Climate science denial - a bigger impediment to nuclear than green politics?

[Ken Fabian]

Not all advocates for climate action are 'green/left' and not all are anti-nuclear. Not all advocates for nuclear are 'conservative/right' and not all are against strong climate action or oppose renewables. Yet that divide looks strong. Open and direct opposition to nuclear is well known and broadly popular - even if I think distrust of nuclear is not so deeply held that many would abandon it were there compelling need for it. And there is compelling need for low emissions solutions and it seems unreasonable to me that somehow such advocates can have set the energy agenda in the face of it. Something else has to have been going on - or perhaps not going on - for them to have gained such extraordinary influence and for the issues to be framed in nuclear vs renewables terms, rather than nuclear and renewables vs fossil fuels.

 

With a large proportion of those identifying as conservative being climate science denying and obstructive of the proposals of others who don't share an optimism for nuclear, can we expect they would actually commit to fixing the climate problem if "green politics" supported nuclear? Should their own commitment to nuclear as climate solution (or to fixing climate using nuclear) be dependent or predicated on such support? And, importantly, to what extent has 3 decades of commitment to preventing and delaying strong climate action by conservative right politics - which seems to also represent the greatest bloc of support for nuclear - prevented the "critical mass" of support nuclear requires being achieved, both within their own ranks and within the community at large?

 

(Noting that the politics may have a different flavour elsewhere). Here in Australia we are most likely to hear "should use nuclear/only nuclear good enough" from people who doubt, deny or downplay the climate problem. It's a rare proponent of nuclear that has the public profile to get mainstream media notice who is unequivocally committed to fixing the climate problem. That essential contradiction leading me to the conclusion that our allegedly nuclear supporting conservatives lack the fundamental motivation to really fight for nuclear as climate solution and lack the sincerity necessary to make the politically persuasive case necessary. Crucially, their opposition to climate policies like carbon pricing, emissions caps, moratoria on new fossil fuel projects and emissions reductions by other means look to have a strong and practical "every day and every way" commitment whilst the support for nuclear is sporadic, weak and lacking needed depth of commitment. It looks a lot like their alleged support for nuclear is primarily a rhetorical exercise intended to weaken support for "green politics" - they may have no objection to, even a liking for nuclear but have no real commitment to it either.

 

The kinds of policies that would see nuclear become a major part of climate action don't seem possible from conservatives whilst they hold such incompatible and antithetical positions. To what extent has the politically expedient choice to oppose and obstruct climate action by a large part of mainstream politics diverted and muted influential voices, like those from captains of commerce and industry, that - if addressing the climate problem were not, via political influence, being treated as optional - would strongly support it? In other words, would nuclear be in the hole it's in had mainstream conservative politics sought to strengthen community concern over climate rather than diminish it? Would commerce and industry given strong and persistent support for nuclear if they had not been enticed away from demanding effective climate action back when nuclear appeared to be the only viable option, by the least cost (short term) option of not fixing it at all?

[waitforufo]

Ken, I'm sorry but your opener is nonsense. Conservatives in the main are for expanding nuclear power. They were for this expansion before global warming was a topic let alone climate change, and they are still for it today. The only obstacle to expanding nuclear power is the environmental movement. The environmental movement won't be happy until we all return to a pre 1800's primitive state. That is why they are against not only nuclear power, but any power generation.

 

By the way I'm a conservative. I know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. I know that the CO2 mankind is adding to the atmosphere is contributing to warming the planet. The measured evidence, so far however, shows that mankind's contribution to warming to be trivial. Climate changes so get used to it. The measured evidence shows that our current climate variation is well within the expected statistical variation found before 1940. I see no catastrophe in the future based on a continued or even expanded use of carbon fuels. The only future catastrophe I see is if we destroy our economy in a vain attempt to prevent the climate from changing since we don't have the ability to stop it.

[StringJunky]

..... Conservatives in the main are for expanding nuclear power. They were for this expansion before global warming was a topic let alone climate change, and they are still for it today. The only obstacle to expanding nuclear power is the environmental movement. The environmental movement won't be happy until we all return to a pre 1800's primitive state. That is why they are against not only nuclear power, but any power generation.

I agree, on the whole.

 

 

By the way I'm a conservative. I know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. I know that the CO2 mankind is adding to the atmosphere is contributing to warming the planet. The measured evidence, so far however, shows that mankind's contribution to warming to be trivial. Climate changes so get used to it. The measured evidence shows that our current climate variation is well within the expected statistical variation found before 1940. I see no catastrophe in the future based on a continued or even expanded use of carbon fuels. The only future catastrophe I see is if we destroy our economy in a vain attempt to prevent the climate from changing since we don't have the ability to stop it.

This is flat out nonsense in the face of overwhelming evidence, but we diverge here don't we?

[swansont]

By the way I'm a conservative. I know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. I know that the CO2 mankind is adding to the atmosphere is contributing to warming the planet. The measured evidence, so far however, shows that mankind's contribution to warming to be trivial.

I believe you misspelled "GOP dogma" in that last sentence. It's not what the evidence — from scientists — says. It's what people paid to ignore the evidence are claiming.

 

This is a probably NSFW rebuttal (implied language), courtesy of Jimmy Kimmel

 

The measured evidence shows that our current climate variation is well within the expected statistical variation found before 1940.

One way of knowing this is crapola is that there is never any credible support for the claims, just assertions, or a crucial detail is being left out. The same science that lets us understand the variations in climate before 1940 is what is telling us that it's anthropogenic CO2 that's causing our warming. Even if the variation is the same size (and you haven't shown this to be so), if you discount the effect of humans then you have no way to explain it.

 

I see no catastrophe in the future based on a continued or even expanded use of carbon fuels.

And this matters...why? Do you have a degree in a climate science related field?

[John Cuthber]

The environmental movement won't be happy until we all return to a pre 1800's primitive state. That is why they are against not only nuclear power, but any power generation.

 

 

By the way I'm a conservative.

I look forward toy you citing evidence for the first part of tthat or admitting you are a fool for saying it.

 

" By the way I'm a conservative. "

It shows; really, it shows.

[Ken Fabian]

Ken, I'm sorry but your opener is nonsense. Conservatives in the main are for expanding nuclear power. They were for this expansion before global warming was a topic let alone climate change, and they are still for it today. The only obstacle to expanding nuclear power is the environmental movement. The environmental movement won't be happy until we all return to a pre 1800's primitive state. That is why they are against not only nuclear power, but any power generation.

 

By the way I'm a conservative. I know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. I know that the CO2 mankind is adding to the atmosphere is contributing to warming the planet. The measured evidence, so far however, shows that mankind's contribution to warming to be trivial. Climate changes so get used to it. The measured evidence shows that our current climate variation is well within the expected statistical variation found before 1940. I see no catastrophe in the future based on a continued or even expanded use of carbon fuels. The only future catastrophe I see is if we destroy our economy in a vain attempt to prevent the climate from changing since we don't have the ability to stop it.

 

I think this clearly demonstrates the essential contradiction I'm talking about - with a conservative claiming to want nuclear, but not as a solution for a climate problem presumed to be not actually serious. How does the alleged desire to use nuclear fit with a simultaneous lack of desire to replace fossil fuels? I think this kind of thinking is the nonsense and as long as the lack of motivation to transition away from fossil fuels remains, such conservatives will not fight for an energy transition, be it with nuclear or renewables. What it does is allows people like waitforufo to blame 'green' politics both coming and going - for alarming the public about climate and emissions and for not fixing this non-problem by means satisfactory to people who don't want to fix it at all. No addressing the points I've made, just blanket denying their validity and extravagant but unsupported - and extravagantly wrong - claims like "The only obstacle to expanding nuclear power is the environmental movement." and "The environmental movement won't be happy until we all return to a pre 1800's primitive state. That is why they are against not only nuclear power, but any power generation."

 

By obstructing the transition to low emissions any plans to transition from fossil fuels to nuclear power are obstructed. That looks like an obstacle to me.

Edited May 4, 2016 by Ken Fabian

[studiot]

 

ken fabian

I think this clearly demonstrates the essential contradiction I'm talking about - with a conservative claiming to want nuclear, but not as a solution for a climate problem presumed to be not actually serious. How does the alleged desire to use nuclear fit with a simultaneous lack of desire to replace fossil fuels?

 

Yes I agree the logic is flawless.

 

But I don't see it as the problem.

Some years backalong, where I live, we had a former leader of the liberal party in our area before he was prominent.

I heard him speak passionately putting the point

 

"We don't need the nuclear option now"

 

When he was opposing the development of a new reactor at Hinckly Point, our local nuclear power plant.

 

The replacement reactor was shelved for decades and now we are witnessing one of the biggest fiascos in finanace, politics and engineering about the current attempts to replace the old one.

 

Those who have lived that long have spent the best part of a century watching a similar struggle to not build an even better clean energy device of even greater capacity here in Somerset, but that is another story.

 

It seems to me that, all too often. the bigger the project the less the plain common sense that goes into it.

Edited May 5, 2016 by studiot

[billvon]

Ken, I'm sorry but your opener is nonsense.

As is yours:

"The environmental movement won't be happy until we all return to a pre 1800's primitive state. That is why they are against not only nuclear power, but any power generation."

[rangerx]

1- The only obstacle to expanding nuclear power is the environmental movement.

2- The environmental movement won't be happy until we all return to a pre 1800's primitive state.

3- That is why they are against not only nuclear power, but any power generation.

4 -The measured evidence, so far however, shows that mankind's contribution to warming to be trivial.

5- The measured evidence shows that our current climate variation is well within the expected statistical variation found before 1940.

 

Citations, please.

 

 

 

1- I see no catastrophe in the future based on a continued or even expanded use of carbon fuels.

2- The only future catastrophe I see is if we destroy our economy in a vain attempt to prevent the climate from changing since we don't have the ability to stop it.

 

What is your degree in either climate science or social economics? Please provide titles, sources and links to your peer reviewed publications, that I may review them for comment.

 

 

 

[Phi for All]

I look forward toy you citing evidence for the first part of tthat or admitting you are a fool for saying it.

 

This is what unbridled conservatism produces, these kinds of irrational, weird, laughable stances that can't be supported for a second, but are believed fervently by people like waitforufo. It's all about fear, ignored by those who think fear is weakness, so it always comes round to remind them that you can't ignore your biggest faults for fifty years without wrecking the world.

[swansont]

People who utter such outrageous things either actually believe them, or know they are false but say them anyway. Neither alternative is comforting.

[waitforufo]

 

I think this clearly demonstrates the essential contradiction I'm talking about - with a conservative claiming to want nuclear, but not as a solution for a climate problem presumed to be not actually serious. How does the alleged desire to use nuclear fit with a simultaneous lack of desire to replace fossil fuels? I think this kind of thinking is the nonsense and as long as the lack of motivation to transition away from fossil fuels remains, such conservatives will not fight for an energy transition, be it with nuclear or renewables. What it does is allows people like waitforufo to blame 'green' politics both coming and going - for alarming the public about climate and emissions and for not fixing this non-problem by means satisfactory to people who don't want to fix it at all. No addressing the points I've made, just blanket denying their validity and extravagant but unsupported - and extravagantly wrong - claims like "The only obstacle to expanding nuclear power is the environmental movement." and "The environmental movement won't be happy until we all return to a pre 1800's primitive state. That is why they are against not only nuclear power, but any power generation."

 

By obstructing the transition to low emissions any plans to transition from fossil fuels to nuclear power are obstructed. That looks like an obstacle to me.

You still don't get it Ken. As you freely admit conservatives what nuclear power. We want it because prosperity is directly proportional to electrical power generation. We don't need another reason, because prosperity is enough for us. So moving or not moving to nuclear power has nothing to do with conservatives. It is all about liberals. You don't need to look any further than liberals to find blame. Liberals own all the blame.

 

Here is my understanding of your argument. Nuclear power is bad and scary. For goodness sake its splitting the atom which is the same as a nuclear bomb. It also produces nuclear waste that will give us all cancer and soon all our babies will have flippers. Desperate times however, require desperate measures and global warming/climate change/climate disruption caused by carbon fuels is the desperate time that we are now living under. So were going to have to go with mushroom cloud based power generation to save the planet from carbon fuel. We promise to be careful and abortion is legal so don't worry.

 

Some how you think that argument is going to work with the environmental left if only conservatives would quit dismissing global warming/climate change/climate disruption caused by carbon based fuel. Really? You think the environmental left is going to give up on all their great propaganda since the '79 smash hit The China Syndrome if only conservatives would admit that carbon based energy is going to make the planet boil? Not a chance. The environmental left thinks that human beings are the problem with the environment. Energy generation simply makes more human being possible that is why they are against in all forms. The goal of the environmental left is to reduce the number of human beings to what they feel is the earth's carrying capacity of no more than 1 million people. Do that and you won't need nuclear power and burning carbon won't be an issue because we will all be living in a shire in communion with nature.

 

 

Citations, please.

 

 

 

 

What is your degree in either climate science or social economics? Please provide titles, sources and links to your peer reviewed publications, that I may review them for comment.

 

 

 

I googled "climate change models vs. observations."

 

https://www.google.com/search?q=climate+change+models+vs+observations&espv=2&biw=1920&bih=995&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjx5c_GssPMAhXMp5QKHfwPAuUQsAQILw

 

Pick whichever one you want.

 

Next I googled "adjusting data to match climate change models." Only climate science adjusts data to match models. What a joke.

 

https://www.google.com/search?q=climate+change+models+vs+observations&espv=2&biw=1920&bih=995&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjx5c_GssPMAhXMp5QKHfwPAuUQsAQILw#tbm=isch&q=adjusting+data+to+match+climate+change+models

 

Again, have fun picking your favorite.

 

Finally, if you really want to have a laugh, it has been 10 years since Al Gore's Nobel and Academy award winning movie An Inconvenient Truth. Go watch that and tell me how many of the movies predictions have come true.

[Phi for All]

Go watch that and tell me how many of the movies predictions have come true.

 

Then match that with a list of how many would have come true without the movie, and without the changes in policy it brought about. Conservatives forget that liberals actually did a bunch of good things while they weren't looking, and that's why so many of the predictions were averted.

 

"You predicted Hitler would take over the world and enslave everyone who wasn't blond, and that didn't happen, so WWII was a complete waste!" -- unknown disgruntled conservative

Liberals own all the blame.

 

Conservative noise suppression. They take their fingers out of their ears long enough to give you one.

[iNow]

I'm 100% sure waitforufo would lump me into his giant easily dismissable "you all look the same to me pinkie commie hate-america-first crowd" broad brush he calls "liberals," but I support nuclear so obviously ensuring our claims are factual and rooted in reality is not prerequisite.

[swansont]

You still don't get it Ken. As you freely admit conservatives what nuclear power. We want it because prosperity is directly proportional to electrical power generation. We don't need another reason, because prosperity is enough for us. So moving or not moving to nuclear power has nothing to do with conservatives. It is all about liberals. You don't need to look any further than liberals to find blame. Liberals own all the blame.

 

Here is my understanding of your argument. Nuclear power is bad and scary. For goodness sake its splitting the atom which is the same as a nuclear bomb. It also produces nuclear waste that will give us all cancer and soon all our babies will have flippers. Desperate times however, require desperate measures and global warming/climate change/climate disruption caused by carbon fuels is the desperate time that we are now living under. So were going to have to go with mushroom cloud based power generation to save the planet from carbon fuel. We promise to be careful and abortion is legal so don't worry.

 

Some how you think that argument is going to work with the environmental left if only conservatives would quit dismissing global warming/climate change/climate disruption caused by carbon based fuel. Really? You think the environmental left is going to give up on all their great propaganda since the '79 smash hit The China Syndrome if only conservatives would admit that carbon based energy is going to make the planet boil? Not a chance. The environmental left thinks that human beings are the problem with the environment. Energy generation simply makes more human being possible that is why they are against in all forms. The goal of the environmental left is to reduce the number of human beings to what they feel is the earth's carrying capacity of no more than 1 million people. Do that and you won't need nuclear power and burning carbon won't be an issue because we will all be living in a shire in communion with nature.

 

 

I googled "climate change models vs. observations."

 

https://www.google.com/search?q=climate+change+models+vs+observations&espv=2&biw=1920&bih=995&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjx5c_GssPMAhXMp5QKHfwPAuUQsAQILw

 

Pick whichever one you want.

 

Next I googled "adjusting data to match climate change models." Only climate science adjusts data to match models. What a joke.

 

https://www.google.com/search?q=climate+change+models+vs+observations&espv=2&biw=1920&bih=995&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjx5c_GssPMAhXMp5QKHfwPAuUQsAQILw#tbm=isch&q=adjusting+data+to+match+climate+change+models

 

Again, have fun picking your favorite.

 

Finally, if you really want to have a laugh, it has been 10 years since Al Gore's Nobel and Academy award winning movie An Inconvenient Truth. Go watch that and tell me how many of the movies predictions have come true.

 

Your men are made of straw.

 

Don't tell me what I think. You haven't got a clue. And if you are going to make claims about what liberals or environmentalists say, back it up.

 

I have the opposite view: I hear crap like this from conservatives and I haven't got any idea what they are thinking. It's obvious that their model of how the world works is far removed from any fact-based reality.

Only climate science adjusts data to match models. What a joke.

 

This claim is particularly detached from reality.

[waitforufo]

 

Then match that with a list of how many would have come true without the movie, and without the changes in policy it brought about. Conservatives forget that liberals actually did a bunch of good things while they weren't looking, and that's why so many of the predictions were averted.

 

"You predicted Hitler would take over the world and enslave everyone who wasn't blond, and that didn't happen, so WWII was a complete waste!" -- unknown disgruntled conservative

 

Conservative noise suppression. They take their fingers out of their ears long enough to give you one.

Are you suggesting that mankind has been reducing it's annual CO2 output in the last 10 years? Are you suggesting that conservatives have not been long term supporters of nuclear power?

 

I'm 100% sure waitforufo would lump me into his giant easily dismissable "you all look the same to me pinkie commie hate-america-first crowd" broad brush he calls "liberals," but I support nuclear so obviously ensuring our claims are factual and rooted in reality is not prerequisite.

Did you support the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository? Any nuclear waste repository? Still listening to Robert F. Kennedy Jr. ?

 

Do we really need to play that game again where I post how environmentalists are the ones pushing to shut down all your renewable energy plans. You begged me to stop last time.

 

Your men are made of straw.

 

Don't tell me what I think. You haven't got a clue. And if you are going to make claims about what liberals or environmentalists say, back it up.

 

I have the opposite view: I hear crap like this from conservatives and I haven't got any idea what they are thinking. It's obvious that their model of how the world works is far removed from any fact-based reality.

 

This claim is particularly detached from reality.

I don't need a model, I simply have reality. I live reality and it is awesome. It includes automobiles, motorcycles, power boats, and snowmobiles. It also includes electric power generated by coal, natural gas, and hydro. Reality couldn't be better for me. You should join me. Why is it that the sky is falling crowd always needs a model?

[John Cuthber]

Waitforufo, you seem to have missed my post earlier about your saying " The environmental movement won't be happy until we all return to a pre 1800's primitive state. That is why they are against not only nuclear power, but any power generation."

I look forward toy you citing evidence for the first part of that or admitting you are a fool for saying it.

 

or are you tacitly admitting that you are a fool?

[Phi for All]

This claim is particularly detached from reality.

 

I see this so often it must be an official conservative tactic with a fancy name. You take your argument, isolate those things that need to be true in order to make it sound good, and then just assume they're true. Misrepresent it, lie about it if you have to, but assume they're true. Assume it so hard you're willing to make fun of anyone who disagrees. Sure, some of your words will sound really bogus and shaky, but that's when you double-down on the ignorance and start claiming something else so bizarre it makes everyone forget the other thing.

[rangerx]

I googled "climate change models vs. observations."

 

Pick whichever one you want.

 

Again, have fun picking your favorite.

 

So not a scientist then who's published nothing. At the very least what is your grade level, that I my weigh your assertions against with those with peer review.

 

Science is not about confirmation bias (picking favorites). This is a science forum, not a school yard or church. Do you understand the difference?

 

I am a scientist and entrepreneur, having more than 35 years studying shell growth trends in marine mollusks. On top of my commercial operations, I contribute sample material for preeminent labs around the world for the study of biomedical research, public health and safety and climate change.

 

Observation, speculation and replication requires actual work. Are you proficient in invertebrate physiology and long term data collection that we may speak critically or do you just have a chip on your shoulder?

[Phi for All]

Are you suggesting that mankind has been reducing it's annual CO2 output in the last 10 years? Are you suggesting that conservatives have not been long term supporters of nuclear power?

 

I'm stating that we've learned more about many areas of science in the 10 years since An Inconvenient Truth aired, more than we would have if we hadn't gotten that wake-up call. We're better at tracking extremes in weather, like hurricanes. Katrina happened a year prior to the movie, Sandy 6 years later. The learning curve there improved partly because we were more aware after AIT.

 

We understand ocean currents better because of the movie. We understand the relationship between droughts and local conflicts. We understand more about the polar caps, and how we're affecting them, as the movie warned. We're studying sea levels, and extreme temperatures more because they made a movie that raised public awareness.

 

I suppose, in the end, we care more about where our grandchildren will be after we're gone than conservatives do. I think climate AGW deniers are only interested in what they have NOW, and don't think about how they're killing their kid's kids. Everything is short-term returns for them. I don't want to leave those kids in a bind that a consilience of scientists have been warning me about ever since I saw An Inconvenient Truth.

[iNow]

Still listening to Robert F. Kennedy Jr. ?

Wait, what? When did I listen to Robert Kennedy? That's not anything I recall doing, nor can I fathom why it's somehow relevant here.

 

Do we really need to play that game again where I post how environmentalists are the ones pushing to shut down all your renewable energy plans. You begged me to stop last time.

Again, you're clearly just making things up. Disagree? Then kindly please use the quote feature (it's pretty handy, let's us use facts and reality to support our positions... that's the beauty of text-based media... less he said/she said) to show where I ever begged you to do anything.

[Phi for All]

Again, you're clearly just making things up.

 

Conservative prerogative. They're all about emotions, with as little reason as possible. They hate facts, and the horrid intellectuals that keep bringing them up.

[swansont]

I don't need a model, I simply have reality. I live reality and it is awesome. It includes automobiles, motorcycles, power boats, and snowmobiles. It also includes electric power generated by coal, natural gas, and hydro. Reality couldn't be better for me. You should join me. Why is it that the sky is falling crowd always needs a model?

 

How is it you "know" what others think? Can you read their minds, or do you have a mental model?

 

You certainly haven't supported any of these claims with anything.

[Ken Fabian]

I dont recall saying anything about the relative merits of different approaches to emissions reductions and don't think that discussion belongs in this thread. What I want to explore is the impacts that rejection of the mainstream science on climate by mainstream politics - mostly but not entirely by the political Right - has had for this particular one.

 

I reject that that choice to oppose and obstruct as the primary response to the climate problem had no consequences for nuclear energy - the difference between mainstream Conservatives actively seeking to address the climate problem (including real effort to convince the public of the need) and actively seeking to obstruct it (whilst trying to convince the public there is no need) looks very significant - and especially for nuclear.

 

It looks to me more like the Conservative Right has developed a response to the noisy responses of 'Environmentalism' to the deeper understanding of human impacts on the climate system, instead of developing a response to the problem itself; I suggest it was a choice to frame the issue as 'green' and abdicate their responsibility to develop a response of their own, that presumably would centre on nuclear. It looks like a freely made choice - personally I think a very poor one - and if it was 'forced' on them I seriously doubt it could have been by "green" politics. We need to look beyond green politics to other influences on Conservative policy - the interests of commerce and industry perhaps. It may have been done with eyes closed but those making the choice to doubt, deny and delay should own responsibility for it. I suggest that had they developed a response to the problem it would have greatly favoured nuclear energy and therefore an opportunity for nuclear was impeded by the competing priorities of Conservatives that has put inaction on climate and the dominance of fossil fuels ahead of climate and nuclear.

 

I dispute that anti-nuclear activism was ever the only or even a principle driver of energy choices that have rejected nuclear; if conservatives have broadly supported and promoted nuclear they have also supported and promoted fossil fuels that are in direct competition with it and generally, in the absence of climate considerations in any bottom lines it struggled to compete on financial terms.

 

There is also a broad spread in the strength, quality and persistence of support, ranging from mere lip service, through anti-green rhetoric to a depth of support sufficient for mandating the replacement of existing FF plant with nuclear as a planned response to the climate problem. I suggest, from the results so far, that it has been at the lip service and commitment free rhetoric end of the scale. After climate came to the fore the support from Conservatives for fossil fuels has strengthened and even if absolute support for nuclear did not diminish the relative strength did - not even in the same league as support for fossil fuels. Conservatives look willing to blanket reject the persistent and consistent mainstream expert advice about climate risks in support of fossil fuels but refuse to use the truth of it in support of nuclear - that doesn't look like strong support for nuclear, it looks like strong support for fossil fuels to me.

Edited May 6, 2016 by Ken Fabian

[iNow]

Especially since disposal and comments about Yucca Mtn are largely rendered moot when thorium reactors are considered.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium-based_nuclear_power#Possible_benefits

There is much less nuclear waste—up to two orders of magnitude less, states Moir and Teller,[4] eliminating the need for large-scale or long-term storage;[14]:13 "Chinese scientists claim that hazardous waste will be a thousand times less than with uranium."[19] The radioactivity of the resulting waste also drops down to safe levels after just a few hundred years, compared to tens of thousands of years needed for current nuclear waste to cool off.

(snip)

Thorium fuel cycle is a potential way to produce long term nuclear energy with low radio-toxicity waste. In addition, the transition to thorium could be done through the incineration of weapons grade plutonium (WPu) or civilian plutonium.

(snip)

Liquid fluoride thorium reactors are designed to be meltdown proof. A plug at the bottom of the reactor melts in the event of a power failure or if temperatures exceed a set limit, draining the fuel into an underground tank for safe storage.