Environment & Energy

The DEATHS and environmental degradation of Fukushima, that you did downplay, resulted in more than 2000 disaster related deaths, including one directly from RADIATION (according to the Japanese Health Ministry). You say that’s just an alarmist attitude. And don’t forget to mention the 40,000 that cannot return to their homes and the 2% of the land that remains off limits after 13 years later.

And what us tree huggers don’t trust is these so-called “low probability high consequence event” risks, that energy companies are too often tempted to dismiss to save money on needed prevention tactics. That is exactly what happened with the Japanese Nuclear and Industrial “safety” Agency looked away on forcing the utility to take precautions.

What about the fishing industry that have to deal with not only what happened at the time of the disaster but now the spent water waste that is released into the ocean? What do you think that does to species overtime? And this is food that feeds the entire food chain, including us.

One of the biggest problems I personally have with you nuclear energy “cultists” is why can’t the industry be self-sufficient? It not only has to use the US government resources To handle its cost and hassles (insurance and clean up protections) but it also relies on local waterways, and that wastewater has to be released into those local waterways….just to run these plants. (Sure it’s “acceptable levels” But that is incredibly damaging in aggregate over long periods of time.) As an environmentalist and a citizen, I have seen time and time again, Industry has been able to convince our regulatory agencies to allow things that they shouldn’t. Then, when it finally comes around that that was a mistake long-term, it is almost impossible to change course to solve, and the costs are enormous. As I said, in sustainability we must practice the precautionary principle. To think these things through as an entire system, long term, like nature does. Unfortunately, the evidence advocates cite are based on faulty premises and where industry is propped up by the hidden subsidy that is the degradation of the natural world and bean counter “risk/reward” game theory. The old adage “privatize the profits, socialize the losses” rings too often true.

You said we should not be putting trillions into renewable energy, like wind and solar. But the payoffs are incredibly quick once the turbines and the panels are installed. Nuclear power plants take years to plan and years to build. You are so concerned about the short time we have to turn this thing around with carbon emissions, how in the heck is nuclear going to do this in a heating world… we are plants can be shut down At the slightest hint of a natural disaster or a drought. (These are usually the times we need power the most.)

So in my opinion, over investing in an industry that relies too heavily on waterways, public risk subsidies, and the pesky waste storage issue….at a time of Increasing drought, increasing water temperatures, and lower levels of water makes no sense. Why you are so concerned about carbon emissions there are a host of other environmental degradation that is accelerating. And it does not bode well for the nuclear industry.

But perhaps the most telling is the scientific information that you often espouse cannot be in any way competed with because of the amount of money that the nuclear industry invests in it. There are no environmental related advocates that have that kind of money to compete with. And often your scientific evidence does not provide for long-term consequence analysis. THAT is Why environmentalist stop your movement and you are apparently so angry about this. A better tactic would be to take a look at the concerns that are actually legitimate and proven. You have not once answered me on the Waste issue—both legacy and the 2,000 tons emitted annually. And where is it going? Snarky comments about spoken in generality about those you disagree with aren’t solutions either.

As I said, solve the nuclear waste and wastewater issue, provide long-term risk assessments that are done by funding a reputable environmental scientific group that industry cannot cherry pick from or bury. Mandate waste recycling and other innovations and mandate safety over economics globally with accountability. ALWAYS.

In my industry, we have a heck of time, siting waste facilities, such as landfills, compost facilities, waste to energy, and on and on. Now, while it is society that actually generates all this trash and needs places of which to manage it, too many people have heard what it’s like when the waste industry wasn’t a good neighbor. The Nimby factor is real, but the industry needs to understand that the sins of the past has led to the distrust. Nuclear facility incidents (and the paralyzed, unsolved waste issue) are the reasons why people are skeptical at best, but mostly absolutely against them. That is the fault of the nuclear industry, not the “alarmists cults” . And the issue is paralyzed because nuclear industry cannot fund what it takes to deal with it, hence the economics of nuclear rely on government and externalities.

Exhibit A is the fact that you so blatantly ignored the related deaths and other problems caused by Fukushima shows you have your blinders on for some weird mission that I haven’t been able to figure out yet. Your constant lobbying on DU for nuclear energy certainly doesn’t lead to a lot of trust in what you are advocating for.

Since you didn’t read this and aren’t engaging, I guess that’s that.