent of actual science are in a much stronger position, more like those who were dubious about Cold Fusion.
 
Written By: JorgXMcKie
URL: http://
One of the big stars of "No Nukes" was John Hall of Orleans ("You’re Still the One"). Hall’s now a freshman Congressional Democrat from a GOP-leaning district in upstate NY.
 
Written By: kreiz
URL: http://
If the anti-this and anti-that’s could give me and my kind a place to live for about a generation, where they would let us do our thing and not bother us. I would be willing to let them run the world for about 50 years and see where they went with it. I am willing to wager a years pay they would not make it 6 months before they came to my island and were begging for some assistance. Running the world is a b@tch, it is easy to latch on to one anti movement and focus all of your cognizance on it. What about the other 6,345,987,012,487 situtations that need your attention? Their incisive whining is getting so tiresome.
 
Written By: Keith
URL: http://
I have to admit, I’m with you on this, more or less. I think we screwed up big time in not moving forward on nuclear energy (and I was in the first No Nukes march back in ’79. I even have pictures.).


AMR,
Nice post.



On the other hand, Keith, you’re FOS.
 
Written By: mario
URL: http://
There’s been plenty of response against the original message over at YouTube. Click here and here to view them.
 
Written By: Eric McErlain
URL: http://neinuclearnotes.blogspot.com
Each can find science that supports their view, each overlooks the majority of scientists who say either global warming is real and partially caused by humans or that nuclear energy is extremely safe, and each side is ideologically driven.
How typically Marxist that peoples view of reality is class (or otherwise) driven.

Also, how typically a logical fallacy ofArgument from Authority Ah, yes...the left is so the party of logic and reason.

Typically, Erb does not comprehend the difference between SCIENCE (the method) and the under lying DATA. So far as I know, the skeptics have not fabricated evidence or data, as the alarmists have.
 
Written By: Sharpshooter
URL: http://
Also, how typically a logical fallacy of Argument from Authority Ah, yes...the left is so the party of logic and reason.


Just in cases the Newsweek piece rebuttals escaped some, those "experts" are largely (as in > 90%) bought and paid for by government and environmental groups, whereas the skeptics are largely retired or independent.

 
Written By: Sharpshooter
URL: http://
How typically Marxist that peoples view of reality is class (or otherwise) driven.
What a 20th century "insult" — to call someone a Marxist. Of course, if you want to deny that people’s views of reality aren’t driven by their experiences and biases, you really aren’t criticizing "Marxists" but just about every theory of psychology and human learning out there. To deny that peoples’ view of reality is determined by their biases and experiences is absurd on its face. Are you saying everybody is a Marxist? Or what do you think determines’ peoples’ views of reality?
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
this:

So far as I know, the skeptics have not fabricated evidence or data, as the alarmists have.

Is simply one of the funniest things I’ve read in years. Thanks for the yuckles.

On the other hand, there’s a smidgen of truth in there - it’s not so much that the skeptics fabricate data - it’s that they apparently don’t understand it.

Hockey stick! Hockey stick!
 
Written By: mario
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider